I Resigned From The Military Because Of Trump

Dr. Phosphorous said:
In a Washington Post Op-Ed today, Col Doug Krugman explains why he recently retired from the Marine Corps after 24 years.

Pardoning of the Jan 6 defendants had a lot to do with it. --

On Sept. 30, at an unprecedented gathering of senior military leadership, President Donald Trump said, “If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room — of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future.” I wasn’t invited to be in the room that day, and I had decided months earlier that I had to leave. By coincidence, Sept. 30 was my last day as a colonel in the United States Marine Corps. I gave up my career out of concern for our country’s future.

United States military officers take an oath to defend the Constitution without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. I swore or repeated that oath under five presidents, starting with former president Bill Clinton. I risked my life for it, serving as an infantry officer in two wars. I watched Marines die for it.

No commander in chief is perfect. President Clinton’s moral failures are well known. President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq might be one of the worst errors in U.S. history. All recent presidents share responsibility for our failure in Afghanistan. I continued to serve despite all that because I believed the Constitution brought the country more success than failure, and I believed our presidents took their oaths to it seriously.

With President Trump, I no longer believe that. During his first term, his actions became increasingly difficult for me to justify, culminating with the Jan. 6 attack on Congress as it tried to execute its duties. I hoped he had learned from those errors, but it only took a few days of his second term for me to realize he had not. I could not swear without reservation to follow a commander in chief who seemed so willing to disregard the Constitution.

My departure was not about policy disagreements, which exist in every administration. President Trump won in 2024 and has the right to implement his policies within the law.

My first reservations were about promises and actions that I thought were morally wrong even if they were possibly legal. The Constitution gives the president the power to pardon, but pardoning roughly 1,600 of those who tried to violently overthrow the results of an election didn’t help defend the Constitution. Likewise, I didn’t see it as moral to deny refuge to Afghans who risked their lives to support us, which he did on Jan. 22. Ignoring reality to take advantage of vague laws to assume emergency powers is also immoral. For those who believe in honoring their word, breaking promises our country has made — including some trade agreements President Trump made himself — is not moral. These are not the kinds of actions that I’m willing to risk my life to defend.

Worse than immorality, however, has been President Trump’s willingness to disregard the law and Constitution to achieve his goals. When asked in May about the Fifth Amendment requirements for due process and if he needed to uphold the Constitution as president, the first words out of his mouth were “I don’t know.”

This month, National Guard officers received orders from the defense secretary that their governors opposed. A federal judge intervened, citing the lack of apparent emergency and the 10th Amendment. Those commanders and units were stuck between competing orders with no clear answer. When the president’s orders push or cross legal limits and put commanders in these situations, cohesion within our military is at risk.

President Trump’s description of Portland as a “war zone” is as fantastical as his belief that the June protests in a few blocks of Los Angeles would somehow “obliterate” the massive city of nearly 4 million. In both cases, his words had little connection to reality. Every dubious basis he gives for an order creates more room for doubt, more room for reservations and more threats to our unity.
Click to expand...
Mac1958 said:
There have been many stories from people who have worked in government, including several from people who worked directly for Trump, who faced a terribly difficult decision -- Do I resign because I cannot be a part of this, or is it better that I stay so that my replacement doesn't enable it further?

I imagine that very question was being asked in Europe around 90 years ago.
Click to expand...
Yeah... They're everywhere...

1000005757.webp

1000005758.webp
 
todd down under said:
From the beginning of your OP:

"By coincidence, Sept. 30 was my last day as a colonel in the United States Marine Corps."

So he had 24 years and was retiring anyway.
Click to expand...
He didn't have to, dummy. He probably made that decision a few months ago when he saw what a disaster Trump's second term was going to be.

In fact, he explained that in his Op-Ed, dipshit.
 
Dr. Phosphorous said:
In a Washington Post Op-Ed today, Col Doug Krugman explains why he recently retired from the Marine Corps after 24 years.

Pardoning of the Jan 6 defendants had a lot to do with it. --

On Sept. 30, at an unprecedented gathering of senior military leadership, President Donald Trump said, “If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room — of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future.” I wasn’t invited to be in the room that day, and I had decided months earlier that I had to leave. By coincidence, Sept. 30 was my last day as a colonel in the United States Marine Corps. I gave up my career out of concern for our country’s future.

United States military officers take an oath to defend the Constitution without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. I swore or repeated that oath under five presidents, starting with former president Bill Clinton. I risked my life for it, serving as an infantry officer in two wars. I watched Marines die for it.

No commander in chief is perfect. President Clinton’s moral failures are well known. President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq might be one of the worst errors in U.S. history. All recent presidents share responsibility for our failure in Afghanistan. I continued to serve despite all that because I believed the Constitution brought the country more success than failure, and I believed our presidents took their oaths to it seriously.

With President Trump, I no longer believe that. During his first term, his actions became increasingly difficult for me to justify, culminating with the Jan. 6 attack on Congress as it tried to execute its duties. I hoped he had learned from those errors, but it only took a few days of his second term for me to realize he had not. I could not swear without reservation to follow a commander in chief who seemed so willing to disregard the Constitution.

My departure was not about policy disagreements, which exist in every administration. President Trump won in 2024 and has the right to implement his policies within the law.

My first reservations were about promises and actions that I thought were morally wrong even if they were possibly legal. The Constitution gives the president the power to pardon, but pardoning roughly 1,600 of those who tried to violently overthrow the results of an election didn’t help defend the Constitution. Likewise, I didn’t see it as moral to deny refuge to Afghans who risked their lives to support us, which he did on Jan. 22. Ignoring reality to take advantage of vague laws to assume emergency powers is also immoral. For those who believe in honoring their word, breaking promises our country has made — including some trade agreements President Trump made himself — is not moral. These are not the kinds of actions that I’m willing to risk my life to defend.

Worse than immorality, however, has been President Trump’s willingness to disregard the law and Constitution to achieve his goals. When asked in May about the Fifth Amendment requirements for due process and if he needed to uphold the Constitution as president, the first words out of his mouth were “I don’t know.”

This month, National Guard officers received orders from the defense secretary that their governors opposed. A federal judge intervened, citing the lack of apparent emergency and the 10th Amendment. Those commanders and units were stuck between competing orders with no clear answer. When the president’s orders push or cross legal limits and put commanders in these situations, cohesion within our military is at risk.

President Trump’s description of Portland as a “war zone” is as fantastical as his belief that the June protests in a few blocks of Los Angeles would somehow “obliterate” the massive city of nearly 4 million. In both cases, his words had little connection to reality. Every dubious basis he gives for an order creates more room for doubt, more room for reservations and more threats to our unity.
Click to expand...
who cares, he’s obviously one of the weeds that needed uprooted.
 
Welcome to the new version of Pentagon, the King Trump's Pentagon! lol. :)

Retribution.webp


👉 Since Donald Trump’s second inauguration in January 2025, more than a dozen senior generals and military officials have either resigned or been dismissed from the Pentagon, marking one of the largest turnover waves in modern U.S. defense history. Analysts, lawmakers, and internal sources widely describe the exodus as a politically motivated purge driven by alignment tests and retribution against perceived critics.

Scale of Resignations and Dismissals

In February 2025 alone, six senior officers—including Air Force General C.Q. Brown Jr. (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), Admiral Lisa Franchetti (Chief of Naval Operations), and General James Slife (Air Force Vice Chief of Staff)—were fired in a single “unprecedented” move. thehill+1

Over subsequent months, additional dismissals and forced retirements affected leaders such as Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse (Defense Intelligence Agency), Adm. Linda Fagan (Coast Guard Commandant), Vice Adm. Nancy Lacore, and several others across the services. axios

Pete Hegseth also directed a 20% reduction in four-star generals and 10% more among all general officers, cutting entire headquarters staffs and merging commands. pbs+1

Resignations cascaded through Pentagon tech and innovation divisions: Doug Beck of the Defense Innovation Unit quit in August, citing “political clashes,” while nearly all members of the Defense Digital Service resigned in protest earlier in the year. reuters+1

Reasons and Motivations

The firings and resignations align with the Trump-Hegseth campaign to expunge what they call “woke ideology” and reassert loyalty-based leadership. Hegseth, a close Trump ally, has openly prioritized “warrior culture” over diversity or inclusion programs. reuters+1

Several dismissals followed legal or ethical pushbacks against administration actions, such as the use of military lawyers (Judge Advocates General) who advised against controversial domestic deployments or questioned legality of certain orders.

Independent Senator Mark Warner and other lawmakers describe the pattern as transforming the Pentagon into a “loyalty test” environment rather than a meritocratic command. axios

Retribution and Political Overtones

Trump’s second term has explicitly included retributive measures against critics within the military, including actions viewed as punitive toward figures like General Mark Milley, whose security detail was stripped early in 2025 as part of what insiders labeled “revenge”. nytimes

Multiple current and former defense officials describe an atmosphere of fear, where senior officers avoid expressing dissent to safeguard their careers. politico

In total, over a dozen top generals and admirals have been purged or resigned directly since January 2025, with many more mid-level officers quietly quitting or retiring early. The common thread across these events is a consolidation of Pentagon leadership under figures personally loyal to Trump and Hegseth, fulfilling what critics call the administration’s long-promised “retribution” agenda against the U.S. defense establishment. thehill+2

sources:

1. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pe...signs-latest-shake-up-sources-say-2025-08-25/
2. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5163818-trump-pentagon-officials-firings/
3. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/15/pentagons-digital-resignations-00290930
4. Hegseth directs active duty military to cut 20% of its four-star general officers
5. https://www.axios.com/2025/08/27/beck-kruse-pentagon-hegseth-fired
6. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pe...s-around-world-virginia-next-week-2025-09-25/
7. Pentagon approves 55,000 deferred resignations as workforce reduction pursuits continue to evolve
8. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/29/us/politics/mark-milley-security-trump.html
9. Pentagon sidelines military JAG lawyers ahead of deployments to US cities
10. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/09/hegseth-culture-of-fear-navy-firing-00598159

👉 The Pentagon under Trump’s second term (2025–) is undergoing the most dramatic ideological and structural transformation in decades. Whether it becomes “better” or “worse” depends entirely on perspective—militarily, bureaucratically, and constitutionally—but the trajectory overwhelmingly points to a more politicized, centralized, and repressive defense apparatus rather than a more effective or transparent one. defensescoop+2

Militarization and Command Overhaul

Pete Hegseth has consolidated control by removing or forcing early retirement for dozens of generals and admirals, including the previous Joint Chiefs of Staff, several combatant commanders, and agency heads. He insists “personnel is policy,” replacing career officers with loyalists aligned with Trump’s nationalist and culture-war agenda. This reorientation favors ideological conformity over institutional independence, sharply reducing the Pentagon’s internal dissent and civilian oversight. defensescoop

Structural and Policy Changes

Hegseth is instituting sweeping internal reforms that abolish or dilute inspector general oversight, diversity programs, and equal opportunity offices. Physical and social standards are reverting to pre-2010 models—“highest male standards” for combat roles, grooming bans, and relaxed anti-harassment reviews—framed as restoring “warrior culture”. He has also ordered rank reductions, cutting four-star posts and downgrading roles like the Air Forces Europe commander from four to three stars to “streamline command layers”. washingtontimes+2

Political and Civilian Implications

Tump has rebranded the Defense Department as the “Department of War” and expanded domestic troop deployments for law-enforcement-like “training operations” in U.S. cities. Critics, including bipartisan members of Congress, warn that these moves erode civilian control norms and blur the line between military readiness and political loyalty. The administration now exerts greater control over military messaging, culminating in an October 2025 mass walkout of Pentagon reporters after Hegseth mandated pre-approval for even unclassified reporting—a historic blow to press freedom and transparency. politico+3

Future Outlook

If current trends persist, the Pentagon will likely become more closed, hierarchical, and ideologically aligned with Trump’s political goals, which could yield short-term cohesion but at the cost of professionalism, diversity, and strategic flexibility.

Optimists argue this may produce a leaner, more combat-ready military with restored discipline. However, military analysts and allied observers widely forecast long-term harm to readiness, morale, and U.S. credibility abroad due to suppressed dissent, rapid turnover, and politicized policymaking. meta-defense+2

In sum: the future Pentagon under Trump 2.0 is more authoritarian and less transparent, prioritizing loyalty and ideological conformity over independence and pluralism. Militarily, it may grow more centralized and efficient in command—but strategically and democratically, it risks becoming far weaker. sofrep+2

sources:

1. Hegseth indicates more personnel changes, acquisition reforms lie ahead at DOD
2. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pe...s-around-world-virginia-next-week-2025-09-25/
3. [ANALYSIS] Is Trump taking over the Pentagon? Flash replacements of US military leaders since January 2025
4. Hegseth announces, without explanation, that Southcom commander Adm. Holsey is retiring
5. Defense secretary announces new Pentagon policy changes, tells disagreeing officials to resign
6. Pentagon downgrades leadership role for Air Forces-Europe to 3-star
7. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/...ls-department-of-war-anger-confusion-00548367
8. Morning Brief: Reporters Walk Out of Pentagon Over New Restrictions, Israel Receives Two More Hostage Bodies
9. Journalists turn in access badges, exit Pentagon rather than agree to new reporting rules
10. Journalists Turn In Badges, Exit Pentagon Rather Than Agree To New Rules
 
15th post
Dr. Phosphorous said:
In a Washington Post Op-Ed today, Col Doug Krugman explains why he recently retired from the Marine Corps after 24 years.

Pardoning of the Jan 6 defendants had a lot to do with it. --

On Sept. 30, at an unprecedented gathering of senior military leadership, President Donald Trump said, “If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room — of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future.” I wasn’t invited to be in the room that day, and I had decided months earlier that I had to leave. By coincidence, Sept. 30 was my last day as a colonel in the United States Marine Corps. I gave up my career out of concern for our country’s future.

United States military officers take an oath to defend the Constitution without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. I swore or repeated that oath under five presidents, starting with former president Bill Clinton. I risked my life for it, serving as an infantry officer in two wars. I watched Marines die for it.

No commander in chief is perfect. President Clinton’s moral failures are well known. President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq might be one of the worst errors in U.S. history. All recent presidents share responsibility for our failure in Afghanistan. I continued to serve despite all that because I believed the Constitution brought the country more success than failure, and I believed our presidents took their oaths to it seriously.

With President Trump, I no longer believe that. During his first term, his actions became increasingly difficult for me to justify, culminating with the Jan. 6 attack on Congress as it tried to execute its duties. I hoped he had learned from those errors, but it only took a few days of his second term for me to realize he had not. I could not swear without reservation to follow a commander in chief who seemed so willing to disregard the Constitution.

My departure was not about policy disagreements, which exist in every administration. President Trump won in 2024 and has the right to implement his policies within the law.

My first reservations were about promises and actions that I thought were morally wrong even if they were possibly legal. The Constitution gives the president the power to pardon, but pardoning roughly 1,600 of those who tried to violently overthrow the results of an election didn’t help defend the Constitution. Likewise, I didn’t see it as moral to deny refuge to Afghans who risked their lives to support us, which he did on Jan. 22. Ignoring reality to take advantage of vague laws to assume emergency powers is also immoral. For those who believe in honoring their word, breaking promises our country has made — including some trade agreements President Trump made himself — is not moral. These are not the kinds of actions that I’m willing to risk my life to defend.

Worse than immorality, however, has been President Trump’s willingness to disregard the law and Constitution to achieve his goals. When asked in May about the Fifth Amendment requirements for due process and if he needed to uphold the Constitution as president, the first words out of his mouth were “I don’t know.”

This month, National Guard officers received orders from the defense secretary that their governors opposed. A federal judge intervened, citing the lack of apparent emergency and the 10th Amendment. Those commanders and units were stuck between competing orders with no clear answer. When the president’s orders push or cross legal limits and put commanders in these situations, cohesion within our military is at risk.

President Trump’s description of Portland as a “war zone” is as fantastical as his belief that the June protests in a few blocks of Los Angeles would somehow “obliterate” the massive city of nearly 4 million. In both cases, his words had little connection to reality. Every dubious basis he gives for an order creates more room for doubt, more room for reservations and more threats to our unity.
Click to expand...



and America is safer by this type of "addition by subtraction," because we don't need drag queens using the women's restroom in the military...
 
EMH said:
and America is safer by this type of "addition by subtraction," because we don't need drag queens using the women's restroom in the military...
Click to expand...
Says a ******* MAGA imbecile...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Over 1 Billion Dollars spent on Medicaid for Illegal Aliens in Just Six States Last Year.

< Previous Thread

Conservatives Are Under Attack!

Next Thread >

Similar threads

berg80
Is this the next move on the path to autocracy?
2
Replies
35
Views
309
BackAgain
BackAgain
Astrostar
The Mad Emperor!
Replies
5
Views
118
22lcidw
2
Doc7505
Democrats Erupt Over Trump’s Iran Strikes
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
1K
Cellblock2429
Cellblock2429
Mack The Finger
Trump Was No Draft-Dodger, and Here's the Timeline That Proves It
Replies
13
Views
145
dudmuck
dudmuck
berg80
The truth once again proves stranger than fiction.
Replies
1
Views
79
luiza
L

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom