On September 30, at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia, high-level U.S. military held a big meeting and gathered generals and admirals from all over the world, totaling hundreds of people. The meeting was organized by the newly appointed Secretary of Defense, Pete Hagerseth. Not long after he moved from Fox News, he directly changed the name of the Department of Defense to the "Department of War." As soon as the meeting began, Hagerseth went straight to the point and criticized the so-called "pathological culture" in the military, particularly naming and criticizing the "fat generals" and the "awakening culture." He felt that the army was too soft now and needed major changes.

Hertz listed ten new rules, the first is to strengthen the fitness standards and tests, so that everyone can be too hard. The second is to strictly grasp the customs requirements, from hairstyle to uniform buttons, a little less. The third is to review ¡°harmful leadership¡±, meaning that those with a bad mood head should be pulled out. The fourth is to end certain command culture, the fifth is to liberate the monitoring process, to simplify the trouble of those layers to guide. The sixth is based on performance promotion, no longer to do ¡°diversity, fairness and inclusion¡± project, he straight said these games pull back the legs. The seventh is to strengthen the spirit of warriors, the eighth is to clear the political interference, the ninth is to select talent, the tenth is to adjust the

Then, Trump came to power and spoke for 70 minutes. As soon as he opened his mouth, he called "radical left-wing Democrats" and said that the United States was being "invaded internally". Then he named San Francisco, Chicago and new york, cities run by the Democratic Party, with ridiculously high crime rates, and directly proposed that these places should be used as "training grounds" for the army and the National Guard. Trump stressed that the army will soon be stationed in Chicago. As soon as this statement comes out, it is tantamount to turning the traditional functions of the army upside down, from foreign operations to dealing with its own people. Speaking of this, Trump turned his head, glanced at the generals in the audience, and smiled and made up his knife: Whoever wants to leave can leave, but those who leave have to throw away their future. This operation blatantly used the army as a partisan tool and touched the red line of political neutrality of the US military. Thus the meeting ended, calm on the surface, but fermentation began underneath.

Within hours, Air Force Global Combat Command commander Thomas Buseyard announced his retirement. He was in charge of all U.S. land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and strategic bombers, which were the core pillars of nuclear deterrence. Buseyard wrote in a statement, saying it was for ¡°personal and family reasons¡±, but the time was too coincidental, just after Hertz¡¯s ¡°resignation,¡± saying that it did not explode overnight. Early in July, Buseyard received the nomination of Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and was withdrawn by the White House at the beginning of September. In August, Air Force Chief David Arwen also suddenly retired, having only served for a four-year term. This series of actions was equivalent to blocking the rise of the Buse

Almost at the same time, Special Operations Command Commander Bryan Fenton also submitted his resignation documents. This command controls elite forces such as SEALs and Delta Forces, and is the sharp knife for the US military's global high-risk missions. Fenton signed on October 2 and officially retired on Friday, October 3, handing over to Lieutenant General Jon Braga. He has been working for more than three years and was supposed to be in normal rotation, but he was so close to the meeting that many people associate it with it. Two commanders, one in charge of a nuclear stick and the other in charge of a scalpel, left one after another within 48 hours, which is rare in U.S. military history. Their departure directly sent a signal to the entire army: When political loyalty and military oath collide, they must choose the latter, even if it involves a career.

As soon as this wave of resignations broke out, political and retired military circles exploded. Democratic Leader Jack Reid on the Senate Armed Services Committee immediately blasted the meeting as "an expensive and dangerous leadership failure." He specifically named Hagerseth's "resignation ultimatum" as extremely dangerous and tantamount to forcing generals to choose sides. Reid's statement spread quickly, and the media followed up. Democratic lawmakers flipped through the report at the hearing and marked key paragraphs. What is louder than politicians is the response of military veterans. Retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling bluntly said that soldiers would not carry out illegal orders. He cited Article 92 of the Unified Code of Military Justice, which gave soldiers the right to refuse unconstitutional or illegal instructions, and emphasized that it was the Constitution that swore allegiance, not an official. When Hertling said these words, it was like cheering up the active-duty soldiers and reminding everyone where the foundation lies.

Digging from the roots exposed the signs of the US military's transformation from a neutral tool to a partisan arena. After the Trump administration came to power, it began to clean up its doors. There have been frequent changes in the top management of the Air Force. First, Alvin left early, then Bussier's nomination was withdrawn, and now he is also retiring. On the special operations side, Fenton's departure left a window open for the leadership, and Braga had to get started quickly. Hagerseth's ten instructions are already being implemented. Physical fitness tests have been upgraded, appearance inspections have been tightened, and leadership reviews have been launched. Diversification projects are cut, and promotions depend on performance. On the surface, these changes are for combat effectiveness, but underneath they are ideological control. The Republican Party's version of political correctness has arrived. The Democratic Party previously promoted affirmative action, but now it is their turn to call for a revival of the warrior spirit.

The army is no longer an ivory tower. After the political struggle became extreme, both parties were eyeing it. The Republican Party's 2024 platform writes about expanding the domestic power of the military, and whoever controls the military will have the upper hand. Trump's plan to enter Chicago sounds like actual combat deployment, but it is actually a partisan abacus. Cities such as San Francisco and new york, which were originally local security issues, are now brought into the military's field of vision. The National Guard usually manages disasters, but now it may turn to internal affairs. Hegseth's transition from a media person to a defense chief was already controversial. His Fox background made many people think that the army was changing.

The impact of the resignation is still spreading. The Air Force's Global Strike Command must be replaced as soon as possible. The new commander inspects the missile silo and checks the maintenance logs. The Special Operations Command organized the exercise, and the team members adjusted their equipment and continued the mission. But the leadership is in turmoil and the decision-making chain has to be restructured. After Bussière retired, the Air Force issued a change order and global units updated communications. Fenton left, the troops lined up to hand over, the military music played, and the new leader had to calm down. Media reports say this is only the beginning and more personnel changes are on the way. The Trump team pushed forward reforms, Hagerseth signed orders, and Pentagon documents piled up.

There are more and more voices in retired military circles. Hertling's response went on TV. In the podcast, he repeated his constitutional allegiance, and social platforms kept forwarding it. The Democratic Party condemned the follow-up, while the Republican Party responded little, and internal meetings discussed countermeasures. Discussions in the military are transmitted through the intranet, and officers turn over the code and mark the clauses. Reed reiterates professional standards and committee distributes copies. This wave of incidents makes people see the bottom line of soldiers: the Constitution comes first, and the individual comes second. The move of Bussier and Fenton, at a price, held that line.