Pete Hegseth is Going to Stick it Out

 

The attacks never stop. As I said in my first post on Pete Hegseth, they’ve organized a lynching party to take him out of the running for Secretary of the Department of Defense. How could it get any worse?

It seems that it can.

Now they have dug up some slime about some new allegations regarding his positions at two volunteer organizations. If you’re salivating to read the stories, you can follow this link.

As this additional information is piled on, I’m becoming more convinced every day that a lot of people are afraid, very afraid, of Pete Hegseth. He has the courage, gumption and determination to go where the deep state is hiding and evict them as soon as possible. I suspect through his contacts that he knows where the bodies are buried, and will have plenty of help to find them.

The rumors are that Trump is considering replacing Hegseth with Governor Ron DeSantis, my governor in Florida. Of course, I’d hate to lose DeSantis’ governing the state. And I think he would do a great job in the DOD. But I think Pete Hegseth is a better choice, because he’s closer to the issues. And I somehow don’t think that DeSantis will be interested anyway in taking over the DOD.

Just today, Hegseth said Trump has told Hegseth to stay in the running. I think he should, too.

I hope he will. And that plenty of heads will roll.

Published in Domestic Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 89 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. She Member
    She
    @She

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Hegseth is about to get some hard to ignore support:

    https://x.com/willcain/status/1864353888520044745?t=3Txmhm58tITo8cIMohwnSg&s=09

    Well, they had better get a move on. (The link is to a Tweet claiming that over 100 Navy Seals will march on Washington to support Pete Hegseth.)

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    The New Yorker article (here) describes some horrid behavior.  I have no way of knowing whether it is true or not.  I’m not sure why one would dismiss it.  It is not just private behavior, though some of that appears bad, too.

    Drunkenness, including at a strip club, while working for one of the veteran’s organizations he apparently led.

    One of the reasons that one might “dismiss it” is that every allegation that Hegseth has denied has come from an anonymous source, and that the sometimes quite large numbers of people who have spoken on the record concerning each of them, including those who have worked very closely with him for decades, have unanimously supported Hegseth’s accounts.  Or, rather than wandering around proclaiming one’s uncertainty, if one would like to make a knowledgeable comment, one might rouse oneself to do a bit of digging and a bit of research and make a determination based on known facts and reasonable inferences. For anyone inclined to do so WRT the 2017 alleged “rape” incident, for which an abundance of actual, verifiable documentation exists, I recommend spending an hour or so with Megyn Kelly.

    Adultery, including having a baby with his current (third) wife while married to his second wife.

    Hegseth’s rocky marital history, with all its implications, is well-known, and acknowledged by Hegseth himself.  He says it’s in his past.  We are free to take that on faith, or not.  (Since I’m a sinner too, I’m not going to throw stones just because he may not live up to the standards I’ve set for myself.)  I have expressed some reservations over whether his tendency to get drunk and to stray is an acceptable failing in a Defense Secretary, but I’m not about to swallow every drop of Kool-Aid the Left is attempting to pour down my throat, nor to wander about in a fog of indecision about the nomination.  What some are fond of calling the Democrat “playbook,” is too well known for anyone with any sense to swallow it wholesale (or even in part) anymore.

    • #31
  2. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    She (View Comment):
    I have expressed some reservations over whether his tendency to get drunk and to stray is an acceptable failing in a Defense Secretary, but I’m not about to swallow every drop of Kool-Aid the Left is attempting to pour down my throat, nor to wander about in a fog of indecision about the nomination.  What some are fond of calling the Democrat “playbook,” is too well known for anyone with any sense to swallow it wholesale (or even in part) anymore.

    I couldn’t say it better, She.

    • #32
  3. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    -The party that doesn’t respect marriage and promotes sexual liberation wants us to believe they are morally offended? Hegseth is more qualified to be president than brain-dead Biden today or Harris, the drunkard-appearing VP. Shove that in their face.

    -It is telling that their newest complaints are about 7 year’s old behavior, so old that they had to invent a newer “revelation” from an anonymous “Fox News source” that was denied by his coworkers.

    Why do people keep falling for this playbook? I can only assume they are too gullible to be listened to or that they want to believe it.

    • #33
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    She (View Comment):
    One of the reasons that one might “dismiss it” is that every allegation that Hegseth has denied has come from an anonymous source, and that the sometimes quite large numbers of people who have spoken on the record concerning each of them, including those who have worked very closely with him for decades, have unanimously supported Hegseth’s accounts. 

    I had wondered if that wasn’t what was going on, since such things have happened with other nominees in the past.  

    • #34
  5. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    The best evidence that the current objection to Hegseth as head of DoD is a political contrivance is those same Senators objecting to Pete Hegseth were perfectly fine with this:

    https://images.app.goo.gl/GYME2RqdspfHhdM36

    That seems so silly by people like me who one day said I’m done with this and upped off the mask in the grocery store. I would never let my child enlist and serve under such a “leader.” I now suspect he had a health issue back then that compromised his immunity. His disappearance for health reasons later wasn’t treated as abnormal by those around him so it probably wasn’t the first time. Just another figurehead.

    If Austin was unwell then it would been wise for the Sec Def to not do public appearances dressed in a ridiculous Halloween costume and project the image of mockable weak United States military.

    • #35
  6. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Ask yourself this:

    -Are the Dems worried about his moral values in the past or his openly Christian values now?

    -How would the Dems react, knowing they strongly favor government-funded abortions for unmarried military members, if we said we will take them at their word and make it unacceptable for all?  Say we will agree to their moral standards from now on and will  punish and/or kick out all who engage in sexual behavior outside of a marriage and not condone it by providing abortions at taxpayer expense. Also, say that the behavioral standards for the Executive Branch should be equally applied to the Legislative Branch.

    • #36
  7. Chris O Coolidge
    Chris O
    @ChrisO

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    Also, say that the behavioral standards for the Executive Branch should be equally applied to the Legislative Branch.

    Given that Congress has a taxpayer-funded slush/hush fund for such things, your ideas should go over well. I wonder how anyone could defend eliminating that item from the budget, it might be fun to find out.

    • #37
  8. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    “How could it get any worse?”

    “It seems it can.”

    Don’t worry.  The Democrats have proven that once they have hit the bottom of the slime pit, they will get more shovels and keep digging (furiously).

    Remember Brett Kavanaugh?  Somewhere, a Christine Blasey Ford lookalike is warming up her quavering voice for the Hegseth confirmation hearings.

    • #38
  9. She Member
    She
    @She

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    “How could it get any worse?”

    “It seems it can.”

    Don’t worry. The Democrats have proven that once they have hit the bottom of the slime pit, they will get more shovels and keep digging (furiously).

    Remember Brett Kavanaugh? Somewhere, a Christine Blasey Ford lookalike is warming up her quavering voice for the Hegseth confirmation hearings.

    Unfortunately, Hegseth is much more vulnerable that Kavanaugh to such a tactic, because there is so much more on the record when it comes to his behavior WRT women.  (Even Hegseth’s mother has been pretty outspoken on the matter.  Much as I may deplore how her email/letter to her son got out there, out there it is.)

    If the folks supporting Hegseth can’t get their heads around this small fact, and figure out a way to fight back, then I think it’s all over bar the shouting. 

    And I speak as someone who’s largely supported Hegseth’s nomination, and as a person who believes it’s perfectly possible to fight back.  I just don’t believe that denying reality, is one of those ways.   Pete has a woman/wife/lover problem in his personal life.  He’s admitted it.  He says he’s past it. Let’s look at that, decide, and move on.

    As for the rest of the allegations, they’re from anonymous people who should be forced to step forward if those allegations should be given any weight.  Meanwhile, Hegseth has plenty of supporters–close friends, co-workers, brothers in service–who speak differently about him. We should force the debate into that realm.

    • #39
  10. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    It isn’t just the Democrats..

     

    • #40
  11. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    The smear:

     

    How to fight back:

    • #41
  12. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    The smear:

     

    How to fight back:

    I’m afraid that the threat of litigation, EXPENSIVE litigation, is the only way to fight these guttersnipes.

    • #42
  13. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Tubing Trump’s choices for his cabinet isn’t the only thing they are doing. They are spending as much of the annual appropriations on their pet projects as they can. Trump might not be left with much for his first year. Trump should start trimming the EPA to recover some money. 

    That is only what PV exposed. The smear campaigns must be considered along with all the Democrat and RINO Republican efforts to neutralize him in defiance of the will of the voters.

     

    • #43
  14. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    She (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    “How could it get any worse?”

    “It seems it can.”

    Don’t worry. The Democrats have proven that once they have hit the bottom of the slime pit, they will get more shovels and keep digging (furiously).

    Remember Brett Kavanaugh? Somewhere, a Christine Blasey Ford lookalike is warming up her quavering voice for the Hegseth confirmation hearings.

    Unfortunately, Hegseth is much more vulnerable that Kavanaugh to such a tactic, because there is so much more on the record when it comes to his behavior WRT women. (Even Hegseth’s mother has been pretty outspoken on the matter. Much as I may deplore how her email/letter to her son got out there, out there it is.)

    If the folks supporting Hegseth can’t get their heads around this small fact, and figure out a way to fight back, then I think it’s all over bar the shouting.

    And I speak as someone who’s largely supported Hegseth’s nomination, and as a person who believes it’s perfectly possible to fight back. I just don’t believe that denying reality, is one of those ways. Pete has a woman/wife/lover problem in his personal life. He’s admitted it. He says he’s past it. Let’s look at that, decide, and move on.

    As for the rest of the allegations, they’re from anonymous people who should be forced to step forward if those allegations should be given any weight. Meanwhile, Hegseth has plenty of supporters–close friends, co-workers, brothers in service–who speak differently about him. We should force the debate into that realm.

    Hegseth’s mom has been a good advocate for him and about how her email was an emotional reaction after which she immediately apologized to him. I think people on our side will be more upset about the dirty trick leak. 

    • #44
  15. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    The Biden folks are going to give proactive, blanket pardons to everyone involved in their crooked schemes. Trump should counter on day 1 giving everyone in his cabinet blanket pardons just to fight absurdity with absurdity. If Biden pardons himself, then Trump should include himself. 

    • #45
  16. She Member
    She
    @She

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    “How could it get any worse?”

    “It seems it can.”

    Don’t worry. The Democrats have proven that once they have hit the bottom of the slime pit, they will get more shovels and keep digging (furiously).

    Remember Brett Kavanaugh? Somewhere, a Christine Blasey Ford lookalike is warming up her quavering voice for the Hegseth confirmation hearings.

    Unfortunately, Hegseth is much more vulnerable that Kavanaugh to such a tactic, because there is so much more on the record when it comes to his behavior WRT women. (Even Hegseth’s mother has been pretty outspoken on the matter. Much as I may deplore how her email/letter to her son got out there, out there it is.)

    If the folks supporting Hegseth can’t get their heads around this small fact, and figure out a way to fight back, then I think it’s all over bar the shouting.

    And I speak as someone who’s largely supported Hegseth’s nomination, and as a person who believes it’s perfectly possible to fight back. I just don’t believe that denying reality, is one of those ways. Pete has a woman/wife/lover problem in his personal life. He’s admitted it. He says he’s past it. Let’s look at that, decide, and move on.

    As for the rest of the allegations, they’re from anonymous people who should be forced to step forward if those allegations should be given any weight. Meanwhile, Hegseth has plenty of supporters–close friends, co-workers, brothers in service–who speak differently about him. We should force the debate into that realm.

    Hegseth’s mom has been a good advocate for him and about how her email was an emotional reaction after which she immediately apologized to him. I think people on our side will be more upset about the dirty trick leak.

    Yeah.  I already said I deplore the “dirty trick leak.” I’m glad Hegseth’s mom still loves him.

    However (and I shan’t engage further on this because I’ve learned over the past couple of weeks that it’s pretty pointless), Hegseth has a real vulnerability on the “woman” issue which is quite different from that of Brett Kavanaugh.  Unless and until those who support the Hegseth nomination can get their heads around that and figure out ways to speak in favor of his nomination which go beyond, and overcome, the reflexive “screw you” splenetic, then I think Hegseth’s nomination is doomed to fail.

    And–lest any of you try to put words in my mouth, and I’d encourage you to go back and read my comments, and my posts over the past few weeks before you do–I am sorry about that.

     

    • #46
  17. carcat74 Member
    carcat74
    @carcat74

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    The New Yorker article (here) describes some horrid behavior. I have no way of knowing whether it is true or not. I’m not sure why one would dismiss it. It is not just private behavior, though some of that appears bad, too.

    Drunkenness, including at a strip club, while working for one of the veteran’s organizations he apparently led. Adultery, including having a baby with his current (third) wife while married to his second wife.

    Past behavior is indicative of future behavior? Why does Hegseth have so many people willing to put their names down in support of him, but we only get “anonymous sources” trying to tear him down? Are any of us as pure as the driven snow?  I know I’m not. Let’s let the good be struck down for not being perfect, shall we? Who would you rather have in your foxhole when the bovine excrement hits the fan — Mr.Hegseth, Lindsay Graham, or Adam Schiff? I say from the flak Hegseth is getting, he is most definitely over the target!

    • #47
  18. DonG (¡Afuera!) Coolidge
    DonG (¡Afuera!)
    @DonG

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):
    If Austin were unwell then it would been wise for the Sec Def to not do public appearances dressed in a ridiculous Halloween costume and project the image of mockable weak United States military.

    Agreed.   That is Biden’s job.

    https://static.toiimg.com/thumb/msid-116011350,imgsize-1182988,width-400,resizemode-4/116011350.jpg

    • #48
  19. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Hmm. I know where my senators will be. Get on yours.

    • #49
  20. Chris O Coolidge
    Chris O
    @ChrisO

    There really are only three relevant questions.

    1. Can he organize, equip, and field an effective fighting force? 
    2. Can he effect his envisioned changes?
    3. Do the concerns about his past mean he’ll struggle to work within the branches? (And thereby be unable to perform on the first two questions)

    It is unique to have a prospective SecDef who has a vision for reorganization, etc.. He wrote a book on the subject of making the military a better fighting force, and has experience within, including combat experience. The (not anonymous) people he worked with seem to indicate he would have little difficulty working with someone who is, at least, like-minded.

    A fourth organizational question must be asked as well: Are there enough upper echelon officers in service who would promote this reorganization and help (re-)create the culture around it? I suspect so, but it still is a question to ask during a confirmation hearing because I imagine Hegseth has some insight into the answer.

     

    • #50
  21. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Chris O (View Comment):

    There really are only three relevant questions.

    1. Can he organize, equip, and field an effective fighting force?
    2. Can he effect his envisioned changes?
    3. Do the concerns about his past mean he’ll struggle to work within the branches? (And thereby be unable to perform on the first two questions)

    It is unique to have a prospective SecDef who has a vision for reorganization, etc.. He wrote a book on the subject of making the military a better fighting force, and has experience within, including combat experience. The (not anonymous) people he worked with seem to indicate he would have little difficulty working with someone who is, at least, like-minded.

    A fourth organizational question must be asked as well: Are there enough upper echelon officers in service who would promote this reorganization and help (re-)create the culture around it? I suspect so, but it still is a question to ask during a confirmation hearing because I imagine Hegseth has some insight into the answer.

     

    Your final paragram is probably the key.  Will he be forced to fire the Chairman of the JCS just to make a point?  After all, he was quoted as saying “I hire for diversity” which seemed to indicate a committment to DEI.

    Sometimes it is necessary to cut off the head of the snake.

    • #51
  22. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):

    There really are only three relevant questions.

    1. Can he organize, equip, and field an effective fighting force?
    2. Can he effect his envisioned changes?
    3. Do the concerns about his past mean he’ll struggle to work within the branches? (And thereby be unable to perform on the first two questions)

    It is unique to have a prospective SecDef who has a vision for reorganization, etc.. He wrote a book on the subject of making the military a better fighting force, and has experience within, including combat experience. The (not anonymous) people he worked with seem to indicate he would have little difficulty working with someone who is, at least, like-minded.

    A fourth organizational question must be asked as well: Are there enough upper echelon officers in service who would promote this reorganization and help (re-)create the culture around it? I suspect so, but it still is a question to ask during a confirmation hearing because I imagine Hegseth has some insight into the answer.

     

    Your final paragram is probably the key. Will he be forced to fire the Chairman of the JCS just to make a point? After all, he was quoted as saying “I hire for diversity” which seemed to indicate a committment to DEI.

    Sometimes it is necessary to cut off the head of the snake.

    I hope there are a LOT of firings. Prune down to green wood. That dead brown wood I see in public is bad. Make some brevet promotions on potential then make them permanent when potential is realized. 

    • #52
  23. Chris O Coolidge
    Chris O
    @ChrisO

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Your final paragram is probably the key.  Will he be forced to fire the Chairman of the JCS just to make a point?  After all, he was quoted as saying “I hire for diversity” which seemed to indicate a committment to DEI.

    Sometimes it is necessary to cut off the head of the snake.

    My understanding is the Joint Chiefs are there for chain of command, and the Secretary is meant to be the advisor to the President. The Joint Chiefs do not have operational control of their respective branches. That said, it wouldn’t be a surprise if that evolved over the years to where the Chairman and the SecDef were advisors on fairly equal footing, though they weren’t meant to be. 

    The rub is the Chairman or the other Joint Chiefs probably communicate operational readiness and disposition of forces within the branches to the offices of the Secretary and President, and that is a ‘task’ that could be handled a number of (potentially interpretative) ways. So, yes, a number of general officers will likely receive their retirement forms. If you cannot trust the information, then it is incumbent upon both the Secretary and President to appoint officers who are certain to provide timely and accurate information (and not inform the Chinese).

    • #53
  24. DonG (¡Afuera!) Coolidge
    DonG (¡Afuera!)
    @DonG

    Chris O (View Comment):
    A fourth organizational question must be asked as well: Are there enough upper echelon officers in service who would promote this reorganization and help (re-)create the culture around it?

    What if the answer is “no”?   If the organization is so far gone, do we give up on reform?

    • #54
  25. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):
    A fourth organizational question must be asked as well: Are there enough upper echelon officers in service who would promote this reorganization and help (re-)create the culture around it?

    What if the answer is “no”? If the organization is so far gone, do we give up on reform?

    No way! We move forward and take no prisoners!

    • #55
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):
    A fourth organizational question must be asked as well: Are there enough upper echelon officers in service who would promote this reorganization and help (re-)create the culture around it?

    What if the answer is “no”? If the organization is so far gone, do we give up on reform?

    I suppose the next step would be to look for those who could be promoted to fill those positions, who don’t have the nonsense.  The number of people who could be promoted to that level – such as, colonels who could become generals – is probably some large multiple of the number of people are currently at that level.  So even if EVERY general has to be replaced, there should be an ample number of colonels available.

    • #56
  27. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):
    A fourth organizational question must be asked as well: Are there enough upper echelon officers in service who would promote this reorganization and help (re-)create the culture around it?

    What if the answer is “no”? If the organization is so far gone, do we give up on reform?

    I suppose the next step would be to look for those who could be promoted to fill those positions, who don’t have the nonsense. The number of people who could be promoted to that level – such as, colonels who could become generals – is probably some large multiple of the number of people are currently at that level. So even if EVERY general has to be replaced, there should be an ample number of colonels available.

    I suspect the organizations are very top heavy. I don’t know if anyone will need to be replaced.

    • #57
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):
    A fourth organizational question must be asked as well: Are there enough upper echelon officers in service who would promote this reorganization and help (re-)create the culture around it?

    What if the answer is “no”? If the organization is so far gone, do we give up on reform?

    I suppose the next step would be to look for those who could be promoted to fill those positions, who don’t have the nonsense. The number of people who could be promoted to that level – such as, colonels who could become generals – is probably some large multiple of the number of people are currently at that level. So even if EVERY general has to be replaced, there should be an ample number of colonels available.

    I suspect the organizations are very top heavy. I don’t know if anyone will need to be replaced.

    I expect there are more generals than are needed, but I also expect there’s a lot more colonels who have enough time in service etc, to be promoted to generals if needed.  The main reason they haven’t been already is because we already have too many generals.

    • #58
  29. Chris O Coolidge
    Chris O
    @ChrisO

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):
    A fourth organizational question must be asked as well: Are there enough upper echelon officers in service who would promote this reorganization and help (re-)create the culture around it?

    What if the answer is “no”? If the organization is so far gone, do we give up on reform?

    I suppose the next step would be to look for those who could be promoted to fill those positions, who don’t have the nonsense. The number of people who could be promoted to that level – such as, colonels who could become generals – is probably some large multiple of the number of people are currently at that level. So even if EVERY general has to be replaced, there should be an ample number of colonels available.

    I suspect the organizations are very top heavy. I don’t know if anyone will need to be replaced.

    I expect there are more generals than are needed, but I also expect there’s a lot more colonels who have enough time in service etc, to be promoted to generals if needed. The main reason they haven’t been already is because we already have too many generals.

    I have heard the Colonel rank is the limbo stop. Lots of colonels, and if you’re still a colonel after a certain amount of time, you will always be a colonel; not as many generals, but there are still probably too many.

    • #59
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Chris O (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):
    A fourth organizational question must be asked as well: Are there enough upper echelon officers in service who would promote this reorganization and help (re-)create the culture around it?

    What if the answer is “no”? If the organization is so far gone, do we give up on reform?

    I suppose the next step would be to look for those who could be promoted to fill those positions, who don’t have the nonsense. The number of people who could be promoted to that level – such as, colonels who could become generals – is probably some large multiple of the number of people are currently at that level. So even if EVERY general has to be replaced, there should be an ample number of colonels available.

    I suspect the organizations are very top heavy. I don’t know if anyone will need to be replaced.

    I expect there are more generals than are needed, but I also expect there’s a lot more colonels who have enough time in service etc, to be promoted to generals if needed. The main reason they haven’t been already is because we already have too many generals.

    I have heard the Colonel rank is the limbo stop. Lots of colonels, and if you’re still a colonel after a certain amount of time, you will always be a colonel; not as many generals, but there are still probably too many.

    One reason for remaining a colonel forever would be that there’s already enough/too many Generals, and if they do want to promote one anyway, there are probably better candidates.  Perhaps even for the same political reasons that mean they SHOULD BE generals INSTEAD OF one or more of the current generals.  But if some or all of those current generals were turned out because of DEI infection etc, that door to promotion opens again.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.