Regarding today’s news about the Joint Chiefs —

Side note. There are eight members of the joint chiefs. the chair is black. the CNO (navy) is a woman. the other six are white guys. chair and the cno got fired tonight.

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm.bsky.social) February 21, 2025 at 9:34 PM

Sometimes things really are what they seem to be. Hegseth had been badmouthing the head of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Charles Q. Brown, as a DEI hire.

Obviously Trump wants the  military to be personally loyal to him so that he can use the military to put down all opposition. I question whether he can replace enough officers quickly enough, though. No matter who Trump puts in the Pentagon there are likely going to be a great many career officers remaining who really believe in duty, honor, country, and the Constitution. That can’t change overnight.

Or, at least, we can hope. This guy writes,

Everyone will look around and ask themselves if someone is getting promoted because they are the best officer or because they are loyal, so political affiliation will be something everyone pays a whole lot more attention to. To be clear, there are at least three kinds of officers in the military: those loyal to the Constitution, those who are MAGA types who believe in this shit, and, most importantly, the careerists.  Those will do what it takes to get ahead, and have just been signaled that to get ahead, one has to do whatever Trump and Hegseth order.

There’s a long tradition in the U.S. military that says career officers should be so apolitical they don’t even vote. They can vote if they choose to, but many do not.

By not voting, I am walking in the boot prints of our greatest officers: George C. Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Patton, to name a few who didn’t vote while in uniform, and those of the modern era that tread the same path — David H. Petraeus, Martin Dempsey and, by all appearances, Mark A. Milley, the current Army chief of staff. Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant is an especially instructive case, because he faced the grimmest temptation to tamper with the election of 1864 during the Civil War. And yet, crucially, Grant chose not to vote.

Obviously, having Trump lackeys in charge will reduce military effectiveness, no matter how much Pete Hegseth fancies himself a “warrior.”

The Independent (UK) describes Gen. Dan ‘Razin’ Caine, the guy Trump plans to make head of the Joint Chiefs:

The president recalled Trump and Caine meeting in 2018 during a visit to Iraq during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2019.

It was then that the general told the president he believed ISIS could be defeated in one week rather than two years, as his advisers said at the time.

“‘One week? I was told two years!’” Trump recalled saying.

Trump said Caine replied: “‘We’re only hitting them from a temporary base in Syria, but if you gave us permission, we could hit them from the back, from the side, from all over, from the base you’re right on right now, sir.’” “‘They won’t know what the hell hit them.’”

Trump also recalled asking the general his name, to which the president said Caine replied, “Razin.” After Trump asked for his last name, he reportedly replied: “Caine, Razin Caine.”

Trump also claims Caine put on a signature “Make America Great Again” hat while they met in Iraq.

“‘I love you, sir. I think you’re great, sir. I’ll kill for you, sir,’” Trump said, quoting Caine.

“Then he puts on a Make America Great Again hat. You’re not allowed to do that, but they did it,” Trump added.

Caine later told aides the story of the hat wasn’t true, according to The New York Times.

So, a Trump lapdog. Not someone who will be able to tell Trump anything Trump doesn’t want to hear. The military will be compromised from the top. Let’s just hope we don’t actually have to use it much until Trump is gone.

I’m far from a Rahm Emanuel fan, but he wrote an op ed for the Washington Post that’s worth reading. It was published before last night’s Pentagon Purge, I notice. It’s more about foreign policy, but the military is connected — Trump is emulating Putin and Xi. Watch it end in an ‘own goal.’ Here’s just a bit —

This is a turn that many in Washington have yet to fully appreciate. Trump doesn’t simply hero-worship autocrats — he shares their worldview. That’s the thread that explains his quixotic statements about Greenland, Panama, Canada and the “Gulf of America.” That’s why he’s threatening tariffs on Canada, Colombia and Mexico. Trump’s team is negotiating with Russia in Saudi Arabia over Ukraine’s and Europe’s fates without our allies at the table. His behavior is consistent with China’s foreign minister telling countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations that because China is big and they are small, their voices don’t matter.

For the United States, this is a loser’s bet. First, it means giving up on the very policy that has brought credibility to our deterrence. Today, when Washington wants to impose export controls on semiconductors to prevent the Chinese military from gaining a technological advantage, our approach works because we act in concert with the South Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese and Dutch. When the Chinese consider whether to further intimidate the Philippines, they weigh their plans against the possibility of a kinetic response from an American-led alliance that includes Japan, Australia and our European allies.

But Trump’s first steps on the world stage mean China won’t have to think twice.

There’s nothing to gain with Trump’s approach — but a lot to lose. Denmark is not going to sell us Greenland. Panama will not return the canal to the United States. Canada will not become our 51st state. And yet we’re eliminating the credibility and durability of our alliances to achieve goals that aren’t even worth pursuing.

Putin and Xi must be delighted. As Washington alienates its allies and squanders 80 years of international credibility, Trump is helping Russia and China achieve their explicit mission of replacing the United States as the world’s preeminent superpower. Moscow’s goal has long been to break up the North Atlantic alliance. Who would have thought that an American president would do its dirty work?

I don’t see Russia stepping up to preeminent superpower status, but China certainly could. Thanks to Trump.