“`html 
Could this assembly have been handled via electronic correspondence?
The previous week, when the declaration circulated that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had commanded hundreds of generals from across the globe to convene at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, this week, it sparked intense conjecture regarding the potential rationale for this unparalleled gathering.
Even after the session, it remains partially unclear the purpose of the cost and hazard connected with assembling so many generals and admirals. Hegseth and President Donald Trump delivered comparatively brief discourses that didn’t unveil any breaking information and leaned heavily on each man’s well-known arguments. If there was a key message, it conveyed that any commanders who disapprove of Hegseth and Trump’s freshly named “Department of War” are welcome to depart.
Hegseth presented an update on his endeavor to reinstate a “warrior ethos” to a military and Pentagon that he deems to have become “woke”: re-establishing “gender-neutral” performance benchmarks, permitting drill instructors to once more instill “healthy fear” in recruits, and eradicating “dudes in dresses,” “beardos,” and “fat generals.” He also pledged that the US military would no longer engage in combat under “stupid rules of engagement.” The secretary, presently under internal investigation concerning the handling of classified data prior to US airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, also hinted at alterations to the Pentagon’s inspector general procedure and the maintenance of “unfavorable information” on personnel documents.
This story was initially featured in the Today, Explained newsletter
Gain insight into the world with a daily explanation along with the most captivating stories of the day. Subscribe here.
Trump delivered a rambling speech that encompassed numerous mentions of his approval ratings, a nostalgic recollection of the 1950s documentary Victory at Sea, and a reference to nuclear submarines as “the n-word,” but also featured some alarming language implying the military would be increasingly utilized against the American citizenry. Referencing the recent assignments of National Guard forces to American metropolises like Los Angeles and Washington, DC, along with possible operations in Chicago and Portland, Oregon, Trump portrayed the US as “under siege from within” and proposed to Hegseth that the armed forces “should utilize some of these perilous cities as training locations.” He also characterized Washington as more hazardous than Afghanistan to a gathering that comprised numerous officers who had served in Afghanistan.
Trump has previously given highly biased addresses before military audiences, yet he still appeared unsettled by the lack of audience response, commenting he had never entered such a silent room and advising the assembly of generals that they could relax. This contrasted sharply with the boisterous welcome he received from soldiers during a speech at Fort Bragg last summer, who were allegedly screened beforehand for their political allegiance.
The most crucial statements of both addresses may have been those directed toward members of the audience who did not welcome the message. “If the remarks I am conveying today are causing your heart to sink, then you should take the dignified action and step down. We would appreciate your service,” Hegseth remarked. Trump was less generous: “If you disapprove of what I’m expressing, you can exit the room,” he stated. “Of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future.”
Reports indicate that numerous top-tier military commanders, including Gen. Dan Caine, the Trump-designated chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have voiced reservations regarding the Pentagon’s novel national security strategy, which prioritizes threats to the homeland over great power competition with nations like China and Russia or maintaining military alliances overseas. Hegseth and Trump have already dismissed high-ranking officers, including former Joint Chiefs chair Gen. C.Q. Brown and chief of naval operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti. Hegseth had criticized both as “DEI” appointments.
The implication appeared to be that the remaining officers could align with the agenda or depart. The assembly was “an informal allegiance probe,” as described by defense analyst and Army veteran Sean McFate.
The “agenda,” as seemingly envisioned by Trump and Hegseth, is a military that can be deployed against domestic “enemies” as frequently as foreign adversaries, is in alignment with the administration on cultural conflict matters, and is personally devoted to the president, not solely as commander in chief but as a political persona. None of this is precisely innovative from Trump or Hegseth, yet the action of summoning the traditionally non-political leaders of “the most deadly fighting force globally” from across the world to hear these addresses may have been an indication of just how earnestly they embrace their profoundly political vision for the trajectory of that force.
“`
Source: vox.com
