Imagine a scene in which the military forces surround the official residence of the head of state of their country, not to protect the legitimate rule, but to point firearms and overthrow it. This scene took place countless times in human history and always occurs through the places that we tend to consider as part of the 3rd world. In such places, generals – dragged with power – consider themselves leaders rather than servants.
Unfortunately, you no longer need to look abroad to find this kind of spirit that hides among some who carry the military uniform of their nation. You can find it here in the United States.
There has been a disturbing trend in recent years in which US military officers have started to feel safe to work to overthrow the civil chain, and even call its reversal publicly with impunity. Some retired generals have embarked enough to use their old ranks to involve the military contempt of the chain of command, especially when they are under republican direction in the White House. It is a dangerous freedom for them to take with the institutional credibility that their official status transmits. In doing so, these flag officers are trying to fight against control of the expressed will of voters and to transfer it to an elitist military caste.
This problem again broke the surface last week when the Major of the US retired army, General, Pat Donahoe, published a comment from the New York Times and repeated the title: “We believe that the army would resist Trump. We were wrong. ” This piece – and his approval from the general from his personal military brand account – is close to a theme of the arguments returning to the first administration of Trump, who called for the use of the military force against the president.
This line of thought went to the former president of the heads of joint staff, General Mark Many, when he was still very active service. Although such behavior can shock many Americans, it has been exposed for years now in public forums for those who knew where to look for. He arrived in my opinion in 2018.
I have long warned against the fact of deepening leftist supporters infiltrating the American soldiers, a trend that echoes the disturbing historical previous. The communist revolutionaries who overthrew the Russian monarchy for totalitarian oligarchs in 1917 had to win for the first time on the army. Before Hitler triggered terror across Europe, he had to replace military professionalism with allegiance to a party. The same rings are true for the Communist Revolution in China, which has transformed an American ally into one of the most repressive regimes in the world.
In each case, military officials abandoned their responsibility to protect and keep their nations and have become accomplices to overthrow them. Military officials who point out the desire for a similar change in our time demonstrate that their status gives them the right to supremacy, rather than a service to their fellow citizens. It is a warning that Americans must take seriously.
The retired major-general Donahoe is one of the highest associated military personalities with what was an online confederation of leftist soldiers, known as #Miltwitter. As Twitter has gained popularity, a mainly quality group of military agents has adopted it as a way to share knowledge and build a new type of online professional development community. The idea seemed good to the surface.
But in the ancient times of Twitter, the platform prioritized the views of the left and progressive. Users affiliated to the military quickly learned that the way of increasing opinions and developing large online follow -ups was to break with the tradition of Huntingtonian military professionalism in favor of the creation of content which was often abrasive, shamelessly progressive and sometimes vulgar. Some of them, like @ladylovestoft, @CallSignbarbArbie, @Cpt_blondie, @ppttsapper, @v_kositz, @ndkirschmann, @lethalityjane, @jimgolby, @easydeepblue, @broadcastmike – among others – A collected tens of thousands. It was not unusual to find some speaking with contempt of President Trump during his first mandate without consequences, in violation of the uniform code of article 88 of military justice.
Several have since locked or deleted their accounts. Some of them, including the American generation of the army. Xavier Brunsonannounced moves to the Bluesky social platform openly on the left once Twitter has become X, with a modified algorithm which brought the ideological playground closer. But at the apogee of # Miltwitter, these personalities found the wearing of any security among a handful of senior army officials who frequently engaged and therefore accounts affiliated to the military who adopted a vision of the left world.
These include General Robert Abrams, Lieutenant-General Ted Martin, Major-General Pat Donahoe, Major-General Tammy Smith and the Army Sergeant Michael Grinston, among others. The appearance of the approval of these senior officials provided institutional coverage for an increasing ideological fervor in the ranks, aligned with progressive purposes.
At the end of 2019, this movement had obtained legitimacy to the point of obtaining a panel at the annual conference of the United States Army Association in Washington, DC, entitled Risky Business – Ledership in the information era, followed by an official comment written by three general officers.
The mantra was that military leaders should all connect because “this is where your soldiers are”. Unfortunately, this has caused a lot of things in the importation of left -wing ideologies into the ranks according to the erroneous belief that Twitter reflected the majority vision of the military. Things reached a head in 2021 when Donahoe chose an online fight with the veteran sailor and the doctoral student of Hillsdale College Josiah Lippincott and Tucker Carlson. The repercussions prompted the secretary of the army of President Biden, Christine Wormuth, to weigh and finally forced the retirement of Donahoe. A comment organized at the Washington Post defending the general for – while his allies supervised him – “calling Magi Lies”.
This had no effect, especially since the army entered the worst recruitment crisis since the strength of all the volunteers in the 1973. The senior army officials finally finished looking in the other direction while the group of military online personalities contributed to alienating the conservative Americans of an institution that needed their youth to join. The #Miltwitter tide was washed faster than she was washing.
It is important to note that as a private citizen, Donahoe is entitled to the protection of the first amendment and is free to express his point of view, even those that I consider imprudent. However, the retired general has retained the brand of the army in his profile X and an self -proclaimed profile of high public visibility. The context of his previous online activity in uniform, and his recent article that the military should “protect” the Americans of the president whom they elected, rekindled the appearance of a man using his military status for – at a minimum – from the purposes of supporters. In previous years, Donahoe has called for senior military officials to increase their online commitment, saying: “The wealth of discussion prevails over risks.” But last week, it seems that he had a change of heart and deleted his X account – a move announced on LinkedIn.
His positions, it seems, were not worth defending himself. If we really believe that the President in office is an existential threat to the nation, why run the argument? What we find instead is a system of belief built on sand throughout, there is apparently not worth defending.
This is not an isolated case. Another disturbing example has surfaced recently when the director of joint personnel of General Douglass Sims disclosed to the New York Times about a dispute with the leadership of the Pentagon on his appointment for a fourth star. The main advisor at the Defense Subsecretary Office for the staff and the STHCHELLER preparation responded by exhibiting SIMS incidents refusing to work with the new team of the department because they are “political”. This did not prevent the Sims from instituting coastal draconian policies that have imposed restrictions almost equivalent to a residential assignment on the troops visiting Fort Riley to carry out military exercises when he commanded the 1st infantry division.
Regarding cooperation with political directives, it was not a question of knowing if, but for which the parallel sims will cooperate. Many others like these men remain, working from the inside to undermine the efforts of the administration to reform the Pentagon.
The American army is sworn in with the Constitution, but too many of its influential members seem to believe in the supremacy of the Pentagon on democratic responsibility. Our founders were wary of the army stands in peacetime for the same reason. The Trump administration has a strong elevator to stop the toboggan of the Ministry of Defense far from any likely of responsibility towards the essential practices of the oligarchy. They need our help to do it. This can start with America removing blinders from an “apolitical” force and being involved in military issues at all levels. It is not a question of knowing if the army is a political force, but for whom it exercises this power.
We must force the military to the vision of the conservation of America and to make the unthinkable so that the generals call or work at a military coup against freedom rightly.
