When I read that the secretary of defense Pete Hegseth had summarily fired the army chief of staff Randy George, I assumed that George was Black because the Trump administration views only white heterosexual men as deserving of having reached high office on their merits and that any minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ person was installed despite their lack of qualifications but because of ‘woke’ ideology dominating over merit.
But Randy George was your standard issue military officer. So why was he dismissed? According to leaks, it was because George was not sufficiently supportive of Hegseth’s ‘white men only’ policy.
The alarming reason behind Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth pushing out the U.S. Army’s highest-ranking officer during wartime has been leaked.
Hegseth, 45, asked Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, 61, to quit his role and take immediate retirement, according to reporting by CBS News on Thursday.
…However, a new report reveals that George was removed because he and Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll refused to remove two Black and two female officers from a list of military members to be promoted to one-star generals.
George and Driscoll defied Hegseth, according to The New York Times, and cited the long and exemplary service of the four officers as justification for their being in line for promotion.
…Nine U.S. officials familiar with the matter said Hegseth had either blocked or delayed promotions for more than a dozen Black and female senior officers across all four branches of the military.
The officials suggested the individuals had been targeted by Hegseth because of their race, gender, or links to Biden administration policies.
Two other generals, one of whom is Black, were also given the boot, and George is reputedly going to be replaced by Christopher LaNeve who had been sucking up to Trump and MAGA and now seems set to get his reward.
Trump first appeared to notice LaNeve during his inauguration celebrations in January 2025, when the general appeared virtually at the Commander-in-Chief Inaugural Ball, Stars and Stripes reported.
“Sir, on behalf of the men and women who serve under my command and the thousands of dedicated service members that are part of the joint team in Korea, congratulations on your victory as 47th president of the United States,” LaNeve said at the time. “Welcome back, Mr. President. We’d be privileged to host you here real soon.”
After speaking briefly with him, Trump said: “Is this man [from] central casting, or what? If I’m doing a movie, I pick him to play my lead.”
If you are a white, heterosexual male and a Trump sycophant, then you are on the fast track to military promotions. This is what competence means in this administration.
I just hope that there is SOMEBODY left in the military who is willing to defy The Orange Turd and NOT nuke Iran. That seems like where this is heading because he is totally unhinged and in over his head.
I wonder, could Trump have made a worse choice than Hegseth for SecDef?
re Jörg @2: No.
@Jörg #2:
It is hard to imagine a worse choice. Possibly not even Trump himself.
LaNeve is a girlish name.
@ Lassi Hippeläinen, #5: Can we try again, without the misogyny this time?
Does the opportunistic bellend realise his post-Trump career is likely to involve some more strategic posting… like the Azores?
.
(Trump retreat) A Different Bias:
Did Trump Really Agree to These Ceasefire Terms?
.https://youtube.com/watch?v=JmxJ2jodeio
@bluerizlagirl -- Sure, as soon as Hegseth stops being misogynic.
@Lassi Hippeläinen
So misogyny is acceptable as long as The Good Guys™ do it?
@Dauphni #9:
No, misogyny is never acceptable. To be fair to Lassi though, they weren’t being misogynistic. They were poking fun at LaNeve, specifically at how important it is for his type to protect their “masculinity.” Sues, nobody can help their surname, but that doesn’t make it misogynistic. Normal people not obsessed by masculinity reply, “So?”
The joke is in imagining LaNeve’s reaction to the suggestion that he isn’t male through and through. Not misogynistic though. May misandrynistic, if there is such a word.
@file thirteen #10
Yes, calling someone “girly” as an insult is misogyny. The fact that you fail to recognise that when it’s cloaked in a layer of irony shows just how normalised it still is.
@ Lassi Hippeläinen, #8: Just because The Enemy is doing something to what you perceive as an outrageous degree, does not make it remotely OK for you to do the same thing to what you perceive as a lesser degree.
@ file thirteen, #10: Saying that having a “girlish” name is a bad thing is, in and of itself, a misogynistic act. I’m sure you don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a “girlish” name; rather, you think LaNeve is likely to think there is, so you’re using his own prejudice against him. However, there probably are going to be people reading this who are worried that they might be perceived as having “girlish” names, and therefore somehow less worthy; and you have just (perhaps unwittingly, but they don’t know that) reinforced the prejudice they feel. That is the misogyny here.
(For my part, whenever I hear someone criticising Trump, or someone else who has many other things wrong with them, only for his weight, I die a little inside. For 65 reasons.)
Have I though? I thought by saying Normal people not obsessed by masculinity reply, “So?” I was implying the opposite: that it’s silly to be neurotic about a name and only a… well, whatever term you would use to describe someone like Hegseth or LaNeve, I don’t want to follow up one error with another if I’ve truly put my foot in it… would think otherwise. I never thought Lassi’s comment was serious for a moment, and so I thought their only mistake, if any, was not to add a /s at the end. But perhaps that’s just me. Didn’t mean to cause any offence.