That system is supposed to be merit-filtered, with removals tied to cause.
But the reporting here shows: – candidates removed without investigations – intervention inside the pipeline – and screening tied to alignment (policy, admin ties, DEI association)
Also worth noting:
Multiple officials raised concerns that some of the officers being blocked were women and Black officers, without misconduct issues.
That may or may not be the full explanation.
But it’s part of the reported screening criteria.
If you ignore that and jump straight to geopolitics, you’re skipping the core question:
What criteria are being used to decide who advances?
Because once that filter changes, outcomes are downstream of that.
Everyone keeps jumping to theories (Iran, neocons, etc.), but the reporting is more specific than that.
The issue isn’t “why were they fired.”
It’s how the selection process is being changed.
Promotion system:
board → Joint Chiefs → SecDef → WH → Senate
That system is supposed to be merit-filtered, with removals tied to cause.
But the reporting here shows:
– candidates removed without investigations
– intervention inside the pipeline
– and screening tied to alignment (policy, admin ties, DEI association)
Also worth noting:
Multiple officials raised concerns that some of the officers being blocked were women and Black officers, without misconduct issues.
That may or may not be the full explanation.
But it’s part of the reported screening criteria.
If you ignore that and jump straight to geopolitics, you’re skipping the core question:
What criteria are being used to decide who advances?
Because once that filter changes, outcomes are downstream of that.
Full breakdown here:
#1464131