Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
Is the era of rounding up government or academic “experts” to declare their support or opposition to ongoing controversies over?
Public declarations by Anthony Fauci and his associates to follow their “expertise” or “science” did not work out well and persuaded few.
Recall the 1,200 partisan healthcare “professionals” of June 2020 who flipped to assure us that it was mysteriously now medically OK to break quarantines—but only if to publicly protest during the post-George Floyd unrest.
Do we remember the “70 arms control and nuclear experts?” In 2015, they were collected by Obama subordinates to convince America to embrace the flawed administration’s so-called Iran Deal.
In 2021, “Seventeen recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences” assured there would follow no inflation from the Biden administration’s massive borrowing and spending.
Hyperinflation followed.
Most recently, five former Secretaries of Defense—William Perry, Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel, James Mattis, and Lloyd Austin—co-authored a public letter to Congress. They blasted the Trump administration’s dismissals from command of several generals—including the current chairman of the joint chiefs, General C. Q. Brown Jr.
They argued that such firings were political and thus would weaken the military and depress recruitment. As a result, they demanded congressional investigations.
Oversight of anything in government is always welcomed. But there are a number of inconsistencies in the letter that unfortunately diminish the force of its argument.
First, firing generals is hardly new. Many presidents have relieved commanding officers—even wartime combat theater commanders—without much, if any, explanation.
Consider just one recent pre-Trump presidency—the tenure of Barack Obama. He fired Gen. David McKiernan as commander of all American troops in Afghanistan. And he did so without much explanation.
No president had dismissed such a wartime theater commander since President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1950.
Obama then fired his replacement Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Obama also dismissed, arguably quite unfairly, one of the signees of the current letter, Gen. James Mattis, from his directorship of U.S. Central Command—without any coherent or convincing explanation.
In all three cases, the Obama replacement generals did not display any record of improvement over their fired and often gifted predecessors.
Obama, for reasons both good and bad, also approved the firings of Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, an aircraft carrier group commander. The list of Obama’s dismissals goes on and on: Air Force Major Michael Carey, Vice Adm. Tim Giardina—and most controversially Army Gen. Michael Flynn who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014
Firing generals or appointees who do not agree with the visions or strategies or even the politics of the commander in chief is thus somewhat routine.
So, for example, is the political firing of appointees to non-partisan defense advisory boards. President Biden fired 18 such nonpartisan appointees to service academy boards—without explanation. President Obama, upon entering the White House, fired almost the entire board of the nonpartisan American Battle Monuments Commission without cause—and replaced them with ideologically akin appointees.
Second, as for worries about recruitment, one might counter that the recent curtailment of DEI ideological fixations is already beginning to restore previously anemic recruitment to near-record single-day sign-ups.
The Pentagon in the past was not always completely candid about either shortfalls in recruitment or the reasons for such reduced signups. Some would argue that it was near suicidal to drum out some 8,500 veteran officers and enlisted men for refusing the COVID-19 vaccinations, the vast majority of whom had acquired natural immunity from the virus. Now the military concedes they are sorely needed and is inviting them to reenlist.
Pentagon data that increasingly is calibrated in terms of race, gender, and sexual orientation, have also shown that in recent years, white males, who serve and die—asymmetrically to their demographics—in combat theaters, have shied away from the military, and disproportionally account for general recruitment shortfalls.
One likely explanation is that they apparently felt that inordinate political Pentagon DEI emphases and public congressional commentary from Pentagon brass about supposed endemic “white privilege” or purported racist cabals were aimed at them. In 2021, Secretary of Defense Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Milley seemed to weigh in before Congress on highly political and polarizing matters of critical race theory—even connecting the January 6 demonstrations to supposed “whiteness”, opining on “white rage,” and recommending the controversial racialist works of Ibram X. Kendi.
Politics in the Pentagon predated the current Trump administration.
Third, the Pentagon over the last four years does need a shake-up, given the humiliation in Afghanistan, the greatest disaster in a half-century since the 1975 flight from the embassy roof in Saigon. Confusion reigned over the Chinese military and likely spy balloon that nearly traversed the continental U.S. with impunity. The U.S. failed to respond promptly and disproportionally to several Iranian-connected terrorist attacks on U.S. military installations in Iran, Jordan, and Syria. And the Houthis brazenly disrupted Red Sea international maritime traffic with near exemption for months.
Because of the Biden administration’s poor decisions, the U.S. military seemed to have lost much of its previous deterrence in key international waterways such as the Red Sea, the South China Sea, and the Straits of Hormuz.
Recruitment until recently was stagnant. Stockpiles of key munitions were dangerously low. And the U.S. had not found any strategic resolution after interventions in Afghanistan, Syria, or Libya.
Moreover, since the beginning of outside military audits in 2017, the Pentagon had flunked all three in succession.
Fourth, over the last decade there have been flurries of all sorts of professionals’ letters—from military, economic, and political “experts” decrying the particular policies of the administration in power. Most do not resonate since many of their criticisms would be equally applicable to other administrations of the opposite party and thus fairly or not, are deemed political.
In the past, several retired generals have weighed in contrary to the uniform code of military justice, by blasting their commander-in-chief as a Mussolini-like character, a liar, comparable to the architect of the Birkenau death camp at Auschwitz, and indeed in need of removal “the sooner the better.”
The recent past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley, contrary to the law, inserted himself into the chain of command. He quite improperly contacted his Chinese military counterpart to warn him about a supposedly dangerously erratic President Trump. And in recent retirement, he claimed the ex-president—and now current president—was a “fascist to the core” and “the most dangerous man to the country.” That seems a fairly politicized thing to do.
Fifth, some of the signees themselves have come under bipartisan criticism. Former secretary of State Leon Panetta was one of the 51 signees in October 2020 who falsely claimed the Hunter Biden laptop had all the “hallmarks” of a Russian influencing campaign.
It had none.
We know that because the laptop at the time was in the possession of the FBI, which had already internally authenticated its contents. Panetta has since refused to apologize for what might be legitimately called a “disinformation” letter.
Remember, the partisan letter was solicited by Biden campaign advisor Antony Blinken, soon-to-be-secretary of state, to arm candidate Biden in the upcoming and last debate of 2020 with some sort of defense against the incriminating contents of the laptop.
It was promoted by clearly partisan former interim CIA Director Michael Morrell and retired military partisans such as Gens. James Clapper and Michael Hayden as well as former CIA Director John Brennan.
Because the letter was timed to the final 2020 debate in the last weeks of the election, and because it was known at the time to be patently false, but passed off by Biden as authenticated by “authorities”, it may well have played a pivotal role in determining the outcome.
Other signees themselves were relieved as defense secretaries by presidents of both parties, whether fairly or not—including Chuck Hagel and Jim Mattis. Signee Lloyd Austin weathered calls for his resignation when for several days he was veritably AWOL, undergoing a serious medical procedure, without informing his superior, the Command-in-Chief.
The point is not to criticize the critics, but rather to bring some humility into the conversation that the firings of defense secretaries, high-ranking military officers, and appointees to military advisory boards predated Donald Trump, as did the politicalization of the military.
The current secretary of defense Pete Hegseth believes he is depoliticizing a previously unduly politicized military, not further weaponizing it.
Whether that proves an accurate diagnosis can be adjudicated in the upcoming months by a number of barometers:
Will the Pentagon for the first time in recent years soon pass an outside audit?
Will current restorative surges in recruitment be sustained and more than meet formerly unmet targeted enlistments?
Will currently envisioned defense cuts target the unnecessary programs that hamper battle efficacy or instead harm operational ability?
Will lost deterrence return to the U.S?
Will there be more or fewer theater-wide wars, such as those in Ukraine and the Middle East?
Will the Pentagon procurement pivot from traditional military systems and platforms, following lessons in the Middle East and Ukraine, in order to emphasize drones, and cheaper and more numerous munitions?
And lastly and most importantly, will the generals who replaced those fired prove more adroit in defending U.S. interests and less political—or less so?
The realities that follow from these firings, not necessarily the firings themselves, or the anger at them, will answer those questions.
Accurately on target as usual Professor Hanson. The ignorance of the recently self identified experts at all levels about presidential perogative in hiring and firing both political and military personnel reflects the same covid “expertise” we’ve all come to know and love. Some distinctions however must be made when actual National Security Crimes have been committed such as Gen. Milley’s exchanges with ChiCom counterparts working around his CHOC-Chain of Command or the abhorrent Kabul withdrawal chaos and deaths. Justice delayed is justice denied. As an Honorably Discharged Navy Veteran who received a Non Punative Lettter of Reprimand when a prior commanding officer’s unauthorized shipalt was discovered on my tour, the vagaries of military are as common as Murphy is in any operation. The numerous case examples requiring prosecution from Obama through Biden need accountability.
I laughed when General Milley said that it was important for military forces to be trained in DEI and Woke information. They would be a more “cohesive” fighting force. Since when do recruits get to choose to “get along” and accept their comrades? Back in the 60’s during the draft error, recruits were put together with men from all over the country and all different social classes. They were ordered, not asked, to think of themselves as one group of fighting machines. And during Viet Nam, they knew their lives might depend on the men they trained with. Pronouns weren’t important. I know this because they were my husband, brothers, cousins and friends.
Great comment Jim!
The federal government has a long history of incompetence. Many government officials need to go back to school
During my 22 year Army career and 28 year federal career, I often looked for these supposed “experts” employed by the federal government. Never found one. So I spent a considerable amount of my personal time and expense trying to become an expert in several disciplines. The result was that I merely intimidated the alleged experts and I was shunned at some meetings for advising other senior officials to “do the right thing” for the US taxpayer.
The great majority of federal employees, especially those in technical fields, have no requirement to keep up with technological developments or their certifications. So they hire contractors to do the work for which they take credit. For example, why is every federal agency’s IT department run by contractors from the low to middle management levels?
The world has gone wireless, but the federal government employs only a few actual radio frequency (RF) engineers. Our colleges and universities don’t offer many technical wireless courses, so the requisite knowledge is generally obtained after many years on the job at a commercial facility. Even a ham radio operator at the lowest licensing level knows more about RF than the average federal electrical engineer employed to work on RF issues. This is a recipe for disaster for making significant decisions about RF issues.
I could go on and on but I don’t want to bore you
My take on that is that the SeaBees are still very great. In this instance they were all but set up to fail by the very insanity of their assigned task.
The Brass Upstairs took a poorly designed and thought out concept and foisted it upon the poor saps. As soon as I realised just where it was to be deployed I guessed, now proven rightly, that it would become a debacle of some high order.
I’m no engineer but I have spent considerable time around and on the water, and have studied beach and nearshore processes. Doomed from the start.
Some generals have decided it is ok to discriminate in order to end discrimination with more likely chances for promotion or get a better job. It is not ok
Thank you for your sober and thoughtful analysis. The wisdom of VDH serves as a compass for the waters of this “brave new world” in which we find ourselves sailing.
AMEN
Fortunately, Trump or those very close to him do pay attention to VDH. It is hopeful to see as I’ve noticed ideas and reasoned advice Professor Hanson writes about or says on his Pod casts, Fox News and here show up in approaches Trump and his teams are taking.
If you tell a TRUTH often enough will it reach the masses? Apparently not as VDH has these oft repeated truths in columns, podcasts, interviews and Daily Wire spots yet we only see the same faithful respondents. What will it take to get the wisdom of professor Hanson heard. Hoover, Hillsdale and guest lectures around the world and still??
In reality, the words and wisdom of VDH are being heard by more and more and he has made an enormous growth of listeners. I believe it is highly likely that Victor’s books and columns were vital in the re-election of DJT and “Apparently not” has become Eventually! It is incumbent upon us diehard followers of VDH’s wisdom to spread it whenever possible.
We have helped make a difference.
I personally regard the firings of US military personnel for refusing the COVID vaccination to have been used as a proxy for politics. Those who would refuse the vaccine are much more likely to be conservative and therefore people that Biden* Admin would want to be rid of. They have self-idenitfied as undesirables to the Biden* Admin.
[W.F. Buckley]
One must resist the temptation to act surprised when those who spent years politicizing the military suddenly decry its supposed politicization. This is the rhetorical sleight of hand so often employed by those who, having rewritten the rules of engagement, now wish to feign shock when their own methods are applied against them.
The Pentagon, long a bulwark of military competence, has in recent years suffered an unfortunate transmutation—less a war-fighting institution, more a laboratory for social experimentation. It is therefore unsurprising that those who facilitated this decline now object when corrective measures are undertaken.
If one must choose between generals more concerned with “white rage” than winning wars and those committed to military efficacy, one should not hesitate. There is little consolation in being politically enlightened while geopolitically diminished. The true test, as VDH rightly notes, will not be in the names of the dismissed but in the outcomes of their replacements. If deterrence is restored and recruitment revitalized, history will confirm the necessity of their departure.
You ever notice how every time a new president comes in, people act like he’s the first one to ever fire a general? Like it’s some great scandal? I mean, come on. Firing military leaders has been routine since, oh, about the time George Washington told Benedict Arnold to take a hike. But now, because Trump’s doing it, we’re supposed to clutch our pearls and faint?
And these so-called “experts” keep trotting out letters—letters signed by Nobel winners, ex-defense secretaries, or retired generals—telling us what we should think. Funny how those letters always seem to support whatever the last guy did and oppose the new guy. Makes you wonder if they care more about their old jobs than about national security.
Take the Pentagon. They couldn’t pass an audit, they lost a war in Afghanistan, and now they’re scratching their heads wondering why recruitment tanked after they kicked out thousands of troops over vaccine mandates. And now that Trump’s undoing the mess, suddenly that’s “politicizing” the military? I’d say the politicization happened when generals started talking about “white rage” instead of winning wars.
If firing ineffective leaders, cutting bureaucratic waste, and refocusing on actual combat readiness is controversial, maybe the real controversy is how bad things got in the first place.
At least we can ask those questions and hope for the best (the previous realities were heinous and horrific).
And let’s not forget the floating pier disaster in Gaza. The SeaBees used to be the best.
Dear Sir
Your writings of history, teach humility of thought thus beliefs.
Leaving better understanding of truly what is happening.
Our eyes truly widen to the fools and their actions and beliefs.
Intellectual humility.
Thank you so much Sir.
Mr. Hanson,
Thank you once again for a perfect analysis using historical facts and current events. I learn so much with each and every article I read or video I watch. I am a more informed citizen because of you.
William, I agree 100% with your suggestion.
The Biden/Obama management of the military represents 2 fundamental realities. #1 it is an enormous amount of money, what politician wouldn’t be tempted. Nothing evil or nefarious here. #2 and this is the evil/ nefarious part. Biden & Obama both knew that at some point their vision of fundamentally changing America was going to require the US military to at minimum do nothing in the face of mounting backlash from citizens who felt they were being trampled. . Transforming the military away from the bastion of “white Christian supremacy” they perceived it to be and into the DEI, 50+ gender, 1619 embracing bunch of progressives who basically were in favour of the fundamental transformation was always Obama/ Biden’s end game. When the rubber hit the road & push came to shove Obama/Biden wanted a military they could count on for support. If this sounds conspiratorial I am very open to other explanations.
Would that the current administration in, and out of, D.C. read with great attention Dr. Hanson’s writings and conclusion. We as a nation would be well served to do so. Thank you once again, Dr. Hanson.
As always well done.
Opinions without facts and context of place and time have a little value.
Hanson, writings do not suffer from such weakness.