I see the fever swamps believe we are set to drop nuclear weapons. The thinking is the firings were generals who would not take part.
As low as my opinion is of Trump, somewhere just above my opinion of Charles Manson and Jeffrey Epstein, I don't believe he's going to go nuclear. I feel a bit safe in that because Tucker Carlson mentioned it. The odds of him being right are infinitesimal.
The notion that DEI has affected our military leadership the way DEI has infiltrated the rolls of academia is unfounded and virtually absurd considering how intransigent our military hierarchy has been through time (e.g., “don’t ask, don’t tell”).
This is the nut of the issue if you want to have an intelligent discussion about this.
Do SecDef commonly publicly comment on the reasons why individual officers were not advanced?Only Hegseth can tell us his justifications and reasons for each officer and he’s not doing it.
Gemini:
- Standard Confidentiality: When colonels are passed over for brigadier general, the DOD generally does not publicize these names or the reasons for non-selection. The process focuses on providing the promotion list to the Senate for approval.
- Reasons for Non-Promotion: When an officer is removed from a promotion list, it is typically due to a Promotion Review Board (PRB) reviewing "derogatory information" found during post-board screenings, such as misconduct, investigations, or criminal activity.
- Privacy Protections: The reasons for non-selection are often protected by privacy regulations to protect the officer.
- Unusual Intervention (2026): Recent reports in March/April 2026 indicate that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth intervened in the promotion process by removing four Army officers (two Black men, two women) from a 1-star promotion list, a move described by military officials as "highly unusual" and deviating from the standard practice of approving or rejecting lists in their entirety. In such cases, the Pentagon generally disputes reports, citing "meritocracy" and avoiding public specifics on the removed officers, while critics raise concerns about political intervention.
I understand that you do not buy the government's story as being valid, good enough, or within the SOP. I don't need to have any military experience to grasp that.
What I was driving at above, which couldn't be clearer, is that the government has a story to tell. It's not complicated: they think these people either hold DEI woke views of the military that they consider detrimental to the effectiveness of the military, or that they were advanced solely or in a major part because of affirmative action, or both. I don't think we know which is which and I don't think it's common for the public to be informed as to why particular officers were not advanced.
Note, they didn't block all minority or women candidates, so the notion as expressed above that the only reason they were blocked was because of their sex or race is questionable. My guess would be that the people who were blocked gave a presentation or wrote a memo with some form of Kendian claptrap or was outspoken about the Covid vaccine or masks, and Hegseth wants to purge the military of people who championed that.
Gemini:
- Targeted Removals: Hegseth specifically removed two Black Army officers and two female Army officers from a promotion list, overruling senior Army leadership who supported them.
- Broader Pattern: Reports indicate Hegseth has intervened to block or delay promotions for more than a dozen senior Black and female officers across all military branches.
- "Woke" Purge: These actions are reportedly part of an initiative to remove officers deemed to be promoting "woke" ideologies, aiming to shift the demographic composition of senior military leadership.
- Unusual Intervention: It is extremely rare for a defense secretary to personally strike individual names from a promotion list, which typically arrives pre-vetted by senior military leadership.:Reactions: The decisions have been criticized as discriminatory and political by some, while others in the administration have applauded the efforts to alter the leadership, say reports.
It's not common to list reasons for not selecting for promotion at all because it's not done. If an officer (or senior enlisted) fails to select for promotion to the next higher rank, his/her name won't be on the promotion list and the reason for not being on the promotion list is never provided. The selection boards' deliberations are confidential. They aren't allowed to discuss the deliberations and reasoning with those outside the board, including with those who don't select who they know personally. They're sworn in at the beginning of the board with that wording included. What's extremely rare and uncommon is for the SecDef to inject himself into the process after the board makes its selections and have the list approved by the service secretary. Next step is generally the SecDef trusting his service secretaries and the senior officers who made those selections and forwarding the list to Congress for approval, without changes. Occasionally, a politician in Congress will try to hold of one or all the promotions for their own political reasons, which they disclose. For example, this happened after Tail Hook when politicians tried to stall the entire lists if anyone on the list was at Tail Hook. SecDef has decided to remove officers from the list and not disclose any justification for any of them. He was asked about this in a Congressional hearing, and he refused to provide any justification other than he and the President can do this if they want to, and they want to - for undisclosed specific reasons. This is all very uncommon. I don't recall another SecDef doing anything like it without disclosing why.The notion that DEI has affected our military leadership the way DEI has infiltrated the rolls of academia is unfounded and virtually absurd considering how intransigent our military hierarchy has been through time (e.g., “don’t ask, don’t tell”).
This is the nut of the issue if you want to have an intelligent discussion about this.
Do SecDef commonly publicly comment on the reasons why individual officers were not advanced?Only Hegseth can tell us his justifications and reasons for each officer and he’s not doing it.
Gemini:
No, it is not common for the Department of Defense (DOD) to publicly disclose the specific reasons why individual officers are not promoted to brigadier general (1-star rank).Promotions to general officer rank are highly confidential and merit-based processes designed to be insulated from public or political scrutiny, with non-selections usually kept private to protect the individual’s career.
Here are the key details regarding how this process operates:
- Standard Confidentiality: When colonels are passed over for brigadier general, the DOD generally does not publicize these names or the reasons for non-selection. The process focuses on providing the promotion list to the Senate for approval.
- Reasons for Non-Promotion: When an officer is removed from a promotion list, it is typically due to a Promotion Review Board (PRB) reviewing "derogatory information" found during post-board screenings, such as misconduct, investigations, or criminal activity.
- Privacy Protections: The reasons for non-selection are often protected by privacy regulations to protect the officer.
- Unusual Intervention (2026): Recent reports in March/April 2026 indicate that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth intervened in the promotion process by removing four Army officers (two Black men, two women) from a 1-star promotion list, a move described by military officials as "highly unusual" and deviating from the standard practice of approving or rejecting lists in their entirety. In such cases, the Pentagon generally disputes reports, citing "meritocracy" and avoiding public specifics on the removed officers, while critics raise concerns about political intervention.
I understand that you do not buy the government's story as being valid, good enough, or within the SOP. I don't need to have any military experience to grasp that.
What I was driving at above, which couldn't be clearer, is that the government has a story to tell. It's not complicated: they think these people either hold DEI woke views of the military that they consider detrimental to the effectiveness of the military, or that they were advanced solely or in a major part because of affirmative action, or both. I don't think we know which is which and I don't think it's common for the public to be informed as to why particular officers were not advanced.
Note, they didn't block all minority or women candidates, so the notion as expressed above that the only reason they were blocked was because of their sex or race is questionable. My guess would be that the people who were blocked gave a presentation or wrote a memo with some form of Kendian claptrap or was outspoken about the Covid vaccine or masks, and Hegseth wants to purge the military of people who championed that.
Gemini:
As of April 2026, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not blocked all minority or women candidates, but he did directly strike four specific officers—two Black men and two women—from a promotion list to brigadier general, a highly unusual move. Reports suggest this is part of a broader effort to target officers based on race, gender, or perceived political alignment.
Key Details of the Promotion Actions:
- Targeted Removals: Hegseth specifically removed two Black Army officers and two female Army officers from a promotion list, overruling senior Army leadership who supported them.
- Broader Pattern: Reports indicate Hegseth has intervened to block or delay promotions for more than a dozen senior Black and female officers across all military branches.
- "Woke" Purge: These actions are reportedly part of an initiative to remove officers deemed to be promoting "woke" ideologies, aiming to shift the demographic composition of senior military leadership.
- Unusual Intervention: It is extremely rare for a defense secretary to personally strike individual names from a promotion list, which typically arrives pre-vetted by senior military leadership.:Reactions: The decisions have been criticized as discriminatory and political by some, while others in the administration have applauded the efforts to alter the leadership, say reports.
I know I’d be very pissed at Hegseth if I was Driscoll and I’d let Hegseth know I was pissed.Army boss sends Pentagon Pete a defiant message after secret clash leaks
Do you agree that it is entirely speculative to say the only reason Hegseth held up these people is their sex and race? That, in fact, the government—not just Hegseth— has provided other reasons why this happened?It's not common to list reasons for not selecting for promotion at all because it's not done. If an officer (or senior enlisted) fails to select for promotion to the next higher rank, his/her name won't be on the promotion list and the reason for not being on the promotion list is never provided. The selection boards' deliberations are confidential. They aren't allowed to discuss the deliberations and reasoning with those outside the board, including with those who don't select who they know personally. They're sworn in at the beginning of the board with that wording included. What's extremely rare and uncommon is for the SecDef to inject himself into the process after the board makes its selections and have the list approved by the service secretary. Next step is generally the SecDef trusting his service secretaries and the senior officers who made those selections and forwarding the list to Congress for approval, without changes. Occasionally, a politician in Congress will try to hold of one or all the promotions for their own political reasons, which they disclose. For example, this happened after Tail Hook when politicians tried to stall the entire lists if anyone on the list was at Tail Hook. SecDef has decided to remove officers from the list and not disclose any justification for any of them. He was asked about this in a Congressional hearing, and he refused to provide any justification other than he and the President can do this if they want to, and they want to - for undisclosed specific reasons. This is all very uncommon. I don't recall another SecDef doing anything like it without disclosing why.The notion that DEI has affected our military leadership the way DEI has infiltrated the rolls of academia is unfounded and virtually absurd considering how intransigent our military hierarchy has been through time (e.g., “don’t ask, don’t tell”).
This is the nut of the issue if you want to have an intelligent discussion about this.
Do SecDef commonly publicly comment on the reasons why individual officers were not advanced?Only Hegseth can tell us his justifications and reasons for each officer and he’s not doing it.
Gemini:
No, it is not common for the Department of Defense (DOD) to publicly disclose the specific reasons why individual officers are not promoted to brigadier general (1-star rank).Promotions to general officer rank are highly confidential and merit-based processes designed to be insulated from public or political scrutiny, with non-selections usually kept private to protect the individual’s career.
Here are the key details regarding how this process operates:
- Standard Confidentiality: When colonels are passed over for brigadier general, the DOD generally does not publicize these names or the reasons for non-selection. The process focuses on providing the promotion list to the Senate for approval.
- Reasons for Non-Promotion: When an officer is removed from a promotion list, it is typically due to a Promotion Review Board (PRB) reviewing "derogatory information" found during post-board screenings, such as misconduct, investigations, or criminal activity.
- Privacy Protections: The reasons for non-selection are often protected by privacy regulations to protect the officer.
- Unusual Intervention (2026): Recent reports in March/April 2026 indicate that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth intervened in the promotion process by removing four Army officers (two Black men, two women) from a 1-star promotion list, a move described by military officials as "highly unusual" and deviating from the standard practice of approving or rejecting lists in their entirety. In such cases, the Pentagon generally disputes reports, citing "meritocracy" and avoiding public specifics on the removed officers, while critics raise concerns about political intervention.
I understand that you do not buy the government's story as being valid, good enough, or within the SOP. I don't need to have any military experience to grasp that.
What I was driving at above, which couldn't be clearer, is that the government has a story to tell. It's not complicated: they think these people either hold DEI woke views of the military that they consider detrimental to the effectiveness of the military, or that they were advanced solely or in a major part because of affirmative action, or both. I don't think we know which is which and I don't think it's common for the public to be informed as to why particular officers were not advanced.
Note, they didn't block all minority or women candidates, so the notion as expressed above that the only reason they were blocked was because of their sex or race is questionable. My guess would be that the people who were blocked gave a presentation or wrote a memo with some form of Kendian claptrap or was outspoken about the Covid vaccine or masks, and Hegseth wants to purge the military of people who championed that.
Gemini:
As of April 2026, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not blocked all minority or women candidates, but he did directly strike four specific officers—two Black men and two women—from a promotion list to brigadier general, a highly unusual move. Reports suggest this is part of a broader effort to target officers based on race, gender, or perceived political alignment.
Key Details of the Promotion Actions:
- Targeted Removals: Hegseth specifically removed two Black Army officers and two female Army officers from a promotion list, overruling senior Army leadership who supported them.
- Broader Pattern: Reports indicate Hegseth has intervened to block or delay promotions for more than a dozen senior Black and female officers across all military branches.
- "Woke" Purge: These actions are reportedly part of an initiative to remove officers deemed to be promoting "woke" ideologies, aiming to shift the demographic composition of senior military leadership.
- Unusual Intervention: It is extremely rare for a defense secretary to personally strike individual names from a promotion list, which typically arrives pre-vetted by senior military leadership.:Reactions: The decisions have been criticized as discriminatory and political by some, while others in the administration have applauded the efforts to alter the leadership, say reports.
How do you square these promotion candidates on the list going through the entire process all the way up to the very top person and then suddenly getting rejected? Edited: …by someone with essentially no real experiential view of each candidate’s actual performance…?
Edit2: The article I linked gives more evidence Heg’s decisions are based on personal bs.
Edit3: Plus, bear in mind how long it takes to develop these skilled upper level military minds. You can’t just go down to the commissary and requisition new ones.
What do you mean by "square" them? Justify them? I'm not trying to. Nowhere in this thread have I tried to justify them, other than to say that IF they had the goods that one of these people was a true DEI/woke idealogue, I would have no problem with not advancing them. Even then, though, I'd want them to follow the law (think I've been pretty consistent on that for several years on these sites).How do you square these promotion candidates on the list going through the entire process all the way up to the very top person and then suddenly getting rejected? Edited: …by someone with essentially no real experiential view of each candidate’s actual performance…?
Edit2: The article I linked gives more evidence Heg’s decisions are based on personal bs.
Edit3: Plus, bear in mind how long it takes to develop these skilled upper level military minds. You can’t just go down to the commissary and requisition new ones.
I can explain what he did, though, without relying on overt, blatant race and sex discrimination. He easily could have believed some of these people were beneficiaries of affirmative action in the past to get to where they were--through conversations with military people he respects or trusts (again, not that I would respect or trust them)-- or they explicitly wrote or said stuff as I previously wrote. To me, if he wanted to review past promotions, I'm not sure you can even do that and if so, he probably needed to reconfigure the makeup of these boards to fit his ideology, but that's just speculation.
I have no ability to judge how deep the bench is on this level of officer. None of us do.
I have no ability to judge how deep the bench is on this level of officer. None of us do.
If by how many are available to promote to each rank, Google "Number of officers at each rank in the active military" and you'll see.
I can explain what he did, though, without relying on overt, blatant race and sex discrimination. He easily could have believed some of these people were beneficiaries of affirmative action in the past to get to where they were--through conversations with military people he respects or trusts (again, not that I would respect or trust them)-- or they explicitly wrote or said stuff as I previously wrote. To me, if he wanted to review past promotions, I'm not sure you can even do that and if so, he probably needed to reconfigure the makeup of these boards to fit his ideology, but that's just speculation.Not justify but explain is what I meant. Or perhaps better reconcile. What your explanation omits is a merited promotion, regardless of DEI or not. If he can't judge merit then he can't justify even making a decision. He's just abusing his civilian assignment for ideological reasons and most likely gutting our military in the process.I have no ability to judge how deep the bench is on this level of officer. None of us do.
That's my opinion.
One of the interesting aspects of minority or female hiring is the opposite of what anti-DEI people would have one believe. DEI doesn't guarantee merit-based hiring but in a white male dominated America, minorities and women can have to work twice as hard to achieve equal rank, pay and the like. My point is, it's not uncommon to find an ambitious or high-achieving minority or woman to be over-qualified.
A big chunk of Hegseth's "prayer" yesterday at his Pentagon worship service was from the Gospel of Quentin. It was a fake bible quote, written by Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary for Pulp Fiction and recited by Jules, Samuel L. Jackson's character, just before he blows a guy away early in the movie.
You can't make this shit up.
The clown show continues.