So Pete Hegseth has personally managed to decrease the effectiveness and professionalism of the US armed forces, and especially it's army, to an astounding degree.

Several of the most highly thought of and respected flag rank officers have been fired or forced out in the past two years, replaced by "loyalists".

And to see how well "loyalists" do in senior positions, just take a look at the Trump cabinet where each cabinet member is at the very bottom of the barrel. Every single one of them are much worse than any of their predecessors.

It's little wonder they got totally outplayed by Iran.

https://archive.ph/AMuYn

"A series of firings and feuds initiated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has left the Army essentially rudderless as it struggles to deal with the threat posed by cheap, deadly drones and missiles that have pounded U.S. bases in the Middle East.

The Army has not had a chief of staff, the service’s top officer, since Mr. Hegseth fired Gen. Randy George without explanation in April, and there are no signs that he is close to filling the position, said current and former officials speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel matters.

Mr. Hegseth has forced out at least three senior officers who had been viewed as potential successors to General George."

Edited Thursday at 11:02 AM4 days by BLMFem

Elect a clown, expect a circus.

So there's a huge rise in the number of conscientious objectors in the US military, a fact which should surprise no one. With 180 Iranian school girls blown to pieces as well as around 227 Central/South American fishermen/pot smugglers assassinated it's clear that when the grown-ups are once again back in control there will be a reckoning, and "I was just following orders" is not gonna cut it.

"MS NOW reports that the number of conscientious objectors in the military is growing, with many citing violations of international law. The GI Rights Hotline at the Quaker House has seen a spike in interest from service members who see their orders as immoral. The Center on Conscience and War, which helps service members file applications as objectors, has also seen applications go up by six times since the Iran war began in February, higher than any other time in the last 25 years."

So it turns out programs that could have prevented hundreds of civilian deaths caused by US strikes had been gutted by Pete Hegseth, by far the worst SecDef the US has ever had.

Who knew that putting idiots in positions of great power and responsibility could lead to such disastrous results.

'Top Commanders Told Hegseth Not to Cut Civilian Protection Program, Poll Showed. He Did It Anyway.'

https://www.propublica.org/article/hegseth-civilian-harm-mitigation-response-trump-defense-department

"The U.S. military has killed hundreds of noncombatants since gutting its Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response mission last year. Hegseth gutted the effort, leaving only a handful of people to carry out the mission. After significant blowback, the Defense Department is considering partially restoring the program."

He's doing an excellent job. Good a real man is in charge for once.

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

He's doing an excellent job. Good a real man is in charge for once.

Yes, he does tic all your boxes, doesn't he.😆

So the disastrous war in Iran as clearly showed that the US military, under Pete Hegseth, cannot sustain a war (let alone two!) and can't defend its military bases, intelligence assets or its allies. And this was against a second rate Iranian military.

'Iran has caused ‘billions’ in damage to American intelligence assets, report says'

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/iran-war-damage-military-billions-b3039768.html

"Iran has caused “billions” of dollars in damage to U.S. intelligence infrastructure, according to a new report, which comes as the war continues to drag on with no clear end in sight.

Iranian drones and missiles have struck “intelligence posts and surveillance hardware in the Middle East that is more extensive than any destruction America’s spy agencies have endured,” NBC News reported, citing four unnamed sources.

The damage is expected to cost billions to repair."

4 hours ago, Stocky said:

Elect a clown, expect a circus.

Been there, done that! Obama, Biden.

3 hours ago, BLMFem said:

So it turns out programs that could have prevented hundreds of civilian deaths caused by US strikes had been gutted by Pete Hegseth, by far the worst SecDef the US has ever had.

Who knew that putting idiots in positions of great power and responsibility could lead to such disastrous results.

'Top Commanders Told Hegseth Not to Cut Civilian Protection Program, Poll Showed. He Did It Anyway.'

https://www.propublica.org/article/hegseth-civilian-harm-mitigation-response-trump-defense-department

"The U.S. military has killed hundreds of noncombatants since gutting its Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response mission last year. Hegseth gutted the effort, leaving only a handful of people to carry out the mission. After significant blowback, the Defense Department is considering partially restoring the program."

It’s very sad. Sad indeed that you most likely won’t be around for Pete’s inauguration.

4 hours ago, BLMFem said:

So Pete Hegseth has personally managed to decrease the effectiveness and professionalism of the US armed forces, and especially it's army, to an astounding degree.

Several of the most highly thought of and respected flag rank officers have been fired or forced out in the past two years, replaced by "loyalists".

And to see how well "loyalists" do in senior positions, just take a look at the Trump cabinet where each cabinet member is at the very bottom of the barrel. Every single one of them are much worse than any of their predecessors.

It's little wonder they got totally outplayed by Iran.

https://archive.ph/AMuYn

"A series of firings and feuds initiated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has left the Army essentially rudderless as it struggles to deal with the threat posed by cheap, deadly drones and missiles that have pounded U.S. bases in the Middle East.

The Army has not had a chief of staff, the service’s top officer, since Mr. Hegseth fired Gen. Randy George without explanation in April, and there are no signs that he is close to filling the position, said current and former officials speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel matters.

Mr. Hegseth has forced out at least three senior officers who had been viewed as potential successors to General George."

Advertisement

No more “dudes in dresses” certainly has affected you.

Not in a good way. Pete is slowly replacing Trump as the number one occupier of your brain.

Edited Thursday at 03:51 PM4 days by HolmesEquivelant

7 hours ago, BLMFem said:

So Pete Hegseth has personally managed to decrease the effectiveness and professionalism of the US armed forces, and especially it's army, to an astounding degree.

Several of the most highly thought of and respected flag rank officers have been fired or forced out in the past two years, replaced by "loyalists".

And to see how well "loyalists" do in senior positions, just take a look at the Trump cabinet where each cabinet member is at the very bottom of the barrel. Every single one of them are much worse than any of their predecessors.

It's little wonder they got totally outplayed by Iran.

https://archive.ph/AMuYn

"A series of firings and feuds initiated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has left the Army essentially rudderless as it struggles to deal with the threat posed by cheap, deadly drones and missiles that have pounded U.S. bases in the Middle East.

The Army has not had a chief of staff, the service’s top officer, since Mr. Hegseth fired Gen. Randy George without explanation in April, and there are no signs that he is close to filling the position, said current and former officials speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel matters.

Mr. Hegseth has forced out at least three senior officers who had been viewed as potential successors to General George."

The evidence for Hegseth's tenure is rather more troubling than the rhetoric about restoring a “warrior ethos” suggests. The Department of Defense itself confirms that recruiting improved sharply in 2025: the Army exceeded its target by more than 10%, reaching its goal of 61,000 recruits four months early.

But recruiting numbers do not demonstrate that the force has become more professional or strategically effective, particularly when the same period has seen an extraordinary turnover of senior leadership. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Air Force Vice Chief, senior military lawyers and numerous other senior officers were dismissed or forced out, often before completing their expected terms and with little public explanation.

Whatever one's politics, replacing experienced commanders on this scale inevitably destroys institutional continuity and encourages every remaining officer to consider whether professional independence is compatible with career survival. This is pretty much what happened in Russia after 2008. In 2008, there was the Serdyukov military reform, supposedly to modernise Soviet style leadership. But Putin and Shoigu took the opportunity to politicise the military to ensure apparent loyalty not to Russia but to Putin. The result was sheer incompetence what it came to an actual shooting war.

The criticism cannot simply be dismissed as coming from the political left. The Heritage Foundation's own 2026 Index of U.S. Military Strength rates the Army overall as “marginal,” with only 31 Regular Army brigade combat teams against its own benchmark of 50, or 62% of the force Heritage considers necessary for two major regional contingencies. Heritage also rates the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard as “weak.”. It demonstrates the absurdity of claiming that dismissing experienced leaders and demanding political loyalty is some obvious cure for America's military problems.

When a force already has limited capacity and major modernisation problems, purging its accumulated expertise and replacing stability with ideological uncertainty is an extremely reckless way to prepare it for a confrontation with a capable adversary such as Iran.

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

The evidence for Hegseth's tenure is rather more troubling than the rhetoric about restoring a “warrior ethos” suggests. The Department of Defense itself confirms that recruiting improved sharply in 2025: the Army exceeded its target by more than 10%, reaching its goal of 61,000 recruits four months early.

But recruiting numbers do not demonstrate that the force has become more professional or strategically effective, particularly when the same period has seen an extraordinary turnover of senior leadership. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Air Force Vice Chief, senior military lawyers and numerous other senior officers were dismissed or forced out, often before completing their expected terms and with little public explanation.

Whatever one's politics, replacing experienced commanders on this scale inevitably destroys institutional continuity and encourages every remaining officer to consider whether professional independence is compatible with career survival. This is pretty much what happened in Russia after 2008. In 2008, there was the Serdyukov military reform, supposedly to modernise Soviet style leadership. But Putin and Shoigu took the opportunity to politicise the military to ensure apparent loyalty not to Russia but to Putin. The result was sheer incompetence what it came to an actual shooting war.

The criticism cannot simply be dismissed as coming from the political left. The Heritage Foundation's own 2026 Index of U.S. Military Strength rates the Army overall as “marginal,” with only 31 Regular Army brigade combat teams against its own benchmark of 50, or 62% of the force Heritage considers necessary for two major regional contingencies. Heritage also rates the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard as “weak.”. It demonstrates the absurdity of claiming that dismissing experienced leaders and demanding political loyalty is some obvious cure for America's military problems.

When a force already has limited capacity and major modernisation problems, purging its accumulated expertise and replacing stability with ideological uncertainty is an extremely reckless way to prepare it for a confrontation with a capable adversary such as Iran.

I much prefer Pete’s speech above to your whole lot of nothing.

Clear, concise and directly to the point.

Army General fired because he wouldn't drop the Kid Rock investigation.

Feeling safer yet? 😂

2 hours ago, HolmesEquivelant said:

I much prefer Pete’s speech above to your whole lot of nothing.

Clear, concise and directly to the point.

The heading is "Moments from Pete Hegseth's speech to military commanders".

Of course snippets are concise, dumbass.

7 hours ago, HolmesEquivelant said:

It’s very sad. Sad indeed that you most likely won’t be around for Pete’s inauguration.

Hmmm . . . mostly straight and VERY white men. Does that reasonably represent the makeup of America or Murikkka?

5 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Hmmm . . . mostly straight and VERY white men. Does that reasonably represent the makeup of America or Murikkka?

Only the brightest and the best! Based on merit. not DEI.

Have your meltdown.

BTW, Trump’s Treasury Secretary is gay. Hired on merit, not sexuality. The way it should be.

Edited Thursday at 11:01 PM4 days by HolmesEquivelant

3 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

The evidence for Hegseth's tenure is rather more troubling than the rhetoric about restoring a “warrior ethos” suggests. The Department of Defense itself confirms that recruiting improved sharply in 2025: the Army exceeded its target by more than 10%, reaching its goal of 61,000 recruits four months early.

But recruiting numbers do not demonstrate that the force has become more professional or strategically effective, particularly when the same period has seen an extraordinary turnover of senior leadership. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Air Force Vice Chief, senior military lawyers and numerous other senior officers were dismissed or forced out, often before completing their expected terms and with little public explanation.

Whatever one's politics, replacing experienced commanders on this scale inevitably destroys institutional continuity and encourages every remaining officer to consider whether professional independence is compatible with career survival. This is pretty much what happened in Russia after 2008. In 2008, there was the Serdyukov military reform, supposedly to modernise Soviet style leadership. But Putin and Shoigu took the opportunity to politicise the military to ensure apparent loyalty not to Russia but to Putin. The result was sheer incompetence what it came to an actual shooting war.

The criticism cannot simply be dismissed as coming from the political left. The Heritage Foundation's own 2026 Index of U.S. Military Strength rates the Army overall as “marginal,” with only 31 Regular Army brigade combat teams against its own benchmark of 50, or 62% of the force Heritage considers necessary for two major regional contingencies. Heritage also rates the Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard as “weak.”. It demonstrates the absurdity of claiming that dismissing experienced leaders and demanding political loyalty is some obvious cure for America's military problems.

When a force already has limited capacity and major modernisation problems, purging its accumulated expertise and replacing stability with ideological uncertainty is an extremely reckless way to prepare it for a confrontation with a capable adversary such as Iran.

A thoughtful analysis. Unfortunately, the analogy of casting pearls before swine springs to mind.

There's a dozen or more similar accurate threads that could be written about Trump's appointments. Well, a lot more than a dozen.

1 hour ago, HolmesEquivelant said:

Only the brightest and the best! Based on merit. not DEI.

Have your meltdown.

BTW, Trump’s Treasury Secretary is gay. Hired on merit, not sexuality. The way it should be.

Bessent was a hedge fund manager, hardly qualified to run the nation's treasury (unless, of course, your main focus is enriching fellow fat cats).

Thankfully, MAGA is a dying breed, the numbers are shrinking. Only the stubborn, self delusional sycophants remain. This is a fact. Look it up.

51 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Bessent was a hedge fund manager, hardly qualified to run the nation's treasury (unless, of course, your main focus is enriching fellow fat cats).

Thankfully, MAGA is a dying breed, the numbers are shrinking. Only the stubborn, self delusional sycophants remain. This is a fact. Look it up.

Rather weak attempt at a counter post.

You are aware one of your compadres was a hedge fund manager @Wingate. I’m sure he’ll add his long winded opinion.

List Bessent's other credentials.

In your opinion what credentials are needed for Treasury Secretary? How do they differ from Trump’s? And from past Treasury Secretary’s?

Are you qualified to be Treasury Secretary? Based on your critique, you must be.

How many have fulfilled your fantasy credentials for Treasury Secretary in the past?

While I’m not a hedge fund guru, I’m enjoying being a “fat cat” by the S&P alone.

Sounds like you missed the ride up. Don’t be bitter. Your old age UK pension fund is still there, without COLA’s.

Edited Friday at 01:49 AM4 days by HolmesEquivelant

29 minutes ago, HolmesEquivelant said:

Rather weak attempt at a counter post.

You are aware one of your compadres was a hedge fund manager @Wingate. I’m sure he’ll add his long winded opinion.

List Bessent's other credentials.

In your opinion what credentials are needed for Treasury Secretary? How do they differ from Trump’s? And from past Treasury Secretary’s?

Are you qualified to be Treasury Secretary? Based on your critique, you must be.

How many have fulfilled your fantasy credentials for Treasury Secretary in the past?

While I’m not a hedge fund guru, I’m enjoying being a “fat cat” by the S&P alone.

Sounds like you missed the ride up. Don’t be bitter. Your old age UK pension fund is still there, without COLA’s.

Using 47 as a standard by which you compare anything? THAT'S a laugh, thank you!
And as I previously posted about you, there are fewer of you sycophants every day. Your days are numbered, the world is slowly healing.

Scott Bessent worked with George Soros. He's an economics professor at Yale. He knows more about economics than HappyExpat57 could ever dream of. Nobody better to be at the helm of the economy than Bessent.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

Scott Bessent worked with George Soros. He's an economics professor at Yale. He knows more about economics than HappyExpat57 could ever dream of. Nobody better to be at the helm of the economy than Bessent.

Scott Bessent’s hedge fund, Key Square Capital, suffered a near‑wipeout.

After launching in 2015 with about $4.5–5 billion, the fund lost roughly 90% of its assets, shrinking to about $577 million by late 2023. Critics describe this as one of the worst collapses among “mega‑launch” hedge funds.

Financial wizard.

1 hour ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Using 47 as a standard by which you compare anything? THAT'S a laugh, thank you!
And as I previously posted about you, there are fewer of you sycophants every day. Your days are numbered, the world is slowly healing.

And you deflected because you’re unable to answer any of my legitimate questions.

Appears to be a common tactic for leftists.

My days are numbered? In what way? You’ll never see another Democrat for a long time. Thank your DSA.

Edited Friday at 03:25 AM4 days by HolmesEquivelant

57 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

Scott Bessent’s hedge fund, Key Square Capital, suffered a near‑wipeout.

After launching in 2015 with about $4.5–5 billion, the fund lost roughly 90% of its assets, shrinking to about $577 million by late 2023. Critics describe this as one of the worst collapses among “mega‑launch” hedge funds.

Financial wizard.

It is perfectly normal for hedge funds to have negative years. All the best hedge funds run by all the top fund managers have had years when the fund had negative years. Key Square Capital has been around for 10 years plus.

At its wind-down, Key Square Capital concluded its performance on a high note, posting strong double-digit percentage gains in 2024 right before operations ceased.

So yes, indeed Financial Wizard.

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

It is perfectly normal for hedge funds to have negative years. All the best hedge funds run by all the top fund managers have had years when the fund had negative years. Key Square Capital has been around for 10 years plus.

At its wind-down, Key Square Capital concluded its performance on a high note, posting strong double-digit percentage gains in 2024 right before operations ceased.

So yes, indeed Financial Wizard.

"Negative years"......5555

Critics describe this as one of the worst collapses among “mega‑launch” hedge funds.

8 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

"Negative years"......5555

Critics describe this as one of the worst collapses among “mega‑launch” hedge funds.

Stop lying. At its wind-down, Key Square Capital concluded its performance by posting strong double-digit percentage gains in 2024 right before operations ceased.

It is part of Bessent's investment style to have strong years and negative years, as he bets on macro economic events.

"Ted Seides, the former president of Protege Partners, an investment firm where Bessent earned strong returns in the late 2000s, told Reuters that Bessent's track record should be taken in the context of macro investing, where big profits can be followed by less attractive returns. So-called macro hedge funds bet on global macroeconomic trends and are not open to retail investors."

"If you only look at the part of a track record with lean years, it’s like saying Aaron Judge struck out a lot last year," Seides said, referring the baseball star known for hitting home runs. "But he was just named MVP."

Key Square's main fund returns surged 13% in its first year, 2016, according to a second person familiar with the firm. That year, it gained on correctly predicting the British pound's decline around "Brexit," a vote for Britain to leave the European Union, according to the first person familiar with the situation.

Later, Key Square made money when Bessent correctly anticipated a U.S. stock and dollar rally when Donald Trump was elected that November, according to the first person.

But Key Square lost 7% in 2017, and then lost money or just broke even from 2018 to 2021, according to the second person and performance disclosures from one of its investors, New York City Police Pension Fund. The hedge fund gained double digits in both 2023 and 2024 and is up "double digits" over its history, according to the second person.

"Scott is one of the best macro investors in the world," a spokesperson for Brevan Howard said via email. "His understanding of markets, public policy, and the global economy is largely unmatched."

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/fund-manager-bessent-scores-trump-victory-hopes-bigger-win-2024-11-22/

As usual, the left telling lies.

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Stop lying. At its wind-down, Key Square Capital concluded its performance by posting strong double-digit percentage gains in 2024 right before operations ceased.

It is part of Bessent's investment style to have strong years and negative years, as he bets on macro economic events.

"Ted Seides, the former president of Protege Partners, an investment firm where Bessent earned strong returns in the late 2000s, told Reuters that Bessent's track record should be taken in the context of macro investing, where big profits can be followed by less attractive returns. So-called macro hedge funds bet on global macroeconomic trends and are not open to retail investors."

"If you only look at the part of a track record with lean years, it’s like saying Aaron Judge struck out a lot last year," Seides said, referring the baseball star known for hitting home runs. "But he was just named MVP."

Key Square's main fund returns surged 13% in its first year, 2016, according to a second person familiar with the firm. That year, it gained on correctly predicting the British pound's decline around "Brexit," a vote for Britain to leave the European Union, according to the first person familiar with the situation.

Later, Key Square made money when Bessent correctly anticipated a U.S. stock and dollar rally when Donald Trump was elected that November, according to the first person.

But Key Square lost 7% in 2017, and then lost money or just broke even from 2018 to 2021, according to the second person and performance disclosures from one of its investors, New York City Police Pension Fund. The hedge fund gained double digits in both 2023 and 2024 and is up "double digits" over its history, according to the second person.

"Scott is one of the best macro investors in the world," a spokesperson for Brevan Howard said via email. "His understanding of markets, public policy, and the global economy is largely unmatched."

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/fund-manager-bessent-scores-trump-victory-hopes-bigger-win-2024-11-22/

As usual, the left telling lies.

Try telling that to Georgie boy....555

Scott Bessent’s Key Square Capital was seeded with about $2 billion from George Soros when it launched in 2015. By late 2023, the fund’s assets had collapsed to around $577 million.

That means Soros’s seed stake lost roughly 70–80% of its value, translating into a paper loss of about $1.4–1.6 billion.

12 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

Try telling that to Georgie boy....555

Scott Bessent’s Key Square Capital was seeded with about $2 billion from George Soros when it launched in 2015. By late 2023, the fund’s assets had collapsed to around $577 million.

That means Soros’s seed stake lost roughly 70–80% of its value, translating into a paper loss of about $1.4–1.6 billion.

George Soros did not lose money he invested in Key Square capital. Instead he withdrew most of his capital according to a pre-arranged plan.

George Soros backed his former Chief Investment Officer, Scott Bessent, with a $2 billion investment when Key Square Capital Management launched in 2016.

The fund gained roughly 13% in 2016 following successful macroeconomic bets on Brexit.

The two men had an agreement that Bessent would return Soros's capital as the hedge fund brought in money from outside investors. Soros' investment was just an anchor investment to help his trusted friend and former employee.

https://archive.is/20180517052728/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/george-soros-gets-most-of-his-2-billion-back-from-scott-bessent

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

George Soros did not lose money he invested in Key Square capital. Instead he withdrew most of his capital according to a pre-arranged plan.

George Soros backed his former Chief Investment Officer, Scott Bessent, with a $2 billion investment when Key Square Capital Management launched in 2016.

The fund gained roughly 13% in 2016 following successful macroeconomic bets on Brexit.

The two men had an agreement that Bessent would return Soros's capital as the hedge fund brought in money from outside investors. Soros' investment was just an anchor investment to help his trusted friend and former employee.

https://archive.is/20180517052728/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/george-soros-gets-most-of-his-2-billion-back-from-scott-bessent

And I imagine Soros could not have been happier at that......another bullet dodged.