2 hours ago, Day Man said:

i know you're being intentionally obtuse since your not your guy is continuing to knock it out of the park, but:

surely none of those are important in an active conflict 🤷‍♂️

It's obvious that the person is important. What's not obvious is that what you are suggesting is true. That removing or replacing that person is some sort of catastrophe to the goal at hand.

I suspect replacing McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker had consequences, but I don't think anybody suggests that they should have been kept in place just because the civil war had not yet ended. And if that's what it took to get to Grant, so be it.

In fact replacing military leaders in the middle of an ongoing war has happened in every major conflict that I could find.

And in this case, the flag officer we are discussing is not even responsible for the current hostilities. He's in a primarily administrative role, exactly as you described.

Edited Thursday at 03:19 AM1 day by Lord Ratner

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's obvious that the person is important. What's not obvious is that what you are suggesting is true. That removing or replacing that person is some sort of catastrophe to the goal at hand.

I suspect replacing McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker had consequences, but I don't think anybody suggests that they should have been kept in place just because the civil war had not yet ended. And if that's what it took to get to Grant, so be it.

In fact replacing military leaders in the middle of an ongoing war has happened in every major conflict that I could find.

And in this case, the flag officer we are discussing is not even responsible for the current hostilities. He's in a primarily administrative role, exactly as you described.

He's not a flag officer... Holy shit

14 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

He's not a flag officer... Holy shit

Oh, I read CNO instead of SECNAV. Oops. Care to address the actual point?

We replace military leaders regularly during wars. Usually because existing leadership tends to fight the last war and not the present war. It makes sense that you'd uncover misaligned leadership when it actually counts, rather than when everything is calm and boring.

You're just hyperventilating at this point.

Edited Thursday at 04:42 AM1 day by Lord Ratner

On 4/22/2026 at 10:41 PM, Lord Ratner said:

You're just hyperventilating at this point.

Lol. Nice ad hominim.

They've tossed those not in charge of the war effort. Those in charge of administrative roles. On top of the firings last year. Held promotions forcing retirements. Blocking promotions of what appear to be worthy, but minority officers, for...no clear reason breaking with prior R and D administrations.

No general running the Iran campaign has gotten axed yet. No commander of a base where air defenses "failed," and Americans died or major strategic assets were lost. So your comparisons are trash. But go on about how I'm hyperventilating.

Note - I don't think those CCs should get fired. Just showing the contrast in your comparisons.