According to a number of reports, President-elect Donald Trump will be creating a commission to review leaders in the military with the assumption that many of the top brass will be fired.

Trump will be using a “warrior board” of retired officers, The Hill reported, to review our current crop of three- and four-star officers and will weed out the ones the commission disapproves of.

That’s not all.

Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth—an Army veteran who has been awarded two Bronze Stars, and who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—said in past interviews that it’s necessary to remove “woke” senior military officials who have left the U.S. armed forces in a sorry state.

“First of all, you’ve got to fire [the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and obviously you’ve got to bring in a new secretary of defense, but any general that was involved—general, admiral, whatever—that was involved in any of the DEI woke s—, has got to go,” Hegseth said in an early November interview on “The Shawn Ryan Show” podcast. DEI is shorthand for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Pete Hegseth is ready for day one as Defense Secretary.

'All the woke Generals must be fired immediately.'pic.twitter.com/ai9cqoImj4

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) November 13, 2024

Trump and Hegseth—the author of “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free” and “Modern Warriors: Real Stories from Real Heroes”—clearly intend to shake up the military at the top.

The Left, however, isn’t taking it well.

Legacy media is reporting on that development as if it’s some kind of ominous sign that Trump will “politicize” the military. They are even calling it a “purge.”

One left-wing podcaster, Fred Wellman, who includes “democracy advocate” in his X bio, even posted that removing generals is “truly fascist.”

This is truly fascist. The idea is they'll review and fire generals is chilling beyond measure and will damage our military for a generation. You don't make generals overnight. It takes decades. The good ones will leave early instead of waiting to be destroyed. (gift)…

— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) November 12, 2024

Ah, yes, civilian control of the military, so fascist.

For a quick history lesson, a president’s removal of generals and other high-ranking military leaders—especially after years of relative “peace”—has often been a significant boon, not a hindrance, to the military.

Peacetime militaries—and I only use that phrase loosely to refer to our own era of near-constant, low-level asymmetrical conflicts—frequently calcify. Leaders who successfully navigate the bureaucratic treadmill to make it to the top ranks in those times are frequently not the best wartime leaders.

Militaries need to be shaken up from time to time.

In the War of 1812, many American military officers were holdovers from the American Revolution. Many had grown old and ineffective. The crucible of war allowed junior commanders like Winfield Scott to emerge as a brilliant young general who would prove instrumental in that war and future conflicts.

In the Civil War, there was a tremendous shake-up of the senior ranks on both sides.

Marginal officers like Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, who was almost entirely overlooked at the Virginia Military Institute, proved himself to be one of the most astoundingly gifted military commanders once he had a chance to prove himself in battle.

Abraham Lincoln suffered through far too many mediocrities at the top before finding war winners like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. Almost none of the top commanders at the beginning of the war ended up in the same place by the war’s end.

Right now, the United States clearly needs a shake-up at the Pentagon in the worst way.

The world is in turmoil, thanks in no small part to the Biden administration, and we are closer to seeing an actual peer-to-peer conflict than perhaps at any point since World War II.

Yet, many on the Left are hyperventilating about the move. Why? It’s a pretty good sign that they know they’ve made serious inroads into military institutions that are historically traditional and conservative. They don’t want to lose their grip on the military, just as they fear losing control of any other institution they dominate.

The primary issue, beyond typical military calcification, is that our current military leadership appears to be filled with those who have floated to the top amid the general woke-ification of American society and government.

It’s not Trump who will be “politicizing” the military; it’s the military itself that has been politicized. DEI, critical race theory, and other radical ideologies have been force-fed into military institutions, and the Biden administration was only too happy to accelerate that transformation.

They justified DEI by saying that it would create a better, more cohesive military and deepen the pool of recruits. That was the same unproven, bogus argument corporate America made when it went whole hog on “diversity” to the point of climbing aboard the discrimination bandwagon.

But much like the corporate DEI push—which proved a financial liability, rather than a boon—the military DEI advocacy has failed to “succeed” by even the most basic measures.

Nearly every branch of the military now faces a historic recruitment crisis, not to mention a surge in worrisome incidents that suggest a decline in competence and warfighting capability.

To make matters worse—and this is why Trump’s shake-up is almost certainly necessary—the military has failed to hold anyone at the top accountable for notable failures on the international stage.

Those failures have significantly weakened this country’s prestige and credibility abroad.

Most notably was the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. After that failure, nobody at the top got fired. The Biden administration and the military moved on, as if nothing had happened.

If we can’t handle our business against the Taliban, isn’t it worth questioning our ability to counter far greater potential adversaries, such as China?

To underscore the notion that the military has lost all accountability at the top, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin disappeared for nearly a week early this year to take care of a health issue before notifying the president.

If these are the sorts of “invaluable” leaders we may lose if Trump gets his way, it’s hard not to see the president-to-be’s “warrior board” as a net positive. This country should expect a lot better of its military.

This seems like an important moment for a “democratic” correction to a military that has seen a sharp decline in public trust.

Under Biden, the buck stopped nowhere. With Trump, maybe more capable leaders will have a chance to rise to the top and get our military back to focusing on preparedness and defending the American people.

The Pentagon in follow-up statements to the NY Times has confirmed the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) systems will be sent to Israel, and that about 100 American troops will operate them.

This means that at least 100 American soldiers will be placed in positions likely to be targeted by another potential barrage of ballistic missiles from Iran, at a moment Israel is preparing its own counterattack in the wake of the the Oct.1st strikes (which witnessed about 200 missiles sent) on Israeli territory from the Islamic Republic. Each full missile battery and associated systems cost American taxpayers some $800 million to $1 billion.

All of this follows the Pentagon having weeks ago deployed thousands more US troops to the broader region amid escalation in Lebanon. Some of those forces were sent to Cyprus, and others likely to Gulf countries or possibly Jordan.

The Pentagon has tried to deflect from language which portrays the obvious: that without Congressional authorization American troops are entering an escalating overseas war zone to defend a foreign country.

The NY Times acknowledged the following exchange:

When asked on Sunday, Mr. Biden said only that he had ordered the Pentagon to deploy the system “to defend Israel. General Ryder said in his statement that the battery would “augment Israel’s integrated air defense system.” It was not immediately clear how quickly the missile defense system and troops announced on Sunday would arrive in Israel.

“This action underscores the United States’ ironclad commitment to the defense of Israel, and to defend Americans in Israel, from any further ballistic missile attacks by Iran,” the statement said. “It is part of the broader adjustments the U.S. military has made in recent months to support the defense of Israel and protect Americans from attacks by Iran and Iranian-aligned militias.”

So interestingly this is the new talking point from the national security state: Americans are being deployed to defend Americans who happen to still be in Israel. This certainly marks a new and interesting rationale.

This big “gift” is being sent to Israel even after rising tensions between Netanyahu and Biden…

So by deploying THAAD to Israel, we're not really solving the problem, just incentizing Iran to build up more missiles. So what we are actually doing is tieing ourselves further into the Israel-Iran missile/BMD race for only short term benefits.

— Decker Eveleth (@dex_eve) October 13, 2024

One regional observers has observed that this is Netanyahu’s longtime dream come true:

Journalist Séamus Malekafzali argued the U.S. deployment of troops and the THAAD system shows that “the Israelis are clearly planning something for Iran that is going to cause a retaliation they know their own systems are unable to take.”

“U.S. troops being deployed to Israel in this matter is seismic,” Malekafzali added. “The U.S. military is now inextricably involved in this war, directly, without any illusions of barriers. Netanyahu is as close as he has ever been to his ultimate wish: making the U.S. fight Iran on Israel’s behalf.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Saturday had actually issued some soft criticism of Israel after two UN peacekeeping troops in south Lebanon were wounded by Israeli fire an a UNIFIL command post.

Austin “expressed his deep concern about reports that Israeli forces fired on U.N. peacekeeping positions in Lebanon as well as by the reported death of two Lebanese soldiers” in a phone call with his Israeli counterpart.

Netanyahu has spent a year treating Biden like a doormat, Biden is nonetheless sending American troops to protect Israel, and afterwards Biden will probably go back to pretending as if America has no meaningful leverage over Israel https://t.co/YNrHoxkb8y

— Gregg Carlstrom (@glcarlstrom) October 13, 2024

As for the missile battery contingent of 100 US troops being sent to Israel, likely there were already US special forces and commanders who have been in Tel Aviv and near Gaza in an “advisory” role. But this clearly marks a new much more direct role of US forces in the conflict, especially given the Iranians have already threatened that if hostilities escalate, anti-air batteries in Israel will come under attack.

It directs the Navy to develop “readiness for the possibility of war with the People’s Republic of China by 2027,” pointing to China’s preparations for a possible invasion of Taiwan in the same year.

“The Navy emphatically acknowledges the need for a larger, more lethal force,” the document, titled “Navigation Plan for America’s Warfighting Navy,” states.

“By 2027, the Navy will be more ready for sustained combat as part of a Joint and Combined force, prioritizing the People’s Republic of China as the pacing challenge and focusing on enabling the joint warfighting ecosystem.”

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which rules China as a single-party state, claims that Taiwan is a part of its territory that must be united with the mainland through any means necessary.

However, Taiwan is self-governed by a democratically elected government and has never been controlled by the CCP.

CCP leader Xi Jinping has nevertheless ordered the communist regime’s military wing to prepare for war and to develop the capabilities required to invade Taiwan.

The regime has since engaged in a more than decade-long shipbuilding spree, massively expanding its fleet, drone capabilities, and nuclear arsenal.

Most importantly, for a Taiwan invasion scenario, it has also launched its own advanced aircraft carriers and destroyers.

That poses a problem for the United States, as the U.S. Navy floats far fewer ships than the Chinese, and must spread them more widely to maintain its global military presence.

China, meanwhile, can position the vast majority of its naval and coast guard units close to home, where they can receive cover from land-based units and where it is easier to maintain their supply lines.

A congressional report published in July found that “the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat” against China.

The July report also said that China is likely to increase its hostile behavior in the coming years to “normalize unlawful behavior” around Taiwan as it seeks to take advantage of the United States’ lack of ability to deter conflict.

Key to the new Navy document’s goals, therefore, is the fulfillment of Project 33, a naval initiative aiming to ready the force by eliminating delays in maintenance, scaling the use of autonomous and robotic systems, and increasing navy recruitment, among other things.

“We cannot manifest a bigger traditional Navy in a few short years, nor will we rely on mass without the right capabilities to win the sea control contest,” the document reads.

“Nearer-term operational challenges demand that we integrate proven robotic and autonomous capabilities as soon as possible.

“We must do so with a focus on how we will use these systems in war. By 2027, we will integrate proven robotic and autonomous systems for routine use by the commanders who will employ them.”

Scaling the deployment of autonomous systems is just part of the puzzle, with the document underscoring that the United States’ grim position in the Indo-Pacific “goes well beyond just the size of the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] Navy fleet.”

The document notes that China’s joint forces are developing into an integrated fighting force “specifically designed to defeat ours” and are backed by China’s massive industrial base.

The document also calls on the Navy to work with Congress to secure critical supply chains and lays out a vision in which all fleet headquarters in the service will field their own maritime operations centers.

The goal of the latter directive is to ensure that the U.S. Navy can continue to maintain superiority in command and control, military intelligence, and maneuvers, even against a numerically superior foe in a vast and distributed region.

“We must meet all the objectives in this Navigation Plan to field the people and capabilities needed to fight and win today, in 2027, and beyond,” the document states.

As NY Post noted:

Outraged family members of US troops hurt in the line of duty slammed Kamala Harris’ brazen claim that no Americans are serving in war zones — a statement which flies in the face of her own administration’s official list of active combat zones.

As many as 50,000 US service members currently patrolling countries and oceans across the Middle East and Africa are receiving either “hostile fire” or “imminent danger pay,” monthly payments of up to $225 for troops deployed in areas where they could easily be subjected to — or do come under — enemy attack, retired Army Col. and military analyst Jonathan Sweet told The Post.

Yet during Tuesday’s ABC debate with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, the vice president to make it seem as if the Harris-Biden administration has heralded in a period of peace not seen in decades — and that all American military members are safe.

This was an attempt by the Harris campaign to paint a rosy picture of global affairs under their governance, conveniently overlooking the harsh truths.

“As of today there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world, for the first time this century.” – Kamala Harris

Now, let’s dissect the implications of such a statement. Firstly, it’s essential to recognize the gravity of the situation where service members like Chief Warrant Officer Garrett Illerbrunner are critically injured in active duty. His father, Brad Illerbrunner, expressed profound disappointment and anger towards Harris’s misleading assertions.

“really [hit] below the belt… She doesn’t even recognize that our own troops are getting hurt.” – Brad Illerbrunner

“We’re still in war zones.” – Brad Illerbrunner

“trying to snow the public.” – Brad Illerbrunner

These poignant words from a distressed father highlight the disconnect between the administration’s narrative and the ground realities. How can such blatant disregard for the truth be justified? Is it merely a ploy to divert the public’s attention from the ongoing dangers faced by our troops?

Michael DiMino, a fellow at the think tank Defense Priorities, also criticized the vice president’s claims for failing to reflect the true conditions experienced by U.S. forces deployed overseas.

“fail a basic kind of smell test” – Michael DiMino

“If you’re in Jordan in the middle of nowhere to fight ISIS, and you’re getting attacked by Iranian drones and rockets on a daily basis, you’re in a war zone.” – Michael DiMino

“to finagle a wording… to make a point we’re not engaged in all these conflicts — which we are” – Michael DiMino

“Those quibbling qualifiers ignore the fact American men and women in uniform are getting shot at on daily basis, and many just in the last eight months have died or been injured.” – Michael DiMino

Despite these glaring facts, a Harris campaign spokeswoman and a Defense Department official reiterated the administration’s stance, further fueling the narrative disconnect.

“taking risks for our country that should be honored no matter where they serve.” – Harris campaign spokeswoman

“An aspect of military service includes serving in locations where hostile actions may occur… Those locations are designated by executive order and/or the Secretary of Defense. However, it’s important to note that just because a service member is in one of these locations does not mean they are engaged in war.” – Defense Department official

The emotional toll on families is palpable. Holly Davis, whose husband is currently deployed in Syria, shared her distress over the vice president’s claims, which starkly contrast with her daily reality.

“It’s very hurtful that someone who is currently our vice president is making these claims when my husband is literally sacrificing his life every day over in the Middle East.” – Holly Davis

“I had to sit in those literal two minutes of hearing that, wondering if he was going to come back on the phone… It’s very real. Very war zone.” – Holly Davis

The Harris-Biden administration’s portrayal of a peaceful, conflict-free global stage under their leadership does not hold up against the testimonies of those directly impacted by the realities of war. This discrepancy begs the question: What is the true cost of these politically motivated assertions, and who really pays the price? Moreover, can anyone believe anything that Kamala Harris says?