No. of Recommendations: 17
I have to concede that point. However, I can still express contempt at Biden's operatives even though they did not set the policy.
Again - why? I mean, the whole point is that the military is supposed to be under civilian control. The President is the one who sets the policies, and the military commanders are obligated to implement it. That's a foundational element of the job. That doesn't make them "Biden's operatives" - it makes them soldiers who obey the chain of command and are ultimately answerable to the Commander in Chief.
That's why Trump's commission to purge the ranks of all the generals he deems "insufficient" - coupled with the choice of Hegseth - ought to be at least a little concerning to you. There's no reason that their compliance with the policies set by the prior CinC should warrant a wholesale winnowing of the ranks. All of those DEI initiatives were directly ordered by the President and implemented by SecDef - there was literally no possible justification for any of the generals to refuse to do it. Yet it appears that Trump wants to involuntarily retire a very large swath of the military brass, ostensibly for the fact that they....did their jobs and obeyed legal orders?
That's why folks are pointing out that purging the military of people that are perceived to be disloyal to the person of the President is typically not associated with a desire for efficiency, but more commonly an exercise in trying to fill positions with people that are personally loyal to the leader, rather than professionals who will do what the leader tells them because it's their job. That doesn't often turn out for the benefit of the nation, rather than the leader personally.
