I was very happy when MCU was founded in 1989 based on my experience at AWS 1980-81. The seeds of political correctness were just being planted. After TBS, three years in the 8th Marines and two years on Sea Duty, AWS came as a cultural shock. During the Company Grade Officers Symposium and in the course of the various guest speakers many of us were taken aback buy the political climate. I found it surprising that the Captains were more war fighting focused than some senior officers around Quantico and HQMC. We were thrilled when Gen Gray reversed course and brought the Corps back to the basics, to war fighting and to traditional standards. I now realize that it was a renaissance of sorts that lasted about 10-12 years before the political correctness insurgency regained its footing. By 1997 the Corps was again in the cross hairs and fighting rearguard skirmishes. This seems to have culminated in 2020 when the CMC arbitrarily divested the Corps of significant portions of its war fighting specialties and capabilities. Twenty years of a limited emphasis on warfighting prowess and attacks on the Marine culture took its toll. This combined with a toxic careerism to set the stage for today’s delusional concepts like EABO. Counter insurgency is but one type of conflict and lessons learned can deceive.
The Corps is now in a fight for its very survival and for its soul. It is the very worst kind of battle as it is internal. Of course it is the n best of times and worst of times. With a new administration comes a cold financial calculation centered around return on investment. The Corps will not survive that scrutiny. It is far too big and far too expensive for the mission it assigned itself in one geographical arena. The hope is that the new SecDef will reorient the Corps back to MEFs as MAGTF’s with a global mission. To return to that will be expensive and require the retirement of large parts of the Marine senior leaders. The first tranche would be the delusional true believers and the second tranche for those who exhibited a lack of moral courage.
Toxic Careerism: well said, Doug. It's not "woke" per se, it's not DEI, it's not any one thing. It is the development, education, promotion rubric, and peer pressure on the way up that produces men that, over time, forget their days at TBS, IOC, and in front of a scrutinizing platoon of LCpls. Same as the 70's, same as it ever was.
As for scrutiny of the Corps, the possibility of a new "Key West Conference" ought to jolt the complacency out of planners and senior leaders. In its current state of global and GCC currency, the Corps would not fare well competing for re-examined roles and missions in such a conference.
Who appointed this General to the post? And does the person that selected them for the post agree with what he is saying and doing? If not, why are they still holding that position?
And what does this have to say about the rest of the stars out there? Have they all been polluted with the same ideology? I know that stars are political animals....but how far does it go?
If the president of Marine Corps University is shifting the focus away from warfighting and towards ideological purity tests like “allyship,” it could be highly detrimental to the Marine Corps’ effectiveness and survivability. Here’s why:
1. Warfighting is the Core Mission
The Marine Corps exists for one primary reason: to fight and win wars. Every decision, policy, and training initiative should enhance combat effectiveness. When leadership prioritizes ideological agendas over lethality, readiness suffers. A military force that is more concerned with social dynamics than battlefield dominance risks losing its edge, which can have catastrophic consequences in a future conflict.
2. Erosion of Unit Cohesion
Marine Corps cohesion is built on trust, competence, and a shared warrior ethos—not political loyalty tests. Encouraging Marines to spy on each other and report who is or isn’t an “ally” creates a culture of distrust and division, which is toxic to teamwork in combat. The battlefield doesn’t care about personal politics; it demands disciplined, unified, and skilled warriors who can trust each other with their lives.
3. Distracting from Readiness and Lethality
Every hour spent on ideological training is an hour not spent on combat training. The Marine Corps needs to be constantly preparing for peer-level conflicts, especially given the current threats from China, Russia, and other adversaries. Instead of fostering ideological policing, leadership should be reinforcing combat skills, logistics readiness, and warfighting innovation.
4. Weakening Leadership and Decision-Making
If officers begin prioritizing “allyship” and ideological purity over tactical competence and mission success, it will degrade decision-making at all levels. Promotions and command selections should be based on leadership ability, combat proficiency, and strategic thinking—not on how well someone aligns with political trends. When leadership is chosen based on anything other than merit, the entire force weakens.
5. Loss of Trust and Recruitment Issues
The Marine Corps has always attracted the best and brightest because of its clear mission and warrior culture. If the institution is perceived as being more focused on political ideology than fighting and winning wars, it will struggle to retain and recruit warfighters. Those who join the Marine Corps do so because they want to be part of an elite fighting force, not a social experiment.
Final Thoughts
The Marine Corps’ reputation as the world’s fiercest fighting force wasn’t built on political posturing—it was built on discipline, brotherhood, and a relentless focus on warfighting. Any leader who prioritizes ideological conformity over combat effectiveness is failing the institution and putting Marines’ lives at risk. If this shift continues unchecked, the long-term consequences could be devastating, weakening America’s first-to-fight force at a time when global threats are only increasing.
The Marine Corps has survived because of its ability to stay laser-focused on its mission. That mission must always come first.
This post, of the many that bring distressing news, is by far the most distressing to date. The Corps and for that matter the other branches of the US Military need to focus on one thing and one thing only, war fighting. Whether it is combined operations on a large scale or MEU sized efforts across the services. But, focus on the Corps only for the moment. A general officer no matter how one wishes to present his or her words that speaks of “spying” on his officers has violated the special trust and confidence bestowed upon us as commissioned officers. This trust is a special covenant between the officers and the Marines we lead and indeed serve. Why does this writer get the feeling that General Tracy is first in line at the chow hall before any of his Marines get served. We have all had the misfortune to have lousy commanding officers, it happens, and we all learn from it. Further, the public reflect and DOD directs. That is true for most of the DOD, but one thing that set the Marine Corps apart, was its willingness to say “NO” to dumb stuff coming out of the puzzle palace. The most important point of this post is that the new SecNav needs to clean house, all them. Every flag officer good, bad or indifferent, they have been tarred with the same brush. 05/06’s that are hard charging, relentless in pursuit of the accomplishment of Title X mission need to be deep selected and we need to move on. We have some tough, check that REALLY tough retired general officers that could mentor the deep selectees, and so on. We need Corporals not afraid to chime in when they see something that is meaningful and needs addressing. This post is shameful, and highlights why we need change and fast.
WOKEness, feminization, the LGBTQP+ perversion agenda, and leftist liberalism have ruined our military and our Corps... we need a leader such as the late Gen Gray to salvage and save our Corps... we've lost most of our "Warrior Ethos" and "good order and discipline" has been replaced by DEI and other "feel good" nonsense... of course, FD2030 is the albatross currently relegating our Corps to irrelevance and ruined our MAGTF capabilities since 2019... Gen Van Riper and his fellow Leatherneck leaders must continue to be a voice of reason and sanity and rebuke the insanity of the past decade...
As one of the first MCWAR grads I can see Gen PKvR vibrating when this was written. It is time to put rifles in the hands of ALL Marines and mud on their boots. Nights in the field and forced marches are in order. We are not a social club!
how is it that women require special protections from often real threats, but are still being offered up as an equally real multiplier in close/direct combat roles where they won’t receive special protections?
This post is ridiculous. The author saw some pictures scroll across the website and then went off the rails. It’s painfully clear that this person doesn’t have any idea what is currently happening at MCU. The current MCU President, though somewhat informal in his speaking style, is more focused on warfighting than the last five combined. You might also try to define your terms. What is WPS, really? Would you be surprised to hear that it’s based on a law signed by Trump during his first administration? Or that the DOD implementation framework was signed in 2020?
The report that a General Officer is running around talking about "allyship" is disturbing but not surprising. As a guy who retired in 2003, I must concede that there are people more informed and closer to the issue than I. That said, it seems to me the USMC has been infected with group think. I can't see how that can possibly yield good outcomes. Is the notion of "red teaming" dead?
Probably doesn't surprise you that the previous president of MCU told me that I did not have enough "expertise" to speak at MCU. Apparently 41 years of service, four tours in combat, command at every level from platoon to division, and 11 years of teaching at MCU were insufficient, thus I was banned from participating in seminars when professors asked me to visit.
Very sad! I had no idea it had reached that low a level. I remember using the phrase "curse of the competent." I guess now days it's "purge of the competent."
One professor asked me to attend his seminar and discuss Force Design 2030--former MCU President said "no." Not a real surprise. He then asked in succession for me to attend seminars on Vietnam War, John Boyd's Theories, and Future War--former MCU president said "no" to all. That was a surprise.
Of the entire CSC curriculum, only about (3) hours are dedicated to WPS. A departure from a focus on warfighting? Maybe. But if so, a small one. There's plenty of room to critique the curriculums at MCU but this approach is only interesting to those more concerned with winning a culture war, as it were. Not to mention the only reason WPS exists as a part of the curriculum is because President Trump signed the WPS act of 2017. You wouldn't know it after reading the post and the commentors below
“Brigadier General Tracy’s military education includes The Basic School, Expeditionary Warfare School, College of Naval Command and Staff, and College of Naval Warfare. He is a graduate of the Maritime Advanced Warfare School.” (Maritime Advanced Warfare School? Can we have the NWC check his transcript and class rank?) Since his first Command Selection Board, he seems to be rewarded with all the right command and staff jobs. I have to ask this question: Is the problem the US Marine Corps educational system or is the problem our promotion system? This guy didn’t even wear the uniform when he talked to the “Women, Peace & Security conference 2024”. I think every Marine understands that General Officers have to dabble in politics, however, it needs to be focused on our Marines and not our political leader’s agenda. If you take care of your Marines, they will take care of you. S/F
I think your comment "Instead of war and warfighting, the MCU President says he is constantly spying on his officers to find the "jerks." In other words, to uncover officers who are not sufficiently woke." is not accurate, or correct. President BGen Matthew Tracy wrote about students professional etiquette at the
@NavalWarCollege
’s Women, Peace & Security conference:
“Allyship: 1) recognize the patriarchy, recognize there’s a system of divergence… who’s the [male] jerk at the🎄party?
2) NEVER check anyone out”
This is 🇺🇸’s war college system"
Now do I agree with his spy at the conference watching Mid to Sr Service officers... No. But let's not sell it for something it wasn't. Do I believe the USMC MCU needs to get in line with DoDs stance on dumping DEI? 100% I do...it doesn't make you more lethal...and that should be the goal of any of our MCU educational services. My opinion only. M2
I was unable to watch more than a minute or so of this video with the embarrassing talk. President of MCU did not look like, speak like, or have the demeanor of a Marine let alone a general officer. Makes me question the judgment of the board that selected him for brigadier general. As the first president of MCU and having held a teaching chair there for 11 years I have more than a passing interest in the institution. Over the years I have seen some exceptional officers filling the billet and others who seemed intent on just steering the ship; none ever behaved in the despicable manner as the current president. Does the Commandant even know or care about MCU?
Let’s examine two of the alleged acts of “wokeness” in this shitpost. 1. A former civilian faculty member at MCWAR was a woman who used to teach at a woman’s university. O the humanity! The entire civilian faculty must be “woke.” 2. The President, MCU said his male officers shouldn’t be checking out females at unit functions. Said females likely being Marines themselves or the children, wives or girlfriends of other Marines. How “woke”! Back in the old Corps butts would have been grabbed, not just checked out. I know because it happened to my wife in the old Corps. I was taught to believe you were a gentleman and a scholar but now I think you are just an out of touch troll. A gentleman wouldn’t write these things about an officer he had never met.
Ditto. Promotion Boards, Command Screening & Slating, focus on Joint Officer designations. How do we wind up with a guy like this? I can see someone like this BGen smugly abusing his rank to stifle dissent. He is a classic careerist. There is something really wrong here. How do we fix it?
General, I got the courage to look at the video on X. I have NEVER seen the likes, seething…just seething. Looking at his career at some point he took a left turn and swallowed the DOD kool aid. He exhibited just terrible demeanor, (I don’t care if the uniform of the day was civilian attire, wear a suit and tie, better yet, show them what a Marine Officer looks like and wear your winter or summer green alpha uniform.) He had poor use of language skills and was just basically full of hobucky. This is so disappointing. Makes the fight for OUR Corps all the more immediate.
Sir, I can attempt to provide a possible philosophical answer to your observations of one speech. When I was at the War College, one of the key phrases that recurred to the LtCol/Col students throughout the year was "What got you here, won't get you there." The implication was that the leadership approaches, tactical and operational focus, and officership ethos would not be effective as one ascended into the strategic realm of the Joint Force and the Pentagon.
This phrase was abhorrent to me as a student there, and remains so. Kind of like the SecDef described "Diversity is our Strength," or "Protect What You've Earned." The dumbest phrase I ever heard.
Because the implication is that one might have approached leadership problems, tactical and operational problems, and officership one way in their past, but that approach would be out of sync at the strategic level.
Here's why this matters when observing senior officers that seem to be swimming in the swamp.
This War College admonition that results in a senior officer ethos to conduct oneself aligned with the NCR strategic environment results in what you reacted to in this video.
Your ethos of officer personal and professional conduct and carriage is out of sync with the necessities of today's political general officer. You, sir, are from a bygone era that simply does not recognize the complexities of the modern nature of war. The modern warrior recognizes stakeholders, is a master of budget schemes, and can make congressional staffers feel included. The POM is what matters.
I was very happy when MCU was founded in 1989 based on my experience at AWS 1980-81. The seeds of political correctness were just being planted. After TBS, three years in the 8th Marines and two years on Sea Duty, AWS came as a cultural shock. During the Company Grade Officers Symposium and in the course of the various guest speakers many of us were taken aback buy the political climate. I found it surprising that the Captains were more war fighting focused than some senior officers around Quantico and HQMC. We were thrilled when Gen Gray reversed course and brought the Corps back to the basics, to war fighting and to traditional standards. I now realize that it was a renaissance of sorts that lasted about 10-12 years before the political correctness insurgency regained its footing. By 1997 the Corps was again in the cross hairs and fighting rearguard skirmishes. This seems to have culminated in 2020 when the CMC arbitrarily divested the Corps of significant portions of its war fighting specialties and capabilities. Twenty years of a limited emphasis on warfighting prowess and attacks on the Marine culture took its toll. This combined with a toxic careerism to set the stage for today’s delusional concepts like EABO. Counter insurgency is but one type of conflict and lessons learned can deceive.
The Corps is now in a fight for its very survival and for its soul. It is the very worst kind of battle as it is internal. Of course it is the n best of times and worst of times. With a new administration comes a cold financial calculation centered around return on investment. The Corps will not survive that scrutiny. It is far too big and far too expensive for the mission it assigned itself in one geographical arena. The hope is that the new SecDef will reorient the Corps back to MEFs as MAGTF’s with a global mission. To return to that will be expensive and require the retirement of large parts of the Marine senior leaders. The first tranche would be the delusional true believers and the second tranche for those who exhibited a lack of moral courage.
Toxic Careerism: well said, Doug. It's not "woke" per se, it's not DEI, it's not any one thing. It is the development, education, promotion rubric, and peer pressure on the way up that produces men that, over time, forget their days at TBS, IOC, and in front of a scrutinizing platoon of LCpls. Same as the 70's, same as it ever was.
As for scrutiny of the Corps, the possibility of a new "Key West Conference" ought to jolt the complacency out of planners and senior leaders. In its current state of global and GCC currency, the Corps would not fare well competing for re-examined roles and missions in such a conference.
Who appointed this General to the post? And does the person that selected them for the post agree with what he is saying and doing? If not, why are they still holding that position?
And what does this have to say about the rest of the stars out there? Have they all been polluted with the same ideology? I know that stars are political animals....but how far does it go?
If the president of Marine Corps University is shifting the focus away from warfighting and towards ideological purity tests like “allyship,” it could be highly detrimental to the Marine Corps’ effectiveness and survivability. Here’s why:
1. Warfighting is the Core Mission
The Marine Corps exists for one primary reason: to fight and win wars. Every decision, policy, and training initiative should enhance combat effectiveness. When leadership prioritizes ideological agendas over lethality, readiness suffers. A military force that is more concerned with social dynamics than battlefield dominance risks losing its edge, which can have catastrophic consequences in a future conflict.
2. Erosion of Unit Cohesion
Marine Corps cohesion is built on trust, competence, and a shared warrior ethos—not political loyalty tests. Encouraging Marines to spy on each other and report who is or isn’t an “ally” creates a culture of distrust and division, which is toxic to teamwork in combat. The battlefield doesn’t care about personal politics; it demands disciplined, unified, and skilled warriors who can trust each other with their lives.
3. Distracting from Readiness and Lethality
Every hour spent on ideological training is an hour not spent on combat training. The Marine Corps needs to be constantly preparing for peer-level conflicts, especially given the current threats from China, Russia, and other adversaries. Instead of fostering ideological policing, leadership should be reinforcing combat skills, logistics readiness, and warfighting innovation.
4. Weakening Leadership and Decision-Making
If officers begin prioritizing “allyship” and ideological purity over tactical competence and mission success, it will degrade decision-making at all levels. Promotions and command selections should be based on leadership ability, combat proficiency, and strategic thinking—not on how well someone aligns with political trends. When leadership is chosen based on anything other than merit, the entire force weakens.
5. Loss of Trust and Recruitment Issues
The Marine Corps has always attracted the best and brightest because of its clear mission and warrior culture. If the institution is perceived as being more focused on political ideology than fighting and winning wars, it will struggle to retain and recruit warfighters. Those who join the Marine Corps do so because they want to be part of an elite fighting force, not a social experiment.
Final Thoughts
The Marine Corps’ reputation as the world’s fiercest fighting force wasn’t built on political posturing—it was built on discipline, brotherhood, and a relentless focus on warfighting. Any leader who prioritizes ideological conformity over combat effectiveness is failing the institution and putting Marines’ lives at risk. If this shift continues unchecked, the long-term consequences could be devastating, weakening America’s first-to-fight force at a time when global threats are only increasing.
The Marine Corps has survived because of its ability to stay laser-focused on its mission. That mission must always come first.
This post, of the many that bring distressing news, is by far the most distressing to date. The Corps and for that matter the other branches of the US Military need to focus on one thing and one thing only, war fighting. Whether it is combined operations on a large scale or MEU sized efforts across the services. But, focus on the Corps only for the moment. A general officer no matter how one wishes to present his or her words that speaks of “spying” on his officers has violated the special trust and confidence bestowed upon us as commissioned officers. This trust is a special covenant between the officers and the Marines we lead and indeed serve. Why does this writer get the feeling that General Tracy is first in line at the chow hall before any of his Marines get served. We have all had the misfortune to have lousy commanding officers, it happens, and we all learn from it. Further, the public reflect and DOD directs. That is true for most of the DOD, but one thing that set the Marine Corps apart, was its willingness to say “NO” to dumb stuff coming out of the puzzle palace. The most important point of this post is that the new SecNav needs to clean house, all them. Every flag officer good, bad or indifferent, they have been tarred with the same brush. 05/06’s that are hard charging, relentless in pursuit of the accomplishment of Title X mission need to be deep selected and we need to move on. We have some tough, check that REALLY tough retired general officers that could mentor the deep selectees, and so on. We need Corporals not afraid to chime in when they see something that is meaningful and needs addressing. This post is shameful, and highlights why we need change and fast.
WOKEness, feminization, the LGBTQP+ perversion agenda, and leftist liberalism have ruined our military and our Corps... we need a leader such as the late Gen Gray to salvage and save our Corps... we've lost most of our "Warrior Ethos" and "good order and discipline" has been replaced by DEI and other "feel good" nonsense... of course, FD2030 is the albatross currently relegating our Corps to irrelevance and ruined our MAGTF capabilities since 2019... Gen Van Riper and his fellow Leatherneck leaders must continue to be a voice of reason and sanity and rebuke the insanity of the past decade...
Papa Bear is rolling in his grave!!
As one of the first MCWAR grads I can see Gen PKvR vibrating when this was written. It is time to put rifles in the hands of ALL Marines and mud on their boots. Nights in the field and forced marches are in order. We are not a social club!
how is it that women require special protections from often real threats, but are still being offered up as an equally real multiplier in close/direct combat roles where they won’t receive special protections?
How on Earth have we come this!
This post is ridiculous. The author saw some pictures scroll across the website and then went off the rails. It’s painfully clear that this person doesn’t have any idea what is currently happening at MCU. The current MCU President, though somewhat informal in his speaking style, is more focused on warfighting than the last five combined. You might also try to define your terms. What is WPS, really? Would you be surprised to hear that it’s based on a law signed by Trump during his first administration? Or that the DOD implementation framework was signed in 2020?
The report that a General Officer is running around talking about "allyship" is disturbing but not surprising. As a guy who retired in 2003, I must concede that there are people more informed and closer to the issue than I. That said, it seems to me the USMC has been infected with group think. I can't see how that can possibly yield good outcomes. Is the notion of "red teaming" dead?
Probably doesn't surprise you that the previous president of MCU told me that I did not have enough "expertise" to speak at MCU. Apparently 41 years of service, four tours in combat, command at every level from platoon to division, and 11 years of teaching at MCU were insufficient, thus I was banned from participating in seminars when professors asked me to visit.
Apparently, expertise in command and warfighting wasn't on the agenda at MCU.
Pure BS, General.
Very sad! I had no idea it had reached that low a level. I remember using the phrase "curse of the competent." I guess now days it's "purge of the competent."
One professor asked me to attend his seminar and discuss Force Design 2030--former MCU President said "no." Not a real surprise. He then asked in succession for me to attend seminars on Vietnam War, John Boyd's Theories, and Future War--former MCU president said "no" to all. That was a surprise.
Shocking and very disturbing.
That is beyond astonishing.
Freaking disgusting! “Allyship?” Are you kidding me!!! How far have our Corps has fell!
Of the entire CSC curriculum, only about (3) hours are dedicated to WPS. A departure from a focus on warfighting? Maybe. But if so, a small one. There's plenty of room to critique the curriculums at MCU but this approach is only interesting to those more concerned with winning a culture war, as it were. Not to mention the only reason WPS exists as a part of the curriculum is because President Trump signed the WPS act of 2017. You wouldn't know it after reading the post and the commentors below
The only major in any service academy should be a degree in "killing people and breaking things". Or engineering.
“Brigadier General Tracy’s military education includes The Basic School, Expeditionary Warfare School, College of Naval Command and Staff, and College of Naval Warfare. He is a graduate of the Maritime Advanced Warfare School.” (Maritime Advanced Warfare School? Can we have the NWC check his transcript and class rank?) Since his first Command Selection Board, he seems to be rewarded with all the right command and staff jobs. I have to ask this question: Is the problem the US Marine Corps educational system or is the problem our promotion system? This guy didn’t even wear the uniform when he talked to the “Women, Peace & Security conference 2024”. I think every Marine understands that General Officers have to dabble in politics, however, it needs to be focused on our Marines and not our political leader’s agenda. If you take care of your Marines, they will take care of you. S/F
I think your comment "Instead of war and warfighting, the MCU President says he is constantly spying on his officers to find the "jerks." In other words, to uncover officers who are not sufficiently woke." is not accurate, or correct. President BGen Matthew Tracy wrote about students professional etiquette at the
@NavalWarCollege
’s Women, Peace & Security conference:
“Allyship: 1) recognize the patriarchy, recognize there’s a system of divergence… who’s the [male] jerk at the🎄party?
2) NEVER check anyone out”
This is 🇺🇸’s war college system"
Now do I agree with his spy at the conference watching Mid to Sr Service officers... No. But let's not sell it for something it wasn't. Do I believe the USMC MCU needs to get in line with DoDs stance on dumping DEI? 100% I do...it doesn't make you more lethal...and that should be the goal of any of our MCU educational services. My opinion only. M2
I was unable to watch more than a minute or so of this video with the embarrassing talk. President of MCU did not look like, speak like, or have the demeanor of a Marine let alone a general officer. Makes me question the judgment of the board that selected him for brigadier general. As the first president of MCU and having held a teaching chair there for 11 years I have more than a passing interest in the institution. Over the years I have seen some exceptional officers filling the billet and others who seemed intent on just steering the ship; none ever behaved in the despicable manner as the current president. Does the Commandant even know or care about MCU?
Let’s examine two of the alleged acts of “wokeness” in this shitpost. 1. A former civilian faculty member at MCWAR was a woman who used to teach at a woman’s university. O the humanity! The entire civilian faculty must be “woke.” 2. The President, MCU said his male officers shouldn’t be checking out females at unit functions. Said females likely being Marines themselves or the children, wives or girlfriends of other Marines. How “woke”! Back in the old Corps butts would have been grabbed, not just checked out. I know because it happened to my wife in the old Corps. I was taught to believe you were a gentleman and a scholar but now I think you are just an out of touch troll. A gentleman wouldn’t write these things about an officer he had never met.
Ditto. Promotion Boards, Command Screening & Slating, focus on Joint Officer designations. How do we wind up with a guy like this? I can see someone like this BGen smugly abusing his rank to stifle dissent. He is a classic careerist. There is something really wrong here. How do we fix it?
General, I got the courage to look at the video on X. I have NEVER seen the likes, seething…just seething. Looking at his career at some point he took a left turn and swallowed the DOD kool aid. He exhibited just terrible demeanor, (I don’t care if the uniform of the day was civilian attire, wear a suit and tie, better yet, show them what a Marine Officer looks like and wear your winter or summer green alpha uniform.) He had poor use of language skills and was just basically full of hobucky. This is so disappointing. Makes the fight for OUR Corps all the more immediate.
Sir, I can attempt to provide a possible philosophical answer to your observations of one speech. When I was at the War College, one of the key phrases that recurred to the LtCol/Col students throughout the year was "What got you here, won't get you there." The implication was that the leadership approaches, tactical and operational focus, and officership ethos would not be effective as one ascended into the strategic realm of the Joint Force and the Pentagon.
This phrase was abhorrent to me as a student there, and remains so. Kind of like the SecDef described "Diversity is our Strength," or "Protect What You've Earned." The dumbest phrase I ever heard.
Because the implication is that one might have approached leadership problems, tactical and operational problems, and officership one way in their past, but that approach would be out of sync at the strategic level.
Here's why this matters when observing senior officers that seem to be swimming in the swamp.
This War College admonition that results in a senior officer ethos to conduct oneself aligned with the NCR strategic environment results in what you reacted to in this video.
Your ethos of officer personal and professional conduct and carriage is out of sync with the necessities of today's political general officer. You, sir, are from a bygone era that simply does not recognize the complexities of the modern nature of war. The modern warrior recognizes stakeholders, is a master of budget schemes, and can make congressional staffers feel included. The POM is what matters.
Here are his exact comments. https://x.com/NoVA_Campaigns/status/1875382909596782820
What a pitiful presentation. I lost count of the "like" and "right" oral pauses.