By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Pentagon is undergoing a major leadership overhaul under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, with Rear Admiral Kurt Rothenhaus, head of the Office of Naval Research, being replaced by 33-year-old Rachel Riley, a former DOGE employee, who lacks military experience. This follows the departure of three-star General Joe McGee, who served on the Joint Staff, amidst reported tension. These moves are part of a broader trend of experienced officials being removed from their positions within the Defense Department under the current administration, alongside previous high-profile dismissals of key military leaders.
Read the original article here
Pentagon Pete Purges Decorated Admiral for DOGE Goon, 33:
The news that Pentagon Pete, presumably a high-ranking official within the Department of Defense, has purged a decorated admiral in favor of a 33-year-old former DOGE employee with no military experience is, to put it mildly, concerning. This decision raises immediate questions about the qualifications and motivations behind such a drastic personnel change. It appears to be a direct reflection of a trend of cronyism and political allegiance over merit, a pattern that is becoming increasingly familiar.
This action feels like something out of a cautionary tale, reminiscent of historical instances where loyalty to a particular regime or ideology trumps competence and experience. The replacement of a decorated admiral with someone lacking military expertise is a bold move, potentially indicating a desire to install individuals who are more compliant and less likely to question the direction of the Pentagon. This purge, as it has been called, suggests a shift away from traditional military values and toward a more politically aligned leadership structure. The implications for national security are potentially significant.
The appointment of someone with no military background, especially in a critical research office, is a gamble. One would assume that expertise is paramount. The former DOGE employee’s selection over a decorated admiral hints at other factors influencing the decision, like political alignment, rather than professional qualifications. It’s hard not to connect this decision to a broader agenda of eliminating perceived “wokeness” and “DEI” from the military, as indicated by other reports about Hegseth’s actions.
The purging of experienced military leaders to promote those seen as aligned with a particular political ideology is a dangerous game. Such a move can only serve to weaken the military’s effectiveness, potentially compromising its ability to carry out its core mission of defending the nation. If true, this looks like a deliberate dismantling of the professional military to pave the way for political loyalists.
If the goal is to install loyalists into positions of power, where they can help skirt the law or suppress dissent, the consequences could be severe. The replacement of experienced, qualified leaders with individuals handpicked for their political views sets a troubling precedent. The use of “DEI related” terms, or the banning of words such as “justice,” “dignity,” “respect,” “equality,” “inequality,” “female,” “women,” “socioeconomic,” “underprivileged,” and “cultural heritage” is a clear example of this.
This action raises a fundamental question: What are the long-term ramifications of replacing military leaders based on their alignment with a particular political agenda? The removal of those with the skills and experience to properly do their jobs can only serve to weaken the military. This does not bode well for the future. The message being sent to the ranks is that military competence is secondary to political loyalty.