[ComputerGuy]

However, his threat to fire generals risks undermining professionalism

Does anyone agree with that?

[NorthMountain]

WTF?

The generals at risk of being fired are the generals who undermine professionalism.

[MtnClimber]

"However, his threat to fire generals risks undermining professionalism"

Does anyone agree with that?

NOPE. I wondered what people would think about that.

[Phlyer]

However, his threat to fire generals risks undermining professionalism.

Does anyone agree with that?

Is it a risk? Certainly. The question is: What criteria can result in an immediate firing?

First, there is a process for making assignments, and for terminating them. If this process is undermined so that an officer can be fired (or at least it seems like he can) for arbitrary reasons, or just because he embarrassed someone in the administration, then it leads to an overly-cautious mindset - which is bad for military professionalism.

Second, mistakes - particularly public mistakes - largely fall into two main categories: Mistakes from incompetence or carelessness, and mistakes from over aggressiveness. If there is no distinction between the two, then you'll get the overly-cautious mindset. Chester Nimitz had a couple of (relatively minor) shiphandling incidents when he was commanding smaller warships. If those got him fired, we'd lose a great leader. Richard Bong nearly lost his wings for showing off in his P-38 before he ever got into combat. There needs to be some tolerance for aggressive, even arrogant confidence.

On the other hand, if it becomes clear that CYA caution results in termination, then it might be the best thing that has happened to the US Military since 1944.

[MulberryDraw]

Nope.

[rlmorel]

That stuck out at me as well:

Meritocracy, Not Ideology

Trump’s solidarity line -- “I have your backs 100%” -- is important for morale. However, his threat to fire generals risks undermining professionalism. Promotions, reliefs, and assignments must rest on performance in warfighting environments, not political litmus tests.

I did not like this one part. The two things, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE OF CONSERVATISM AND LEFTISM (AS EMBODIED IN DEI) are NOT mutually exclusive.

I did not appreciate that statement at all. If the litmus test is support for DEI, that means prima facie that you do NOT support competency.

In an otherwise good article, this is a blemish in my opinion.

[catnipman]

“Does anyone agree with that?”

nope ... it’s bullshit ... the USA military is the last institution in the USA that is [or at least now it is]: “Obey orders and perform, or you’ll be replaced with someone who will.” ...

[ridesthemiles]

PLENTY OF ROOM FOR THINNING THE RANKS