Trump's defense shakeup: Purging woke generals and reshaping power

One of the unwritten rules that governed the relations between politicians and the military was mutual respect, regardless of political views. The military was apolitical, regardless of who occupied the White House. Donald Trump's administration plans to depart from this principle, a move his team has been signaling for several months.

Trump himself promised during the election campaign to cleanse the military of the so-called "woke generals." These are individuals who, despite being appointed to positions during his presidency, adhered to the new administration's directives on implementing equality in the army, such as allowing gay service members.

The first casualty of this purge was General Mark Milley. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was a member of the National Infrastructure Advisory Council until Tuesday. Appointed as Chairman by Trump, Milley later blocked several radical changes the Republican administration sought to implement, upsetting the president.

Among other things, Milley opposed the method of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, as discussed during a Senate committee hearing. During the storming of the Capitol, he sent the National Guard to protect key institutions and, with other chiefs of staff, issued a statement condemning Trump's actions, reminding all service members of their duty to support and defend the Constitution and reject extremism.

A year later, Trump suggested that Milley should face the death penalty for conducting secret talks with China. This conversation, intended to calm tense relations between the countries, was conducted during Trump's first presidency with the consent and knowledge of then-Secretary of Defense Christopher C. Miller.

Just after the presidential election results were announced, a list of 20 colonels, generals, and admirals emerged, all of whom expressed support for diversity and inclusion initiatives within the military. Among them was Admiral Lisa Franchetti, Chief of Naval Operations. She not only jeopardized her position by supporting the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the armed forces but also simply because she is a woman.

When the Senate voted on her nomination, Republicans acknowledged her knowledge and experience on the one hand, while on the other, they claimed, "President Biden nominated Adm. Franchetti not because she is qualified or competent to do the job but because of this administration’s obsession with diversity and inclusion," as stated by Senator Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas, who voted against her nomination.

At the same time, Senator Tommy Tuberville, a Republican from Alabama, was blocking over 400 military nominations in the Senate in protest against the Department of Defense's policy on abortion. Even their party colleagues, like Senator Dan Sullivan from Alaska and Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa, urged them to stand down to avoid creating chaos within the armed forces' operations.

Those nominated at that time now face the most significant threat of dismissal. The Republican list includes Gen. David Allvin, the Air Force's chief of staff, and Lt. Gen. Christopher Mahoney, the Marine Corps's deputy commander.

Republican Dan Sullivan is a Marine Corps Reserve Colonel and an Afghanistan veteran. He previously emphasized that his most crucial consideration is the system's efficient operation, which his party colleagues are obstructing. However, he now supports Pete Hegseth's selection as head of the Pentagon. Before the elections, Hegseth had already announced that he would fire "every general who carried water for Obama and Biden."

It's not about competencies or the officer's nomination source. The key factor for dismissing service members will be their views. The Trump team considers any officer as a traitor who supported gay and lesbian service or who advocates for abortion, IVF, or diversity in the military. American commentators note that such actions might dismantle the complex officer nomination system developed over the years.

Appointments to the highest positions in the U.S. military are a long and complex process that spans many years, regardless of who is in power. Before an officer is nominated, the Pentagon gathers opinions from other commanders and then presents several candidates to the president, who chooses one to present to the Senate for approval.

Dismissing an officer is much easier. It is one of the president's prerogatives and does not require the consent of the Senate or the Pentagon. However, dismissing most top officers and trying to appoint replacements aligned with a political party may cause paralysis. Democratic senators, as well as less radical Republicans like Lisa Murkowski, may block political appointments, just as Tuberville and Marshall did.

This situation may hinder not only the operation of the U.S. military but also impede international cooperation.