Loyalty is the new battle readiness

When combat experience matters less than political enthusiasm, we're crossing a line that America's allies and adversaries are watching closely.

When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Friday's wave of military dismissals, he wrapped the firings in carefully diplomatic language about "distinguished service." But beneath the courteous phrases lies something unprecedented in modern American military history: a systematic purge of senior officers based not on battlefield performance or strategic competence, but on perceived political loyalty.

Consider the pattern emerging: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General CQ Brown, with his 3,000 flight hours and 130 combat missions, dismissed. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti, who commanded multiple carrier strike groups, removed. The military's senior lawyers – the Judge Advocates General who ensure operations stay within constitutional bounds – quietly shown the door. In their place? A retired three-star general whose primary qualification stems from an encounter where he reportedly declared his love to Trump and promised him a quick victory in Iraq while wearing a MAGA hat – a story his own aides deny.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a president choosing military leadership aligned with their strategic vision – it's a fundamental right of the commander-in-chief. Kennedy recalled General Maxwell Taylor from retirement, Roosevelt promoted Eisenhower over more senior generals, Lincoln famously cycled through commanders until finding Grant. But there's a crucial difference: those changes were driven by military necessity and operational requirements, not demands for personal fealty.

When competent officers are dismissed not for military disagreements but for insufficient personal loyalty, when combat experience matters less than political enthusiasm, we're crossing a line that America's allies and adversaries are watching closely.

Consider the signal this sends internationally. European defense officials, already anxious about America's security commitments, see echoes of practices they associate with less democratic systems. China and Russia, meanwhile, are taking notes with evident satisfaction on what appears to be self-inflicted damage to one of America's key strategic advantages – its professional, apolitical military leadership.

The targeting of the Judge Advocates General is particularly telling. These aren't battlefield commanders but the military's senior legal experts – the very officers tasked with ensuring orders align with constitutional principles and the laws of war. Their removal noted Georgetown Law professor Rosa Brooks on X, “In some ways that's even more chilling than firing the four stars. It's what you do when you're planning to break the law: you get rid of any lawyers who might try to slow you down.”

The purge is particularly striking because of how it fits into a broader pattern of labeling any perceived resistance as “woke” and "radical left" – regardless of the actual politics or professional responsibilities involved. General Brown, who Trump himself once praised as a "Patriot and Great Leader," didn't suddenly become a radical. Admiral Franchetti, who developed cutting-edge naval modernization strategies to counter China, wasn't pushing a political agenda. They were doing what military officers have done for generations: providing their best professional judgment regardless of which party occupies the White House. But after questioning whether Brown was chosen 'because of his skin color' and ousting Franchetti, the first woman Chief, Hegseth has achieved what he apparently wanted: an all-white, all-male Joint Chiefs. Never mind they are leading a military where minorities make up 40% of the force and women constitute a fifth of the ranks.

The fundamental disconnect lies in applying partisan litmus tests to an institution deliberately designed to transcend politics. When military leaders face terrorist threats, navigate complex battlefield decisions, or modernize forces for future conflicts, they aren't operating as Democrats or Republicans – they're executing their constitutional duties. Labeling career officers radical or unpatriotic for upholding diversity policies enacted by both Republican and Democratic administrations isn't just inaccurate – it fundamentally misunderstands the military's apolitical nature.

This isn't about protecting "liberal" or "conservative" officers – it's about preserving a professional military that serves the Constitution rather than any political movement. The irony shouldn't be lost: Trump's former generals like Jim Mattis, H.R McMaster, and Mark Milley – hardly liberal icons – maintained strict political neutrality while in uniform, even as they later spoke out against threats to what they considered military professionalism. Their adherence to the chain of command, even when harboring private concerns, exemplified the very principle now under assault.

What makes this purge especially troubling is the leadership now in charge: a Defense Secretary whose primary qualification seems to be hosting Fox News segments about "warrior culture," paired with a chairman who lacks the command experience traditionally required for military's highest office. Neither brings the depth of operational leadership that historically fortified senior officers with the discipline and judgment to provide hard truths to political leaders.

When you replace combat-tested leaders with political loyalists who not only prioritize personal allegiance over constitutional oaths, but whose experience is notably thinner, you're not just risking political interference – you're gambling with basic military effectiveness. Instead of getting what they need to hear about military readiness and strategic challenges from seasoned commanders, America's civilian leadership will get what they want to hear from those whose primary credential appears to be their political reliability.

The message being sent through the ranks is clear: expertise without allegiance is a career-ending liability. When "warrior culture" becomes code for political compliance, when merit takes a back seat to loyalty tests, the damage extends far beyond individual careers. Today's captains and majors, watching their senior leaders dismissed for insufficient enthusiasm about political priorities, are learning dangerous lessons about what it takes to advance. It reaches into the very heart of what makes America's military effective: its ability to provide unvarnished professional judgment, regardless of political winds.

Here's the deeper crisis: When military leadership loses faith in its constitutional moorings, when the bright line between political loyalty and professional duty blurs, unexpected consequences often follow. While America's military remains steadfastly committed to civilian control, one doesn't need a crystal ball to see how undermining its apolitical nature could backfire. When officers start viewing their role through a political lens rather than a constitutional one, the same logic that demands personal loyalty over constitutional duty could be dangerously inverted – with military leaders deciding that protecting the Constitution might require violating it. Trump's recent assertion that "he who saves his country does not violate any law" carries a dangerous irony, potentially justifying exactly the kind of extra-constitutional actions he seeks to encourage.

To be clear: America's military leadership shows zero signs of wavering from its constitutional obligations, nor should it. But history is littered with stories of world leaders who tried to transform professional military judgment into personal loyalty, only to end up weakening the very institutional stability they sought to reinforce.

The damage will extend far beyond this administration. Each subsequent administration will face an ugly choice: launch another round of purges to remove politically-selected officers, or accept a partially politicized command structure. Either way, the institutional damage compounds. When military careers rise and fall based on perceived loyalty rather than demonstrated competence, the pendulum swings don't just change policy – they erode the very foundation of military professionalism. This pendulum of politicization, once set in motion, becomes increasingly difficult to stop. The professional culture built over generations – where officers feel duty-bound to provide their best military judgment regardless of political consequences – could take decades to rebuild, if it can be rebuilt at all.

The stakes also transcend domestic politics. America's military effectiveness has long rested on its ability to blend civilian control with professional autonomy – generals who will execute any legal order while providing their honest military judgment. When military expertise becomes suspect and loyalty tests become the measure of merit, you don't get a more effective fighting force – you get a more compliant one. And in the complex security challenges facing America, political compliance without professional competence isn't just weakening American democracy – it's undermining American power itself.

America's military has remained one of the few institutions that maintained its apolitical character through increasingly partisan times. If that changes – if personal loyalty to a leader trumps loyalty to the Constitution – we're not just losing apolitical officers. We're losing a cornerstone of democratic stability that, once broken, proves remarkably difficult to restore.