The continuing increase in defense and intelligence budgets, now totaling nearly $932 billion for Fiscal Year 2024, raises questions about the effectiveness of U.S. military deterrence amidst the threat of a potential World War III. Despite the financial investment, the military is reportedly shrinking and distracted, allowing adversarial nations like China and Russia to expand their influence. The strategic partnership formed between these two nations, along with regional allies such as Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, reflects a coordinated effort to undermine America globally. This concerning landscape is compounded by the presence of Iranian operatives within the U.S., creating an urgent need for vigilance, particularly as the upcoming inauguration of President-Elect Trump approaches. With tensions escalating on the world stage, the incoming Trump Administration is reportedly considering significant changes to military leadership in an attempt to prepare for these challenges.
The legal authority to remove senior military officers, an action referred to as “plucking,” has historical precedent within the U.S. Armed Forces. Notable examples include General George C. Marshall’s authority in 1939 and similar instances during World War I and World War II, where ineffective leaders were removed to improve military performance. Marshall’s actions were informed by a historical context that saw a military more focused on seniority than merit—a situation reminiscent of current concerns. Moreover, President Lincoln’s decisive action in elevating General U.S. Grant during the Civil War exemplifies the necessity for strong leadership in times of national crisis. The President’s constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief provides him with distinct authority for selecting, promoting, and removing military officers, reinforcing the legal foundation for potential changes in leadership.
A critical aspect of the contemporary military culture is the infiltration of “Woke-ism,” which is believed to hinder the effectiveness of defense efforts. With increasing national defense expenditures, the performance of U.S. military capabilities appears to be deteriorating. Issues like drone incursions by foreign adversaries highlight the necessity for a reevaluation of military attitudes and policies, especially within military academies and advisory boards. Institutions such as West Point and the Air Force Academy have been scrutinized for fostering divisive ideologies related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as other controversial topics. There is a pressing need for a “Plucking Board” to review and potentially eradicate the influence of these ideologies from important military and intelligence sectors, establishing new standards for policy formation and operational readiness.
The discussion surrounding the potential for removing military leaders also touches on the broader ideological battle regarding America’s principles and governance. Since the Obama Administration, there has been a perceived erosion of constitutional values, which many argue has left a lasting negative impact on military culture and policy. Those resistant to necessary reform are often labeled as part of the “woke” problem, indicating an ideological divide that affects various levels of military and civilian leadership. The current climate suggests an approaching return to constitutional norms, which could facilitate a more effective response to evolving global challenges. In this context, questions arise about the fairness and legality of military leadership recalls, particularly when political motivations appear to influence such decisions.
Historical examples of military leadership changes illustrate that the exercise of “plucking” is not only lawful but also essential for ensuring the military’s efficacy in crucial times. The potential for recalling and prosecuting officers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is standard practice when deemed necessary. However, concerns persist regarding the potential misuse of such powers for political purposes, particularly during the Biden administration, leading to calls for a clearer distinction between lawful and unlawful practices in military governance. As the nation grapples with internal and external threats, a more stringent evaluation of military leadership is deemed necessary, ensuring that actions taken are not only legal but also beneficial for the defense of the Republic.
Strengthening the military’s effectiveness during these critical times requires a united front against underperformance and ideological distractions. The case for a contemporary “Plucking Board” stems from the urgent desire to enhance the military’s readiness and communication in the face of growing challenges presented by adversaries like China and Russia. The actions taken by the Trump Administration, should they move forward, will adhere to constitutional guidelines, affirming due process while ensuring the vital interests of national defense are prioritized. This reevaluation is not merely to remove ineffective leaders but to realign military strategy and philosophy with the requirements of modern warfare and national security needs. The ongoing struggle against ideological erosion within the military and intelligence community signals a pivotal moment, potentially reshaping U.S. readiness to confront adversities on multiple fronts.