The Uniform Is Not Invincible: Firing Generals Is Critical to Restoring Military Lethality – The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator

President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth relieved the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, chief of Naval Operations, and vice chief of staff of the Air Force, along with the main service judge advocates, in a decision the media and political establishment decried as authoritarian and reckless. Even in April, Secretary Hegseth relieved Shoshana Chatfield, who exposed her own ideology by urging skepticism of American laws, given the density of white men serving in the U.S. Congress.

Given the intense politicization of the military over the last many decades, these firings should be just the start to a total and critical reset of the military’s senior leadership class.

The current crop of general and flag officers has been formed in a defense policy era defined by liberalism and the mandate that the military accommodate the politics and ideologies of civil society. The Biden administration was perhaps the final incarnation of the false and dangerous idea that the military could retain professional competence and respect while driving the cause of identity politics in America. (RELATED: Wokeness Is Responsible for the Military Recruitment Crisis)

The American Principles Project conducted a survey that indicated a distrust of military leaders as the most-cited reason why Americans do not want their kids to join the military. Independent research published by the Center for Renewing America identified almost 90 generals and admirals who politicized their service to a compromising degree. This includes the likes of Vice Admiral Chatfield, but also Air Force Lieutenant General Tony Bauernfeind, who explicitly called for a tiered system of quotas and different standards to meet diversity demands. (RELATED: The Military Recruiting Crisis Starts With the Leadership)

Perhaps the most concerning example is Lieutenant General Steven W. Gilland, who, as superintendent of West Point, vigorously supported Biden-era policies instituting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) quotas. In July 2023, in front of the House Armed Services Committee, Gilland publicly touted West Point’s race-based “admission goals.” An otherwise exemplary combat leader, Gilland typifies the modern senior military officer: square-jawed and qualified, but hopelessly compromised by the politics and DEI ideology. Yet he inexplicably remains in his role as superintendent of West Point.

Less than 18 months after testifying in support of DEI initiatives, Gilland is now responsible for undoing the system he once so intensely supported. It’s unclear how the Trump administration could reasonably trust General Gilland to change an institution as important as West Point in the critical sphere of shaping future Army officers.

These behaviors constitute fireable offenses because they erode the core principle of military neutrality — a foundational element of healthy civil-military relations emphasized in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, to those of history books written by the likes of Samuel P. Huntington. When senior military leaders embrace partisan ideological agendas, they fundamentally undermine the nonpartisan trust and professional integrity essential for the military to maintain professional competence and focus. The military’s exclusive purview is lethality and combat arms; it should have no relation to political projects of a given era.

One cannot argue with the results, or lack thereof, of generations of senior military officers who have led our military into defeat and disarray. Many veterans of the war in Afghanistan, for example, would make it clear that the cause was built like a house of cards, primed for collapse and disarray. A machine gunner, or frontline platoon leader, could have described the lack of trust and competence in the Afghan military and government. Somehow, when four-star generals would testify for more money and troops back in Washington, D.C., these senior leaders would tell a very different story — that the war effort was always extraordinarily close to sustained victory.

After the Afghan government and military we spent 20 years building collapsed over a long weekend, the cycle of incompetence and deceit was clear. (RELATED: The Bloated Bureaucratic Failure of Afghanistan)

This should contextualize claims from the defense establishment and political Left that accountability for senior officers would represent some sort of destruction of a competent leadership class. The cause of military excellence is dire, and the leaders we trust with the most significant assignments deserve just scrutiny.

The Trump administration should thus feel empowered — not intimidated — by the inevitable criticism as they act decisively to restore a professional and apolitical ethos within the armed forces. Removing generals and admirals who fail to uphold this standard is not only justified but essential. Restoring public trust demands swift accountability for senior leaders whose activism compromises the effectiveness and credibility of the United States military. This approach aligns directly with preserving civil–military relations, ensuring the armed forces remain fully dedicated to their true purpose: protecting and defending America.

Will Thibeau is a veteran of the U.S. Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment and serves as director of the American Military Project at the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life. He comments regularly on defense policy and has twice testified in front of the House of Representatives.

READ MORE:

Why the Marines Can’t Fix the Houthi Problem

Generals Should Win Wars Before Declaring Victory

The Marine Corps Has Gone Off the Rails