As the Trump Administration prepares to take charge in Washington, DC, it inherits a military on the verge of being incapable of sustained combat. The Navy is decommissioning ships faster than they are being built and literally has more admirals than ships even as it reduces the number of enlisted sailors (Trump Picks Navy Outsider to Fix a Thoroughly Broken Service). The Air Force is suffering from a mass exodus of pilots at the peak of their experience due to its open hostility toward white male pilots (Unexpectedly, the USAF Finds Itself With a Critical Shortage of Pilots While It Says It Has Too Many White Officers). But the Army, it seems, may be rotted to the core.

More than half of the Army's senior officers are turning down opportunities to command, choosing instead the stability of staff roles over the high-stakes demands of leadership, or retiring, according to internal service data.

The Battalion Command Assessment Program, or BCAP, a cornerstone of the Army's effort to evaluate leadership readiness, assesses 800 to 1,000 lieutenant colonels annually through interviews, psychological tests and physical fitness evaluations.

Historically, 85% of those participants have been deemed fit for command. Yet this year, 54% of eligible officers voluntarily chose not to participate -- a significant uptick from the 40% average opt-out rate seen since 2019.

It is hard to write a more damning indictment of any army than when over half of the officers eligible to command voluntarily back out of consideration.

The article goes on to blame work-life balance, family life, etc., for officers declining what should be the capstone to an Army officer's career: the opportunity to command at the battalion level. Yes, commanding a battalion is necessary for the upwardly mobile who want to grow up to be generals, but it is at the battalion level where you should have a major impact on training soldiers and identifying future enlisted and commissioned leaders for the Army. I've known men who commanded battalions and retired after their change-of-command. The Army flesh-peddlers don't like that, but f*** 'em if they can't take a joke.

From conversations I've had with acquaintances inside the Army officer corps at the battalion command-eligible level, that isn't the case. Highly qualified officers turn down what should be the high point of a career because of the toxic command climate within the Army.

The first factor is micromanagement. Technology enables higher echelons to monitor in real-time what every commander at any level is doing. Combine this with an environment where emphasis is placed on mandatory training driven by DEI and Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) requirements, there is precious little time remaining for commanders to train their units. As a company commander, I once took my company downrange for four weeks (there's a long story behind that best told over adult beverages). That would not be possible today.

The second factor is fear. Commanders are literally afraid to discipline soldiers for fear of career-ending consequences.

"I work in a position where I encounter many of the O-5s and E-9s in that group. An alarming amount of them seem low-key dreading facing the “weaponized investigation” culture that is currently pervasive.  Combine that with the paltry manning (but perception from higher that everything must still get done as if they were 100%) and it is absolutely not surprising to me that the command opt-in is down."

I encountered the "weaponized investigation" comment on an email list I belong to. Basically, the Inspector General system has been turned into a weapon to destroy commanders. If you crack the whip (can we even use that term anymore?), someone is going to complain about you being homophobic, sexist, or racist. Acquaintances tell me that any adverse encounter with a female troop can take a very nasty turn under the Army's SHARP regime with an allegation of sexual harassment or discrimination. As Rush Limbaugh used to say, it is not the quality of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge that requires an investigation. 

The standard of proof is whether someone's feelings were hurt, not if they deserved having a knot jerked in their butt. An IG report finding hurt feelings can get you a General Officer Letter of Reprimand, and that is the end of your career.

The DEI rot in the military is worse than even I feared, apparently.

My posts linked below, and the responses to them, have been a bit surprising, even to me. I knew there was a DEI rot at the top levels of the Pentagon, but I don’t think I realized until now the full corrosive… https://t.co/hAe1SbyYq0

— Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) December 16, 2024

However, and back to the present day, what I’m hearing as a result of the reposts below and in private DMs is that today the mere existence of such a claim of racism, sexism, or (nowadays) homophobia, regardless of whether there is any substantiating proof to it, is enough for a commander to be relieved from command for cause because the senior chain of command has suffered a “loss in confidence” in that commander.   

(FYI, I personally know of a senior officer who was relieved over a "loss in confidence” because of a racism claim, even though the IG investigation revealed that there was zero racism of any kind.  However, the MERE EXISTENCE of that claim, regardless of its inaccuracy, was enough to cause that “loss in confidence.”  I would dearly love to tell that story in full, but I’m sworn to secrecy.) 

So basically, if you are a U.S. military unit commander in 2024, you necessarily live in fear of some subordinate claiming that you are a racist or a sexist or a homophobe, regardless of whether there is even the slightest hint of truth to the claim.  I can promise you that the fear of such unwarranted claims being successful will compromise the judgment and leadership of anyone faced with such fear.  A military unit or ship cannot function as a combat-effective force when its commander lives in the shadow of such fear.  It cannot.  And the service members in such a combat ineffective unit or ship will suffer—and some will die—as a result.

A while back, I read a similar report from inside the Navy that described Navy petty officers buffing floors and doing general maintenance on ships while the sailors did nothing because leaders were afraid of the career risk involved in giving unpopular orders. I regret I wasn't bright enough to save that link.

It is one thing when officers opt out of the command track because of family concerns. It is something entirely different when they start bailing out because of the risk. The flip side of that is that many of those left in the zone for command selection are exactly the type of people who have succeeded under the present system, and they will go on to be generals.

Trump's selection to be Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll (JD Vance Friend and Advisor and Former Army Ranger Picked to Be Secretary of the Army), will face a dumpster fire of failure when he takes office. Lack of integrity seems to be a requirement to hold high rank. The current Army Chief of Staff collaborated with a now-fired general to break the rules of the command selection process and put the general's mistress on the list even though she was not qualified (Army Secretary Fires a Corrupt Four-Star but Leaves Corruption at the Top Untouched).

Ordinarily, the Army Secretary doesn't muck around in the activities of the uniformed side of the house, but the crisis in the Army demands that he take an active role in culling that is to come (The Pentagon Is Afraid of the 'Purge' List Prepared for Hegseth but It Is Not Big Enough to Do the Job).