Nobody is more apoplectic about it all than legacy media. Some are trying to play nice. Others are abandoning the little sanity they have left. But there are a few that are actually trying to figure out how to continue their existence under the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, transgender members of the military appear to be on their way out. We covered this and other topics, including why President Trump should NOT allow his appointees to have their backgrounds checked by the FBI, on today’s episode of The JD Rucker Show.

Today’s sponsors:

• Faith-Driven Precious Metals Company: https://rumblegold.com
• Long-Term Storage Beef: https://worldviewbeef.com
• Long-Term Storage Meds: https://jasemedical.com/rucker

According to a number of reports, President-elect Donald Trump will be creating a commission to review leaders in the military with the assumption that many of the top brass will be fired.

Trump will be using a “warrior board” of retired officers, The Hill reported, to review our current crop of three- and four-star officers and will weed out the ones the commission disapproves of.

That’s not all.

Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth—an Army veteran who has been awarded two Bronze Stars, and who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—said in past interviews that it’s necessary to remove “woke” senior military officials who have left the U.S. armed forces in a sorry state.

“First of all, you’ve got to fire [the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and obviously you’ve got to bring in a new secretary of defense, but any general that was involved—general, admiral, whatever—that was involved in any of the DEI woke s—, has got to go,” Hegseth said in an early November interview on “The Shawn Ryan Show” podcast. DEI is shorthand for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Pete Hegseth is ready for day one as Defense Secretary.

'All the woke Generals must be fired immediately.'pic.twitter.com/ai9cqoImj4

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) November 13, 2024

Trump and Hegseth—the author of “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free” and “Modern Warriors: Real Stories from Real Heroes”—clearly intend to shake up the military at the top.

The Left, however, isn’t taking it well.

Legacy media is reporting on that development as if it’s some kind of ominous sign that Trump will “politicize” the military. They are even calling it a “purge.”

One left-wing podcaster, Fred Wellman, who includes “democracy advocate” in his X bio, even posted that removing generals is “truly fascist.”

This is truly fascist. The idea is they'll review and fire generals is chilling beyond measure and will damage our military for a generation. You don't make generals overnight. It takes decades. The good ones will leave early instead of waiting to be destroyed. (gift)…

— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) November 12, 2024

Ah, yes, civilian control of the military, so fascist.

For a quick history lesson, a president’s removal of generals and other high-ranking military leaders—especially after years of relative “peace”—has often been a significant boon, not a hindrance, to the military.

Peacetime militaries—and I only use that phrase loosely to refer to our own era of near-constant, low-level asymmetrical conflicts—frequently calcify. Leaders who successfully navigate the bureaucratic treadmill to make it to the top ranks in those times are frequently not the best wartime leaders.

Militaries need to be shaken up from time to time.

In the War of 1812, many American military officers were holdovers from the American Revolution. Many had grown old and ineffective. The crucible of war allowed junior commanders like Winfield Scott to emerge as a brilliant young general who would prove instrumental in that war and future conflicts.

In the Civil War, there was a tremendous shake-up of the senior ranks on both sides.

Marginal officers like Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, who was almost entirely overlooked at the Virginia Military Institute, proved himself to be one of the most astoundingly gifted military commanders once he had a chance to prove himself in battle.

Abraham Lincoln suffered through far too many mediocrities at the top before finding war winners like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. Almost none of the top commanders at the beginning of the war ended up in the same place by the war’s end.

Right now, the United States clearly needs a shake-up at the Pentagon in the worst way.

The world is in turmoil, thanks in no small part to the Biden administration, and we are closer to seeing an actual peer-to-peer conflict than perhaps at any point since World War II.

Yet, many on the Left are hyperventilating about the move. Why? It’s a pretty good sign that they know they’ve made serious inroads into military institutions that are historically traditional and conservative. They don’t want to lose their grip on the military, just as they fear losing control of any other institution they dominate.

The primary issue, beyond typical military calcification, is that our current military leadership appears to be filled with those who have floated to the top amid the general woke-ification of American society and government.

It’s not Trump who will be “politicizing” the military; it’s the military itself that has been politicized. DEI, critical race theory, and other radical ideologies have been force-fed into military institutions, and the Biden administration was only too happy to accelerate that transformation.

They justified DEI by saying that it would create a better, more cohesive military and deepen the pool of recruits. That was the same unproven, bogus argument corporate America made when it went whole hog on “diversity” to the point of climbing aboard the discrimination bandwagon.

But much like the corporate DEI push—which proved a financial liability, rather than a boon—the military DEI advocacy has failed to “succeed” by even the most basic measures.

Nearly every branch of the military now faces a historic recruitment crisis, not to mention a surge in worrisome incidents that suggest a decline in competence and warfighting capability.

To make matters worse—and this is why Trump’s shake-up is almost certainly necessary—the military has failed to hold anyone at the top accountable for notable failures on the international stage.

Those failures have significantly weakened this country’s prestige and credibility abroad.

Most notably was the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. After that failure, nobody at the top got fired. The Biden administration and the military moved on, as if nothing had happened.

If we can’t handle our business against the Taliban, isn’t it worth questioning our ability to counter far greater potential adversaries, such as China?

To underscore the notion that the military has lost all accountability at the top, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin disappeared for nearly a week early this year to take care of a health issue before notifying the president.

If these are the sorts of “invaluable” leaders we may lose if Trump gets his way, it’s hard not to see the president-to-be’s “warrior board” as a net positive. This country should expect a lot better of its military.

This seems like an important moment for a “democratic” correction to a military that has seen a sharp decline in public trust.

Under Biden, the buck stopped nowhere. With Trump, maybe more capable leaders will have a chance to rise to the top and get our military back to focusing on preparedness and defending the American people.

It directs the Navy to develop “readiness for the possibility of war with the People’s Republic of China by 2027,” pointing to China’s preparations for a possible invasion of Taiwan in the same year.

“The Navy emphatically acknowledges the need for a larger, more lethal force,” the document, titled “Navigation Plan for America’s Warfighting Navy,” states.

“By 2027, the Navy will be more ready for sustained combat as part of a Joint and Combined force, prioritizing the People’s Republic of China as the pacing challenge and focusing on enabling the joint warfighting ecosystem.”

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which rules China as a single-party state, claims that Taiwan is a part of its territory that must be united with the mainland through any means necessary.

However, Taiwan is self-governed by a democratically elected government and has never been controlled by the CCP.

CCP leader Xi Jinping has nevertheless ordered the communist regime’s military wing to prepare for war and to develop the capabilities required to invade Taiwan.

The regime has since engaged in a more than decade-long shipbuilding spree, massively expanding its fleet, drone capabilities, and nuclear arsenal.

Most importantly, for a Taiwan invasion scenario, it has also launched its own advanced aircraft carriers and destroyers.

That poses a problem for the United States, as the U.S. Navy floats far fewer ships than the Chinese, and must spread them more widely to maintain its global military presence.

China, meanwhile, can position the vast majority of its naval and coast guard units close to home, where they can receive cover from land-based units and where it is easier to maintain their supply lines.

A congressional report published in July found that “the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat” against China.

The July report also said that China is likely to increase its hostile behavior in the coming years to “normalize unlawful behavior” around Taiwan as it seeks to take advantage of the United States’ lack of ability to deter conflict.

Key to the new Navy document’s goals, therefore, is the fulfillment of Project 33, a naval initiative aiming to ready the force by eliminating delays in maintenance, scaling the use of autonomous and robotic systems, and increasing navy recruitment, among other things.

“We cannot manifest a bigger traditional Navy in a few short years, nor will we rely on mass without the right capabilities to win the sea control contest,” the document reads.

“Nearer-term operational challenges demand that we integrate proven robotic and autonomous capabilities as soon as possible.

“We must do so with a focus on how we will use these systems in war. By 2027, we will integrate proven robotic and autonomous systems for routine use by the commanders who will employ them.”

Scaling the deployment of autonomous systems is just part of the puzzle, with the document underscoring that the United States’ grim position in the Indo-Pacific “goes well beyond just the size of the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] Navy fleet.”

The document notes that China’s joint forces are developing into an integrated fighting force “specifically designed to defeat ours” and are backed by China’s massive industrial base.

The document also calls on the Navy to work with Congress to secure critical supply chains and lays out a vision in which all fleet headquarters in the service will field their own maritime operations centers.

The goal of the latter directive is to ensure that the U.S. Navy can continue to maintain superiority in command and control, military intelligence, and maneuvers, even against a numerically superior foe in a vast and distributed region.

“We must meet all the objectives in this Navigation Plan to field the people and capabilities needed to fight and win today, in 2027, and beyond,” the document states.