Appreciate you and all your incredible work.

To be sure, it is positive that those replacing fired mil ldrs are largely qualified for those roles. But I would not go so far as to say politicization is not happening. 6/end

To be sure, it is positive that those replacing fired mil ldrs are largely qualified for those roles. But I would not go so far as to say politicization is mostly not happening. 6/end

The fact that women & Black ppl have been disproportionately targeted in firings & had promotions quashed signals that officers vying for key positions/promotions are subject to extra scrutiny, regardless of their qualifications. This, too, is politicization. 5/

Firing people without cause or based on alleged political views (or because of who they once worked for) forces ppl who might be suspect to reevaluate their career prospects. Others simply won't want to serve in a military that selects on partisan or ideological criteria. 4/

Politicization here may take the form of mil ldrs self-censoring in offering forthright advice to superiors or even speaking openly to subordinates. They may refrain from affirming organizational values and stewarding the profession out of fear they will attract scrutiny from civilians. 3/

The very fact that the officers were fired in the first place matters. Jettisoning senior officers without explanation/cause creates perverse incentives for the rest of the officer corps. It potentially undercuts their willingness/ability to meet their professional obligations. 2/

I appreciate @kschake.bsky.social's efforts to shed light on these vital issues, but I am less sanguine

Politicization operates through multiple mechanisms not captured by analyzing the credentials or past partisan commentary of senior officers replacing those who have been fired. 1/

Definitely makes it more concerning

Appreciate the clarifying intervention on your part. I did intend it as directed toward the civilian side, but could see how someone could take it otherwise (the pitfalls of social media)

Adding that there are many current and former professional officers in the U.S. military who are also very concerned about civilian-led efforts to promote partisanship in the ranks.

Good point.

Army grounds helicopter crews who buzzed Kid Rock’s home, No Kings rally The Army is “committed to enforcing standards and holding personnel accountable,” an official said. The flybys were not authorized.

Here is the original story on the incident:

www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...

As someone who studies politicization of democratic militaries this statement on X is a five- alarm fire. It creates an undeniable permission structure for overt partisan behavior by mil. It's part of a concerted effort by civilian leaders to turn the U.S. military into a partisan aligned force.

”lethality“

A very thoughtful piece from @bradduplessis.bsky.social

I served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education and Training for three years before the office was disestablished last year. I owned the policy on professional military education for all five services. I have listened to Secretary Hegseth's announcement. I have thoughts. 🧵

Im really sorry to hear this, Kori.

This is the logical endpoint of the Pentagon‘s current “lethality“ fixation - destroying things is the point.

It also reflects its civilian leaders’ disregard, if not open contempt, for strategic thinking and the skills & intellectual preparation that support it.

Before you share that story about how troops were told the Iran War is for "Armageddon," read this The narrative is dramatic. The sourcing is thin. And skepticism matters, especially on something this serious.

Just sharing this as some have raised questions about the credibility of this particular story (not to negate the many other things we should be worried about with respect to the war). #civmilsky

www.friendlyatheist.com/p/before-you...

Last week in class we talked about the possibility of an imminent war w/Iran. Most of my undergrads barely had it on their radar. I talked abt the GWOT wars & the lessons (not) learned. By the end of the class they were also pretty dismayed and many were filled w/ dread.

Random intervention to your discussion. But I think that maybe you all correct? The term is not new, but the larger context and intent is different now. That is, it’s part of a larger agenda in a way it was not in the past

This might help you. a.co/d/05J52UMu

Curious if any of you see this policy shift on sharing information about strikes as part of an overall skepticism on the need for transparency with the public that I am detecting in other DoD areas?

Really important questions.

Hopefully, this all remains hypothetical. But given everything else, I am worried. /end

Column | Pete Hegseth seems open to ordering soldiers to shoot protesters Trump’s pick to lead the Defense Department indicates he would be willing to do what Mark Esper refused to do.

The Pentagon's civilian ldrs seem unlikely to counsel restraint.
Example: see how H avoids answering directly when asked by Sen. Hirono during his confirmation hearing abt whether he would oppose orders to shoot protesters (like Esper did in 2020).6/
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...

Also worth remembering, if reg military is deployed w/ Insurrection Act it will need to follow the law, but can be asked to carry out legal law enforcement activities putting troops in direct contact with civilians.5/
Mil commanders are likely to act cautiously, BUT . . .

As for the lgr military, this will divide Americans views of it. No matter what service members do, some ppl will see following any orders as complicity in the ICE agenda. Others will applaud the deployment. Polarizing attitudes abt the military is a feature not a bug of the admin's goals. 4/

Also, while service members are well trained, they are not immune from societal divisions. Some may sympathize w observers/protesters & others w/ ICE. Normally troops keep pol views private while serving, but such a high pressure situation cld lead to breakdowns in discipline or perhaps worse. 3/