48 ms·
US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
- mothballed 6mo agoThere should probably be some kind of elected position, independent from the three branches, who's sole task is to veto presidential orders to the armed forces. The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.
- krapp 6mo ago> The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful. I disagree. The decision to go to war should always be slow and deliberate. I can't think of a single case where the President deciding to send troops on a whim without consulting Congress or getting their approval first ever worked out well.
- mothballed 6mo agoI suppose the devil is in the details of "getting their approval" but it's worth noting Lincoln prosecuted the Civil War without seeking a declaration of war with congress.
- KylerAce 6mo agoThat's because the United States official position in the civil war was that the south was a part of the US that was in rebellion, and not a sovereign state that we were at war with.
- mothballed 6mo agoI don't see how that negates the action of sending of troops for combat. You're just arguing an excuse as to why congress wasn't sought to to declare war in this "case where the President decid[ed] to send troops." There is always some excuse for that nowadays, quite conveniently, so you're in good company.
- vagrantJin 6mo agoCivil war is always an exception because of the special circumstances. Its not an act of war but a state of emergency which has it's own protocols regarding presidential powers.
- krapp 6mo agoThat might be the one exception.
- fragmede 6mo agoThe 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War by NATO did not have congressional approval and while it was not perfect or troops, I'd put it ever so slightly on the side of "well" vs the current debacle.
- readitalready 6mo agoA lot of government would be improved by making elected positions be very specific roles. Why are we deciding military strategy from a guy that was elected to fix labor rights? Should the same guy running the school system also be in charge of selecting Supreme Court justices? Also, the founding fathers had it right: An independent electoral college should decide elected positions, not the general public. Hiring decisions should be left up to people that are expert at hiring, not random people. The only role the general public should have in government is deciding their representative - it's literally in the name! And executive branch isn't supposed to be a representative. It's only role is to execute laws created by the representatives.
- maxerickson 6mo agoReally pushing the definition of elected there.
- uncanny2 6mo agoYou mean like the ancient tradition of the Roman Censure. Someone who “monitors” the legislative branches and may “veto” any governmental action determined against the public good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor
- Jamesbeam 6mo agoThat is what they have General Claude for. Gen. Claude sometimes misjudges things and hallucinates but that’s alright, because the president said the enemy is bombing their own girl schools with tomahawks so it’s ok to grab them by the meow. Something the president practiced for years on a far away island. Trust the process.
- b40d-48b2-979e 6mo agoEarlier this week, however, Hegseth reversed an Army decision to investigate Army pilots who were flying attack helicopters near singer Kid Rock's house, in an apparent show of support for the vocal Trump backer. The corruption is never-ending.
- segmondy 6mo agobehold the incoming attempt at oct coup
- jmye 6mo agoI’m not following. Are you suggesting that Hegseth, maybe the second dumbest person to ever hold a cabinet position, is plotting a coup? I also don’t follow how getting rid of “disloyal people” (given prior patterns, not as a comment on these moves specifically) would precede a Türkiye-style “coup”, either.
- jfengel 6mo agoIt wouldn't be Hegseth against the President. It would be an auto-coup, where the President forcibly remains in power. The President is not about to leave office, but there is a very good chance that his allies will lose control of Congress. And he has hinted that he is willing to use the military to prevent that. If so, he might have told Hegseth to install a Chief of Staff who would implement those orders. This is conjecture, of course. It's more likely a personal disagreement, apparently over a promotions list. (Hegseth wanted every non-white-man removed from the list.) But there have been just enough hints of an auto-coup to bring about speculation like that.
- jmye 6mo agoAhh, I understand what you're saying. I guess I wonder if he cares about control of Congress, given the SC ruling in Trump V United States? > apparently over a promotions list Not at all surprising.
- jfengel 6mo agoThings are easier with Congress staying out of his way. If he loses Congress he'll roll with it, splashing around lots of accusations of election fraud and generally flooding the zone with poop. In pursuit of... honestly I cannot say. I get the impression that the act itself makes him happy. He doesn't really seem to have many goals beyond that, aside from some sordid money-grubbing.
- jacquesm 6mo agoSo, what are the odds of nukes/ground invasion/flyby being the cause for this (other than competence)?
- unsnap_biceps 6mo agoSeems like it was bog standard *isms https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/promotions-may-led-army-chief-020656627.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/promotions-may-led-army-...
- mitchbob 6mo agohttps://archive.ph/2026.04.03-000904/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/hegseth-has-asked-us-army-chief-staff-step-down-cbs-news-reports-2026-04-02/ https://archive.ph/2026.04.03-000904/https://www.reuters.com...