Busiel went away, and Fenton also went away.Two generals speaking well in the U.S. Army resigned in front and back, triggering a series of shocks in the U.S.

The two are responsible for strategic nuclear weapons and special operations, positions that are not only important, but almost key positions related to global security. This happened so suddenly and time is so coincidental that it¡¯s hard not to remember Trump¡¯s speech a few days ago at the Naval Corps Base.

He said in front of senior military officials,"Anyone who disobeys can leave." His tone was impolite and his attitude was very clear.

This is not an accident, the departure of these two generals, not just a personal decision, not a simple rotation of positions, but more like a "military listening to whom" dispute suddenly set on the stage.

This battle actually began quietly as early as the moment Trump returned to the White House. Now the fire is only on the surface.

Loyalty Is More Important Than Ability? ¨C The Army¡¯s Higher Level Forced Stand

After Trump took office, the way he handled military personnel was different from before. He doesn't care much whether the qualifications of these generals are hard enough, or whether they have actual combat experience. What he values more is whether you are on my side. This idea of "looking at attitude first and then looking at ability" makes many veterans in the army feel uneasy.

Bussier has been studying strategic nuclear weapons all his life. To put it bluntly, he is the big steward of American nuclear forces.

His job is not just to put on, but to really hold the "power of life and death" of nuclear deterrence. Fenton, on the other hand, has worked hard in the special forces system for a long time and has actually climbed up from actual combat.

These two people have one thing in common: professional strong, the mouth is not sweet. They are not very good at playing horses, nor are they good at politics, so under this wave of political winds, they appear to be incomprehensible.

Trump made harsh remarks at a high-level military meeting, saying that some people were "no longer suitable to stay here." As soon as these words were said, they were called directly.

In such an atmosphere, the two generals would choose to resign, looking as if they were proactive, but rather as if they were forced.

The military is about discipline and profession, not political expression.Once political loyalty comes first, those who truly understand the military and the battlefield are marginalized.

The chain of command is broken, the morale of the army is floating, and allies are nervous

It is not unusual for the military to change people, but it is not trivial to leave two key positions, and they resign one after another in a short period of time.

What's more, these two generals are responsible for areas, one related to nuclear security and the other related to global anti-terrorism. This level of vacancy not only confuses the internal position of the US military, but also makes the outside world question the stability of the US military.

Nuclear system is about absolute stability and clear chain of responsibility, now the core of the command system suddenly no one, even for a few days, will make the outside world disturbing.

After all, once there is a misunderstanding, the consequences are not only paid by the United States.

Fenton's departure is also not a small thing.The task carried out by the Special Operations Forces is often sudden, quick and accurate.

Once he leaves, the new man has to take time to adapt, intelligence can not be taken, orders can not be passed, these problems once appear, can lead to a series of actions delay and even failure.

On the other side of Europe, the U.S. military has always been seen as a safe relying on the mountain, and now the top level is unmoving and no one knows what will happen tomorrow.

Some Asian countries are also reassessing their security dependence. After all, it depends on the stability of the U.S. military rather than the mood of a certain president. Everyone is worried: Will the U.S. military become "unreliable"?

And the mindset of the military officers, also slowly changing. before everyone was playing the ability, now it looks like playing the position.

The long-standing tradition of "speaking professionally and fighting hard" is slowly replaced by a "loyality theory", and many officers begin to worry that they will not be cleaned up because of the lack of "positive expression".

Invisible storm, slowly fermenting from within

In fact, the wind of military politicization did not blow up in a day or two.In the history of the United States, friction between the military and civil servants has always existed.

But it used to be rare to use "loyalty" as the only criterion to select officers.

Over the past few decades, the U.S. military has struggled to maintain a basic principle: obedience to democratically elected governments, but political neutrality. In other words, servicemen carry out orders but don't get overly involved in politics.

On the one hand, the White House hopes that the army will ¡°speak out¡± on some social issues, such as culture, education, gender, and so on; on the other hand, it now demands that officers must ¡°take a common stance¡±.

More dangerously, this trend will lead to a ¡°talent loss¡± in the army. genuinely capable and insightful generals, if they feel the environment is not suitable for development, either retire early or simply no longer fight for high positions.

For a long time, the remaining are not the most knowledgeable of warfare, but the most thoughtful. such people are more, and the overall combat force of the army is slowly wasted.

From this perspective, the departure of Busiel and Fenton is more like their response to reality.They are reluctant to sacrifice the military¡¯s due independence, nor are they willing to be ¡°tools¡± in the political struggle.They choose to leave, not to retreat, but to ultimately insist.

The storm seems to be just the resignation of two generals, but behind it is the dramatic change the entire military system is going through.If this trend continues, the U.S. military may slowly lose the "professional military spirit" it has been proud of.

This change will not only affect the United States itself, but will also trigger a global chain reaction.

The US military stands at a crossroads. Who will pay for the turmoil?

How this wave of turmoil will eventually end, no one dares to say now. But it is certain that things are far from over. The upper army turmoil may only be the first wave, and there will be more adjustments, more resignations, and even more open or unopen protests.

What the US military is now facing is a multiple-choice question: Should it continue to go on the road of "politicization" or return to the old road of "professional priority"?

This decision is not only related to the military itself, but also to the image and influence of the United States around the world. If the US military becomes an institution dominated entirely by political will, its international credibility will also be compromised.

In the end, it will not be a president or a general who will pay for these turmoil, but the security interests of the whole country. What's more, those countries that once relied on the security commitment of the United States will also begin to alienate and find another way out because of the uncertainty of the United States.

By then, the U.S. would want to regain its past leadership, I am afraid, would not be so easy.

Trump may think that "substitution" is a trivial matter in the White House, or even "cleaning up the door", but the consequences of this clean-up may be more complicated than he thought.

The army is not a place where you can play cards at will. Once your profession is put aside, only empty airs and big trouble will be left behind.

So, this mess, just started. the real test, still behind. can the U.S. Army this huge thing, can survive this storm, to see next how many people are willing to adhere to the principle, how many people can be at the tip of the wind wave, not forget the heart.