Ags4DaWin said:

---

If you can get them to retire that would be best. That way they are less likely to be brought back.

---

A new 3 and 4 star 11 month course at NTC to observe tactics as TDY might help some reach a conclusion. Or Fort Polk. Just spitballing here.

I refrained from such a comment only because I wasn't a marine, but similarly was astounded.

Start with the president at our school

Sometimes general officers are better in the military than they are politicians. Eisenhower was an exception

My impression from the outside looking in, was that Mathis was an excellent officer, not at all woke. Look at some of his public statements.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

Good, time to get rid of these political correctness Generals!

---

And colonels, and majors, heck even get rid of woke 1st and 2nd Lts.

agaberto said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

agaberto said:

---

No more woke generals

---

Mattis and Kelly were "woke"?

---

What else would you call generals that publicly say Trump is a fascist?

---

Insightful? /incoming gif

They were not in the Marine Corps when they made those comments, also well after their time under Trump. If you want to call it disloyal, inaccurate, etc...fine. WOKE isn't the right word.

jeremy said:

---

agaberto said:

---

No more woke generals

---

Who the hell is that at the bottom? As a Marine, I want to kick his ass. What kind of a salute is that?

Marines police their own. Maybe only enlisted do.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kelly

The Kraken said:

---

agaberto said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

agaberto said:

---

No more woke generals

---

Mattis and Kelly were "woke"?

---

What else would you call generals that publicly say Trump is a fascist?

---

Insightful? /incoming gif

They were not in the Marine Corps when they made those comments, also well after their time under Trump. If you want to call it disloyal, inaccurate, etc...fine. WOKE isn't the right word.

---

Agreed. The oath of office differs from the oath of enlistment for a reason, and if their understanding of their oath lead them to appear as disloyal, so be it. It's not an oath to the President, but an oath to the Constitution and to the office, which is why a "yes man" is the last person one wants in those roles.

Edit: for those unfamiliar with the difference in oaths, this might help:

https://www.quantico.marines.mil/News/News-Article-Display/Article/611510/the-difference-between-oath-of-office-oath-of-enlistment/

Quote:

---

Why are the two oaths different and what does it mean that officers do not swear obedience to the president or higher ranking officers? This concept traces back to the intentions of the Founding Fathers who created our governing system with a separation of powers and series of checks and balances between the three branches. This ensures no single branch or person gains too much power and becomes corrupted. By swearing allegiance to a set of ideals and laws, our military is not bound by the orders of a single person, but are dedicated to the defense of the people and their way of life. …

Officers, especially at higher ranks, have a unique position of authority and influence within the organization that could be taken advantage of for political gain. Swearing loyalty to the Constitution instead of the president or any other person means that officials cannot manipulate officers in order to gain control over the military and become dictators.

The intent is to ensure our military fights in defense of the people and their way of life instead of being misused for political gain.

---

Point Man 81 said:

---

Ag97 said:

---

I wish they would change the name on the bases back as well. Such stupidity to do it in the first place.

---

Fort Hood will always be Fort Hood to me.

---

Whenever someone asks where I was born, I have always been proud to say, "Fort Hood". I would hate to think that someday the reply to that would be, "Fort what, now?"

agaberto said:

---

No more woke generals

---

James Mattis and John Kelly we're not woke. They just didn't like Trump and so they wanted to undercut him.

Waiting to hear from a HS chum (retired Lt. General, AF Academy, Viet Nam vet) to see if he's been contacted. Retired around 2014...may be too far removed.

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

agaberto said:

---

No more woke generals

---

James Mattis and John Kelly we're not woke. They just didn't like Trump and so they wanted to undercut him.

---

IMHO...kind of the same thing. Join THE TEAM or hit the portal.

LOL, just saw some guy I used to know whining about "replacing leadership of those I don't like with ones I do...what could go wrong"

Cry more.