Democrats have been outraged that the new Hegseth-run military removed two women from their commands, one for refusing to put up pictures of the new President and Defense Secretary and the other for publicly disagreeing with administration policy. Both, of course, open violations of the chain of command and perfectly legitimate reasons to remove or demote a person.

What’s interesting is whether these women are emblematic of a larger problem, which is that many women in the military do not view themselves as part of an organic whole dedicated to America’s defense. Instead, they take a more narcissistic, therapeutic approach to their service.

Last week, the Pentagon issued a brief tweet that Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, the U.S. military representative to NATO’s Military Committee, had been relieved of her duties because of “A loss of confidence in her ability to lead.”

Another woman, Colonel Sheyla Baez Ramirez, the Garrison Commander at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, has been accused of the same failure to honor the chain of command by displaying the photographs of Trump and Hegseth. I’ll have more on her in a minute, but first, let’s talk about Greenland.

U.S. Space Force Col. Susan Meyers, the commander of the U.S. military base in Greenland, just got herself fired from that command after she sent out an email to base personnel openly disagreeing with the Commander-In-Chief’s policies:

As Parnell said, this was a blatant violation. Back in 1977, no one blinked twice when the Carter administration removed Major Gen. John K. Singlaub from his command when he made negative comments about the administration’s policies regarding troop withdrawals from South Korea. You cannot have a stable, strong military if the officers are publicly mouthing off.

So, what’s driving these women to jettison their careers in the name of making political statements? Some of it, of course, is Trump Derangement Syndrome, which seems to lead to uncontrollable anti-Trump logorrhea.

However, some of it seems to be tied to women viewing their military service as an extension of their race and sex identity. And that gets me back to Colonel Ramirez.

InfantryDort is the X account for an infantryman who’s noticed something interesting about Ramirez’s approach to her command. He’s loaded a video that looks beyond those allegedly missing portraits and, instead, focuses on Ramirez’s words:

Picking up where the X embed leaves off:

... addressing mission readiness, combat effectiveness, or the welfare of her troops, she focused on being the "first" in terms of gender and ethnicity. This emphasis on identity over duty reflects a troubling shift in leadership priorities.

More concerning is that she successfully navigated the Army's Command Assessment Program (CAP), designed to select competent leaders. While CAP aims to provide a holistic view of an officer's capabilities, there's growing concern that it may inadvertently favor those who align with prevailing DEI narratives over those with proven leadership skills.

The previous Secretary of the Army solidified CAP's status as a permanent fixture right before she left office. It's imperative for the current administration to reassess its efficacy and ensure it truly identifies leaders based on merit and readiness.

Leadership should be about mission focus and troop welfare, not personal identity milestones. If our selection processes prioritize the latter, we risk compromising the very essence of military leadership.

Remember this and remember it well:  CAP approved this woman for command.  Take a look below and see who it did NOT approve.  And keep in mind, this happens all the time.  We've got awesome recruiting numbers now, great.  Who's gonna lead them though?👇

InfantryDort noticed the same thing when it came to Heather Reilly, a battalion commander, who has now made her X account private:

And again, picking up where X left off,

... them to face the enemy?:

Battalion and Brigade command are among the rarest billets in the Army. Few ever earn that trust.

So when a commander says they struggled to find their purpose in that role, it’s disheartening. The purpose is crystal clear: lead your Soldiers. Build a lethal formation. Win wars.

Imagine a male commander saying the reverse: “I finally felt seen when a male Soldier told me he was glad I was in charge.” That wouldn’t be praised. It’d be flagged, and rightfully so.

Command isn’t therapy. It’s stewardship. It’s warfighting. It’s a sacred trust.

Her inability to read the cultural terrain translates directly to the battlefield. If you can't grasp that we are one gender-neutral fighting force under a flag, how will you ever navigate the chaos of war?

What’s worse, this wasn’t confusion. It was bias. A commander promoting gender-based validation is not leading a team. She’s dividing one.

Representation is not readiness.

The enemy doesn’t care who you are.

Only if you’re ready to fight.

In sum, the military is about service to the nation and, if you’re an officer, about service to the people in your command. It is not a forum for your political opinions and theater, nor is it a therapeutic outlet for your race and sex identity issues. This doesn't apply to all women, of course, many of whom serve wholeheartedly, but this is quite obviously a problem among the (mostly college-educated) officer class, and it must be addressed.

Secretary Hegseth has a lot of work ahead of him, and I wish him the best of luck.

Image: X screen grab.