Washington is once again in hysterics over the removal of senior military leaders. This time, branding it a “purge” carried out by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. The outrage is predictable. The substance, however, is far less dramatic and far more justified.
Civilian control of the military is not optional in the United States. It is foundational. And with that control comes authority: the authority to hire, to promote, and yes, to fire. Secretaries of war are not figureheads. They are responsible for ensuring that the armed forces remain lethal, disciplined, and focused on their core mission: winning wars.
That responsibility necessarily includes removing leaders who fail to uphold standards.
Critics would have you believe this is unprecedented. It is not. Former President Barack Obama removed far more generals and admirals during his tenure, often with little public handwringing. The idea that today’s dismissals represent some extraordinary break with tradition collapses under even the most basic scrutiny.
What is different is the context. For years, concerns have been mounting that parts of the senior military leadership have drifted away from merit-based decision-making and toward political or ideological considerations. Whether one agrees with that critique or not, it is a legitimate concern, and one that civilian leadership is fully empowered to address.
Consider the case of General Randy George.
In 2024, George approved an override to promote an officer who had failed the Army’s Battalion Command Assessment Program (BCAP), not once, but twice. BCAP existed for a reason: to be the Army’s primary, objective mechanism for evaluating who was fit to command at the battalion level. The program was designed specifically to remove bias and ensure that leadership selection is based on performance and capability.
Yet in this instance, the process was not merely bent. It was bypassed.
Another general, Charles Hamilton, reportedly inserted himself into the process, attending the officer’s board uninvited, attempting to influence panel members, and lobbying directly for a waiver. Despite these irregularities, the override was approved anyway.
This is not a minor procedural issue. It strikes at the heart of military professionalism. When the only objective vetting system is overridden under questionable circumstances, confidence in the chain of command erodes. And when confidence erodes, readiness follows.
That is the real issue – not politics, not optics, but trust.
Or take the controversy surrounding Major General William Green, the Army’s former Chief of Chaplains. Documentation outlines decisions and actions that critics argue prioritized ideological signaling over core religious support functions, such as overseeing the cancellation of Catholic religious support contracts and suggesting that soldiers seek sacraments off base rather than ensuring proper provision within the ranks.
Regardless of one’s perspective on theology, those decisions raised a serious question of whether senior leaders focused on serving the needs of troops or advancing broader agendas.
That question matters. The Chaplain Corps exists to support service members’ spiritual needs in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. Any perception that this mission is being diluted or politicized is a problem worth addressing.
None of this is to say that every firing is perfect or beyond critique. Nor is it to suggest that all initiatives aimed at recognizing the broad array of backgrounds represented by our troops are inherently incompatible with military effectiveness. But when those initiatives, real or perceived, begin to interfere with merit-based systems or core mission delivery, they warrant scrutiny.
And scrutiny, in a system of effective civilian control, often leads to action.
The numbers themselves further undercut the “purge” narrative. Removing a small fraction of senior officers from a force numbering in the hundreds is not a dismantling of the institution. It is a recalibration.
The louder truth, one that many in Washington would prefer to avoid, is that accountability at the highest levels of the military has been uneven for years. When accountability does arrive, it is inevitably labeled political by those unversed in American military history.
Senior military leadership is not a lifetime appointment. Rank does not confer immunity. Maintaining the most effective fighting force in the world requires constant evaluation of those entrusted to lead it.
Secretary Hegseth is not breaking norms. He is restoring them.
The real question is not whether he has the authority to act. He does.
The question is whether we still expect our military leadership to be selected, and retained based on merit, integrity, and mission focus.
If the answer is yes, then this moment should not be feared.
It should be welcomed.
Chase Spears served as a U.S. Army public affairs officer for 20 years and is host of the Finding Your Spine podcast. Among other pursuits, he enjoys writing about courage, civil-military relations, communication ethics, and policy. Chase holds a Ph.D. in leadership communication from Kansas State University, where his research focused