Bulwark Takes: Why is the Trump Admin Purging Our Military’s Best?
Host: Bill Kristol | Guest: Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.)
Date: October 30, 2025

Overview of the Episode

This episode of Bulwark Takes explores recent and unprecedented shake-ups in U.S. military leadership under the Trump administration. Bill Kristol and retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling focus on a pattern of forced retirements among some of the military's most decorated and visionary officers, the appointment of inexperienced civilians to critical roles, and what these developments signal about evolving defense priorities, especially regarding alliances and the potential politicization of the armed forces. The discussion also covers worrying operational shifts, from U.S. troop withdrawals in Europe to escalations in the Western Hemisphere, as well as the erosion of traditional military values and norms.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Mark Hertling’s Book and Perspective

[01:30–03:28]

• Hertling introduces his forthcoming book If I Don’t Return, a combination of his Desert Storm-era journal and recent reflections, aiming to provide life lessons for his family and insights about faith, emotion, and military life.
• "It came out to be sort of a catharsis of writing about not only war and combat and the military, but also about faith and emotion and family and love and that kind of stuff." (Mark Hertling, 02:30)
• Book was prompted when his sons typed his wartime journal as a gift and asked him to add reflections for their children.

2. Forced Departures of Top Military Leaders

[03:28–07:11]

• The recent removal of Lt. Gen. J.P. McGee (Director, Plans, Strategy & Policy, Joint Staff) is a rare event, described as “extraordinary” and “unbelievable.”
• Hertling knew McGee personally and described him as, "probably the future of the United States Army and the military. They are that good, smart, educated, savvy, tactical. Just unbelievable that they were asked to retire for whatever reasons." (Mark Hertling, 04:51)
• McGee and others, such as DA Sims, removed for disagreements with Secretary Hegseth and, presumably, the administration.
• Under Trump, "almost 20 of them [senior generals] have been asked to leave...the very best and brightest." (Hertling, 06:08)
• Disagreement, not misconduct, is the likely cause. Citing the Army's values: "personal courage in terms of speaking up and offering your advice, because that's what military folks are asked to do." (Hertling, 06:34)
• "I think in both of these cases, they gave their advice. And it was so counter to what the Department of Defense is trying to do right now...they were told, you don't belong in this organization anymore." (Hertling, 06:49)

3. Shift in Military Strategy and Alliances

[07:11–09:13]

• Senior officers reportedly resisted pivoting narrowly to Venezuela, counter-narcotics, and China, while neglecting alliances and global commitments.
• "It's good to have allies, it's good to portray our values around the world and doing some of the things we're doing just do not contribute to any of that." (Hertling, 08:06)
• The administration's approach is seen as abandoning allies and “sequencing threats,” which experienced military leaders warn against.

4. Politicization & Civil-Military Conflict

[09:13–10:10]

• Kristol emphasizes the lack of precedent for removing top generals over policy disagreements absent misconduct.
• Hertling recounts that, historically, military advice and internal debate are essential. The Joint Staff thrives on disagreement, but "it's never seen as disrespect." (Hertling, 09:13)
• Reference to the last analogous case: Gen. Greg Newbold during the Iraq War.

5. Replacement of Naval Research Director with Inexperienced Civilian

[10:10–12:46]

• Rear Adm. Rothenhouse (Office of Naval Research) replaced by a 33-year-old with no naval experience but connections to technology circles and contracts linked to Elon Musk.
• "It seems odd to me that they would take an experienced Navy guy...and replace him with a 33 year old Wunderkind from Doge..." (Hertling, 12:09)
• Possible cronyism or conflict of interest: "And Doge is connected to Mr. Musk, who has a lot of those contracts. So...a little bit suspicious." (Hertling, 12:35)
• Office is critical for Navy's future weapon systems, including AI and drone projects.

6. U.S. Troop Withdrawal from Romania and NATO Concerns

[12:46–18:46]

• U.S. is removing its rotational brigade from Romania's Mikhail Kogălniceanu Air Base.
• Hertling underscores the base's importance for Black Sea security, NATO partnership, and countering Russian influence:
  "Romania became one of the better partners within NATO...and Romania...has continued to have election interference by the Russians and continued efforts to try and sway them away from the NATO sphere. So it is a critically important country." (Hertling, 14:28)
• Removing troops signals U.S. abandonment to allies:
  "If you're any one of the 32 NATO countries, you're saying the US is leaving. I mean, that is the message that it sends." (Hertling, 15:30)
• Dismisses DOD's claim that removing rotational troops isn’t diminutive, highlighting erosion of trust.

7. Strategic Shift to Western Hemisphere and Venezuela

[18:46–23:23]

• USS Ford carrier group redeployed to the Caribbean, and targeted strikes against small boats, are seen as deterrence—but logic is questioned.
• "If you talk about those kind of kinetic operations to strike small boats doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. So it is a ends means disconnect." (Hertling, 19:31)
• Raises doubts about legality and operational purpose, floating that some strikes could be by intelligence agencies.
• Warns: "It has the potential for extrajudicial killing." (Hertling, 20:26)
• Raises specter of regime change talk in Venezuela—“We haven’t been too good at regime change over the last 20 years.” (Hertling, 21:51)
• Notes risks to regional relationships and blowback for U.S. reputation.

8. Erosion of Legal Safeguards and Military Norms

[23:23–28:33]

• Kristol points out the lack of any public debate or clear legal authorization for escalation:
  "There's almost no public—I mean literally the president hasn't given us, he's mentioned it, but has he given a speech about it?" (Kristol, 24:10)
• Hertling highlights the legal risks for commanders and troops obeying potentially unlawful orders without clear AUMF (Authorize Use of Military Force):
  "They are not only under requirements of U.S. law, but in this kind of situation they're under the international law and the law of land warfare." (Hertling, 25:24)
• Suggests Judge Advocate General (JAG) attorneys may be sidelined or ignored.
• Cites Secretary Hegseth’s speech: “Forget about rules of engagement. We don't play those political games anymore. That's a very dangerous statement to make.” (Hertling, 26:36)
• Warns that military officers' moral and legal authority is threatened; fear of action contrary to the law and U.S. values.

9. Threats of Using the Military Domestically

[28:33–32:00]

• Discussion of signals from the administration about using military force against domestic “insurrection,” with Trump alluding to—but not directly naming—the Insurrection Act.
• "That gives a president power to use active duty military force anywhere he wants if he feels there's an insurrection. But first you have to kind of show there is an insurrection and no one has done that yet." (Hertling, 29:45)
• Hertling points out the chilling effect on seasoned officers, expectations contrary to decades-long training and professional values.
• "When you're told to do things that run contrary to what the experiences are that these folks bring into the room, it becomes very troubling." (Hertling, 31:14)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On forced retirements:
  "Just unbelievable that they were asked to retire for whatever reasons. I think I know part of the reason..." (Hertling, 04:49)
• On alliances:
  "It's good to have allies, it's good to portray our values around the world and doing some of the things we're doing just do not contribute to any of that." (Hertling, 08:06)
• On Romania's importance:
  "If you're any one of the 32 NATO countries, you're saying the US is leaving. I mean, that is the message that it sends." (Hertling, 15:30)
• On the Western Hemisphere pivot:
  "If I were in command of a naval operation, unless I had 100% complete intelligence of what I was striking...I would not obey an unlawful order to strike a boat that was going through that territory." (Hertling, 20:07)
• On rules of engagement:
  "Forget about rules of engagement. We don't play those political games anymore. That's a very dangerous statement to make." (Hertling, 26:36)
• On domestic use of military:
  "He has never called it the insurrection act, but that's what he's talking about...That gives a president power to use active duty military force anywhere he wants if he feels there's an insurrection." (Hertling, 29:45)
• On military professionalism:
  "We don't do things just because we're ordered to do them. We think through them because we know the implications of killing fellow human beings." (Hertling, 27:23)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:30] – Mark Hertling discusses his book, If I Don’t Return
• [03:28] – Immediate context on recent top military retirements
• [05:59] – Why these departures are extraordinary and rare
• [07:21] – Strategic disagreements within the brass
• [10:10] – The Navy’s top research office shakeup
• [13:16] – Importance of U.S. presence in Romania and NATO
• [18:58] – U.S. military operations and signals in Venezuela
• [23:23] – Legal complexities and lack of public debate on military action
• [26:36] – Role and marginalization of military lawyers (JAG)
• [28:33] – Signals about using U.S. military domestically

Tone and Final Thoughts

The conversation is deeply informed, candid, and increasingly alarmed as Hertling and Kristol trace the breakdown of long-held civil-military norms and the risks of politicizing the armed forces. Their tone is grave but measured, repeatedly returning to the necessity of military professionalism, legal boundaries, and the unique responsibilities military officers hold. The episode ends with a pledge to revisit these “not going away” topics as the Trump administration’s military policies raise new and unsettling precedents.