RedState91%

The Reaction to GEN Donahue's Firing Indicates Hegseth's Action Was Correct and Timely 60%

By streiff74%

6/26/2026, 5:08:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 41 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 30% saturation with 471 hits. Analysis detected 3,512 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,568 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.1% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,557 of 21,169 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.60% of the article peer group.

The forced retirement of U.S. 
Army General Chris Donahue has generated nearly as much ink as President Harry S. 
Truman's firing of General Douglas MacArthur, and it definitely created more consternation on the left than President Jimmy Carter's booting of General John Singlaub or President George H. 
W. 
Bush's firing of General Frederick Woerner; see Hegseth's Pentagon Shake-Up Steamrolls Ahead As Last Man Out of Afghanistan Gets Shown the Door  RedState. 
Let me say up front that I'm not acquainted with General Donahue or his partisans on one side or the other of this issue. 
I'm merely offering my observations not only as a former infantry officer but also as a political observer. 
Having said all that, the discussion is missing two critical points, in my opinion. 
First and foremost, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has the duty to shape the nation's corps of General and Flag Officers. 
He does that with the consent of the President, who "has reposed special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abilities" of each officer. 
Promotion to GOFO rank is not something that a neutral committee does. 
Yes, a promotion board selects a slate of the best-qualified candidates. 
Then the service chief of staff reviews the list and, if necessary, makes changes. 
The service secretary weighs in. 
The Secretary of War gets involved. 
Then it goes to the White House for final review, and ultimately, the Senate confirms those nominated or not. 
Shenanigans are not unknown; see Four-Star General Suspended and Under IG Investigation for Tampering With Command Selection Board  RedState and Army Secretary Fires a Corrupt Four-Star but Leaves Corruption at the Top Untouched  RedState. 
Hegseth has embarked on an ambitious reform of the Pentagon and is proceeding at breakneck speed. 
To make that work, he has to have senior commanders and civilians who believe in his program. 
If there is any doubt of their full-throated support, he must get rid of them. 
Generals and admirals associated with the corrupt policies of the Lloyd Austin era have been removed. 
A partial list is below. 
* Gen. 
Charles Q. 
Brown Jr.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
* Adm. 
Lisa Franchetti  Chief of Naval Operations. 
* Gen. 
James Slife  Air Force Vice Chief of Staff. 
* Gen. 
Timothy Haugh  Commander of U.S. 
Cyber Command and NSA Director. 
* Lt. 
Gen. 
Jeffrey Kruse  Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. 
* Rear Adm. 
Milton Sands  Commander of Naval Special Warfare Command. 
* Gen. 
David Allvin  Air Force Chief of Staff. 
* Vice Adm. 
Nancy Lacore  Chief of Navy Reserve. 
* Lt. 
Gen Joseph B. 
Berger III  Judge Advocate General of the Army. 
* Lt. 
Gen. 
Charles Plummer  Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. 
* Lt Gen. 
Jennifer Short  Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense. 
* Vice Adm. 
Shoshana Chatfield  United States Military Representative to the NATO Military Committee. 
* Gen. 
Randy George  Army Chief of Staff. 
* Gen. 
David Hodne  Commander of Army Transformation and Training Command. 
* Maj. 
Gen. 
William Green Jr.  Army Chief of Chaplains. 
Holding a senior rank is not a sinecure. 
It isn't a personal bauble. 
It is a trust, and part of that trust is loyalty to the President and the Secretary of War, as well as fealty to the Constitution. 
You can't be faithful to the Constitution while surreptitiously fighting the policies of the commander-in-chief. 
As one of my old bosses once told us: "Guys, I'll never ask you to like a single thing I tell you to do. 
But I will demand that you do it to the best of your ability." 
We are told that Donohue is "one of America's most-admired general officers." 
That may be true, but that appellation and $25 will get you a small cup of very gay coffee at Starbucks. 
I have no idea what metric would allow you to arrive at that conclusion. 
What we do know about Donohue is less than admirable. 
Our own Jennifer van Laar reported in EXCLUSIVE: Maj Gen Ordered 50+ Evacuees off One of Last Flights out of Kabul to Make Room for Taliban Souvenir  RedState that: 
In a number of articles penned in the following days, Donahue is characterized as “uniquely qualified” for that moment in time and generally depicted as a humble, understated leader of his division. 
Unfortunately, everything isn’t quite as it may seem. 
During the last hours of the evacuation, according to troops under his command and as documented by photographs and witness statements, Donahue ordered all of the passengers aboard a C-17 transport plane to disembark so he could have a souvenir loaded onto the plane. 
That souvenir, or “war trophy,” was an inoperable Taliban-owned Toyota Hilux with a fully operational Russian ZU-23 anti-aircraft autocannon mounted in the bed. 
Once the Hilux was loaded passengers were allowed back on the plane, but, of course, there wasn’t room for all of them. 
According to troops on the scene, at least 50 people and perhaps as many as 100 people were left at Kabul to make room for the Hilux. 
When then-Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin blocked Donahue's promotion to four-star rank in November 2024, additional details emerged about the Afghanistan fiasco. 
In addition to the "war trophy" incident recounted above, Donahue blocked American passport holders from entering the evacuation area. 
Working dogs were left behind rather than evacuated. 
Donahue borrowed the equipment he used for the "last man in Afghanistan" photo from a soldier. 
Allegedly, the "last man" image took multiple takes to get right. 
LTG Donahue refused to open the gates at HKIA despite Marines reporting up the chain of command that American passport holding citizens were trying to get in to evacuate. 
In addition to the statements from Marines, we had plenty of other evidence of Americans trying to get into HKIA to evacuate. 
Donahue was the ground commander who ultimately made the decision to not get those Americans out. 
We can banter back and forth about security and other critical elements of why he chose to do what he did, but I can’t sidestep or forgive a commander not making every attempt to get those Americans out who were standing at the gate, talking directly to the Marines, and being refused entry. 
The other nonsense about the fake photo op of “last boots on ground” that was proven false due to the Air Force load master being the last to get on the airplane and an entire medical unit still being on ground conducting operations well after the evacuation, plus borrowing the equipment from the delta team that was with him to take a cool guy photo, can be shrugged off. 
Making an effort to use critical space on the airplanes to take home a Toyota Land Cruiser with a mounted anti-aircraft gun as a war trophy, instead of human beings, or at the very least the dozens of working dogs that were left to die in kennels at the hands of the Taliban, can also be shrugged off. 
What I can’t shrug off is leaving American citizens behind in Afghanistan when they were standing at the gates with their passports out pleading with the Marine guards to let them in. 
He shouldn’t have been allowed to pin on a third star, let alone a fourth. 
The report on the Afghan debacle is due out shortly. 
If these vignettes are included, Hegseth would be roasted for promoting one of the architects of our shameful withdrawal while also proclaiming that he wanted accountability. 
Donahue has become a convenient club with which to belabor Hegseth, no matter the circumstances. 
The bottom line here is that there is nothing wrong with Pete Hegseth forcing a general officer into retirement. 
Even if you don't like Hegseth or like his reasoning, his right and duty to manage the corps of generals and admirals is unassailable. 
The second part of the story is more conspiratorial. 
As I noted, current DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin put a hold on Donahue's promotion over Afghanistan. 
No one said jack ****. 
There was no mention of his accomplishments. 
There was no strictly heterosexual man-crush by leftist agitators. 
There was also a healthy dose of politically active retired generals and admirals. 
You know, the ones who were completely apolitical until a couple of nanoseconds after retirement. 
For me, this is the bottom line. 
* President Trump gets to pick his team; Hegseth is the general manager. 
* The ranks of GOFOs are so salted with the debris of the Obama and Biden years that they need a culling on the order of the one General George C. 
Marshall gave to the U.S. 
Army pre-World War II. 
* He who smelt it, dealt it. 
The source of this hit and who is pushing it tells you all you need to know about the motive. 
* The graveyard is full of indispensable men, and everyone moves up one place. 
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at RedState, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical Left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. 
Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.4%streiff: 7.0%RedState: 7.1%Confirmation Bias15.4%This article: 2.0%streiff: 0.6%RedState: 0.7%Anchoring Bias2.0%This article: 9.5%streiff: 2.7%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 1.9%streiff: 0.4%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic1.9%This article: 1.7%streiff: 0.4%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%streiff: 1.7%RedState: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%streiff: 7.3%RedState: 9.3%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 1.0%streiff: 0.1%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion1.0%This article: 1.5%streiff: 0.4%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.3%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%streiff: 1.0%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 27.1%streiff: 8.4%RedState: 14.1%Negativity Bias27.1%This article: 2.7%streiff: 0.6%RedState: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 4.0%streiff: 1.2%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error4.0%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.0%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%streiff: 3.7%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias2.4%This article: 2.9%streiff: 2.1%RedState: 3.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.9%This article: 2.4%streiff: 0.5%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.4%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%streiff: 0.6%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias1.7%This article: 1.2%streiff: 0.4%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.2%This article: 1.5%streiff: 0.2%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias1.5%This article: 3.8%streiff: 3.7%RedState: 7.0%Ad Hominem3.8%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.8%RedState: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.8%streiff: 4.6%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority7.8%This article: 7.4%streiff: 3.2%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma7.4%This article: 1.9%streiff: 0.7%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope1.9%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.4%streiff: 7.0%RedState: 10.2%Hasty Generalization9.4%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.1%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.8%streiff: 0.9%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon1.8%This article: 23.4%streiff: 12.0%RedState: 8.7%Appeal to Emotion23.4%This article: 7.8%streiff: 2.2%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question7.8%This article: 2.6%streiff: 0.7%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.6%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.0%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.6%streiff: 0.5%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof3.6%This article: 0.9%streiff: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.9%This article: 2.0%streiff: 0.5%RedState: 0.4%Composition/Division2.0%This article: 9.4%streiff: 3.8%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal9.4%This article: 0.6%streiff: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.6%This article: 6.9%streiff: 1.3%RedState: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.9%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.1%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.9%streiff: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.9%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%streiff: 0.4%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.4%streiff: 5.1%RedState: 2.5%Unattributed Quote6.4%This article: 1.9%streiff: 0.6%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection1.9%This article: 30.0%streiff: 12.4%RedState: 22.0%Biased Writer Voice30.0%This article: 2.7%streiff: 3.3%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination2.7%This article: 0.6%streiff: 0.1%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.6%This article: 6.1%streiff: 11.0%RedState: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.1%This article: 1.8%streiff: 2.3%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.8%

1568 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers9.3%attributed speech1,422writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRedState • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRedState • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJennifer van Laar • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 69 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRedState • 28 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 14 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jennifer van Laar

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words21% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jennifer van Laar: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-28.9 ptsWriter: 28.9%Jennifer van Laar: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.1 ptsWriter: 7.1%Jennifer van Laar: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Jennifer van Laar: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-0.6 ptsWriter: 0.6%Jennifer van Laar: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.