Valid? Where did I ask for valid? I asked for what their side of the story was. Stop disingenuously moving the goal posts.
I've not moved goal posts even once. Not sure what you're talking about.
Keep in mind that when an officer is forced to retire (fired) they aren't really free to give their side of it. It's the way it is. Not even McArthur did that.
You're well aware of what I'm talking about. The government had an explanation for why DOD did what it did. You said they didn't. You were wrong. Then, you tried to move the goalposts to say their story wasn't "valid."
It's OK to just write the words: I was wrong. Or "sorry, that wasn't right" if need be. It won't kill you.
Your last sentence is irrelevant to the issue I asked about. You flatly stated people had been fired solely because of their race or sex. Ohioguy said "it has been reported" that is true. But as suspected, that's disputed.
No, I'm not wrong. I'm right. There have been no valid justifications about any of these officers specifically. When officers are fired or forced to retire there is often a "loss of confidence to command" justification. It's vague but often means an officer had an inappropriate relationship or was responsible for a negative command climate or something along those lines. These forced retirements didn't even have a "loss of confidence" justification. They just happened, often with a positive statement about their long and honorable service, or words to that effect. There have been no statements of misconduct or even loss of confidence as to why they happened that I've seen. Hegseth has been talking about this DEI nonsense, but he's not specifically claimed that any of these firings were because the particular officer was either there due to DEI or was implementing DEI policies. None. Of course, he's not going to say, "I fired these female and male officers because I think they're DEI people." People already think he has a sexist and racist bent due to his history. I don't think you understand any of this military related stuff so you're not getting it. My opinion, absent any valid justification for any particular officer's firing (forced retirement) is that it was due to this bogus DEI crap. My opinion is informed, but it is my opinion. I've not changed my opinion or moved a single goal post. You just don't get it. That's OK, you've got zero experience in military matters.
Valid? Where did I ask for valid? I asked for what their side of the story was. Stop disingenuously moving the goal posts.
I've not moved goal posts even once. Not sure what you're talking about.
Keep in mind that when an officer is forced to retire (fired) they aren't really free to give their side of it. It's the way it is. Not even McArthur did that.
You're well aware of what I'm talking about. The government had an explanation for why DOD did what it did. You said they didn't. You were wrong. Then, you tried to move the goalposts to say their story wasn't "valid."
It's OK to just write the words: I was wrong. Or "sorry, that wasn't right" if need be. It won't kill you.
Your last sentence is irrelevant to the issue I asked about. You flatly stated people had been fired solely because of their race or sex. Ohioguy said "it has been reported" that is true. But as suspected, that's disputed.
No, I'm not wrong. I'm right. There have been no valid justifications about any of these officers specifically. When officers are fired or forced to retire there is often a "loss of confidence to command" justification. It's vague but often means an officer had an inappropriate relationship or was responsible for a negative command climate or something along those lines. These forced retirements didn't even have a "loss of confidence" justification. They just happened, often with a positive statement about their long and honorable service, or words to that effect. There have been no statements of misconduct or even loss of confidence as to why they happened that I've seen. Hegseth has been talking about this DEI nonsense, but he's not specifically claimed that any of these firings were because the particular officer was either there due to DEI or was implementing DEI policies. None. Of course, he's not going to say, "I fired these female and male officers because I think they're DEI people." People already think he has a sexist and racist bent due to his history. I don't think you understand any of this military related stuff so you're not getting it. My opinion, absent any valid justification for any particular officer's firing (forced retirement) is that it was due to this bogus DEI crap. My opinion is informed, but it is my opinion. I've not changed my opinion or moved a single goal post. You just don't get it. That's OK, you've got zero experience in military matters.
So you're going to double down on playing stupid? I'm done here.
This post was modified 13 hours ago by BradStevens
Valid? Where did I ask for valid? I asked for what their side of the story was. Stop disingenuously moving the goal posts.
I've not moved goal posts even once. Not sure what you're talking about.
Keep in mind that when an officer is forced to retire (fired) they aren't really free to give their side of it. It's the way it is. Not even McArthur did that.
You're well aware of what I'm talking about. The government had an explanation for why DOD did what it did. You said they didn't. You were wrong. Then, you tried to move the goalposts to say their story wasn't "valid."
It's OK to just write the words: I was wrong. Or "sorry, that wasn't right" if need be. It won't kill you.
Your last sentence is irrelevant to the issue I asked about. You flatly stated people had been fired solely because of their race or sex. Ohioguy said "it has been reported" that is true. But as suspected, that's disputed.
No, I'm not wrong. I'm right. There have been no valid justifications about any of these officers specifically. When officers are fired or forced to retire there is often a "loss of confidence to command" justification. It's vague but often means an officer had an inappropriate relationship or was responsible for a negative command climate or something along those lines. These forced retirements didn't even have a "loss of confidence" justification. They just happened, often with a positive statement about their long and honorable service, or words to that effect. There have been no statements of misconduct or even loss of confidence as to why they happened that I've seen. Hegseth has been talking about this DEI nonsense, but he's not specifically claimed that any of these firings were because the particular officer was either there due to DEI or was implementing DEI policies. None. Of course, he's not going to say, "I fired these female and male officers because I think they're DEI people." People already think he has a sexist and racist bent due to his history. I don't think you understand any of this military related stuff so you're not getting it. My opinion, absent any valid justification for any particular officer's firing (forced retirement) is that it was due to this bogus DEI crap. My opinion is informed, but it is my opinion. I've not changed my opinion or moved a single goal post. You just don't get it. That's OK, you've got zero experience in military matters.
So you're going to double down on playing stupid? I'm done here.
Sometimes I think I'm in the Twilight Zone when on this board. I've provided tons of support for what I'm talking about. Very, very weird to me that you're not getting it. Move along because we're not seeing eye to eye at all. We might not even be talking about the same thing at this point. Note I didn't call you stupid.
This post was modified 12 hours ago 2 times by Aloha Hoosier
It appears that Brad is going to die on the "no reason" hill and won't allow you to revise your phrasing to "no VALID reason," reducing the debate to a semantic pissing match.
It appears that Brad is going to die on the "no reason" hill and won't allow you to revise your phrasing to "no VALID reason," reducing the debate to a semantic pissing match.
Based on reporting, he seems to be delaying promotions based solely on gender and race.
Did the reporting you read offer the govt side of the story?
There is no government side of the story. The selection boards in each service consisting of all flag officers selected these people for promotion and forwarded the lists through the service Secretaries who endorse the lists for approval by Congress. Typically the SecDef stays completely out of the process, but he’s injected himself and has targeted mostly minorities and women for removal from the lists. He’s not provided justification for his actions and he never really does. There’s a reason the senior officers consider Hegseth an unfit clown and are hoping he’s gone sooner rather than later.
There isn't? Really? I understand you don't agree with it, but I'm not sure how you can write with a straight face "There is no government side of the story." You might want to inform yourself better.
Justifications from the Administration
The administration frames these moves as correcting prior "woke" distortions of the promotion process, not as discrimination:
Merit and standards over quotas/"firsts": Hegseth has publicly stated that the military promoted too many leaders "for the wrong reasons — based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts." He argues diversity initiatives weakened the force and that "diversity is our strength" is a flawed premise. Actions target officers seen as tied to Biden-era DEI policies or "ideologically incompatible."
Restoring warfighting focus: Hegseth and Trump emphasize a "laser focused" Pentagon on lethality, readiness, and meritocracy. Pre-appointment writings and speeches by Hegseth criticized "woke" culture, questioned whether some minority generals (including Brown) advanced due to race rather than pure merit, and opposed women in certain combat roles or lowered standards. Firings of prior leaders were defended as necessary because "it’s nearly impossible to change a culture with the same people [who] helped create or even benefited from that culture."
Broader anti-DEI policy: Trump administration executive actions and Pentagon task forces ("Restoring America's Fighting Force") explicitly aimed to abolish DEI offices, viewing them as promoting "systemic racism" or discrimination against merit. This includes ending race/gender-based goals in promotions, admissions, etc. Hegseth created structures to enforce this, arguing it returns the military to color-blind, performance-based decisions.
These rationales appear in Hegseth's books/speeches, Pentagon statements, and aligned reporting (e.g., Fox News coverage of the task force). The administration has not framed the specific blocked promotions as "firing minorities and women" but as vetoing selections influenced by prior identity-focused policies. Officials often note that most senior leadership remains or becomes majority white male under these changes, which they attribute to correcting imbalances rather than bias.
While it seems you can correctly gotcha Aloha for saying “he’s not provided justification for his actions,” it’s clear that Aloha is talking SOP for recommending and approving merit-based promotions and you provide nothing to show Aloha’s wrong.
Your list of Hegseth’s reasons gives no serious merit-based criteria for disapproving promotions, let alone firing instead of promoting.
Hegseth never had any experience with high-level promotions and only had limited experience with low or mid-level promotions. He’s simply not qualified to make such decisions.
Aloha might be moving your goalposts but yours are…disingenuous.
—————
The question of
Pete Hegseth'squalifications to make promotion decisions—as opposed to his legal authority as Secretary of Defense—is a subject of significant debate. His professional background contains several key areas that proponents and critics interpret differently regarding his ability to evaluate senior military leadership.
Military and Professional Background
Tactical Experience: Hegseth reached the rank of Major in the Army National Guard. He has direct combat experience as an infantry platoon leader in Iraq and a counterinsurgency instructor in Afghanistan.
Organizational Management: He has led relatively small organizations, such as the veteran advocacy nonprofits Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America.
Policy and Academic: He holds a Master of Public Policy from Harvard University and a Bachelor’s from Princeton University.
Wikipedia +3
Arguments Over Qualifications
The debate regarding his fitness to render promotion decisions typically centers on the following points:
Lack of Senior Command: Critics, including former defense officials, point out that Hegseth lacks experience in senior military command or high-level national security management. Previous secretaries often had decades of experience managing massive bureaucracies or commanding large-scale military operations (e.g., James Mattis or Lloyd Austin).
Scale of Responsibility: As Secretary, he oversees roughly 3.4 million personnel and an 850 billion dollar budget. Opponents argue his background as a Major and a media personality does not qualify him to evaluate the complex careers of General (O-10) or Admiral candidates.
Ideological Qualifications:Hegseth has written extensively (notably in his book The War on Warriors) about his view that the military has been weakened by "woke" policies. His supporters argue this ideological stance is his primary qualification—that he was specifically appointed to purge the leadership of those he deems ideologically incompatible with a "meritocracy".
Merit-Based Assessment: The Pentagon under Hegseth has asserted that he is restoring a "colorblind" meritocracy. However, critics argue his interventions—such as blocking the promotions of several Black and female officers—suggest he is substituting his own personal and political criteria for the traditional professional merit reviews conducted by independent boards.
Wikipedia +3
