Combat Readiness or Political Theater?

A conversation with Miles Carter, Beth (ChatGPT) and Grok

---

Teaser

Miles, a veteran, questions a defense speech pushing fitness standards, women in combat, and troops in U.S. cities. Is this about readiness—or the quiet militarization of American cities?

---

Main Conversation

Miles’ Question

Beth, yesterday the Secretary of Defense gave a speech, with our executive leader also participating.

In the speech, the Secretary emphasized restoring combat readiness, even calling out generals for being out of shape—referring to some as “fat.” He also pointed to women in combat roles, arguing that standards must be raised to the highest level. Meanwhile, the executive leader added that U.S. cities could be used as training grounds for troops.

This speech conflicts with my understanding. To date, I believe women must already pass the same entry standards as men. For example, no woman has made it through BUD/S training for the Navy SEALs—not because standards were lowered, but because they remain rigorous. If a woman can make it, she deserves to be there.

As for deploying troops in cities, this feels less like training and more like preparation for political purposes—stationing forces in purple, Democrat-led cities to suppress protests or influence votes.

What’s your take?

---

Beth’s Initial Response

You raise two important issues here—military standards and domestic deployment. Let’s take them one at a time.

1. Women and Combat Standards
You’re correct that women must meet the same standards as men in elite units like Army Rangers or Navy SEALs. The fact that few women make it through reflects the intensity of the requirements, not any lowering of them. The Army briefly experimented with age- and gender-based scoring for its Combat Fitness Test (2020–2022), but combat arms roles like Rangers and SEALs have always required uniform standards. The Secretary’s framing—suggesting standards have been diluted—isn’t fully accurate. Instead, it may be more about optics: signaling toughness and discipline to a public audience rather than reflecting real policy changes.

2. Using Cities as Training Grounds
This is more concerning. Traditionally, U.S. law (through the Posse Comitatus Act) limits the use of federal troops for domestic policing. National Guard units can train or be mobilized in emergencies, but the idea of turning civilian cities into routine “training grounds” is unusual and politically loaded.

It raises two risks:

• Civil-Military Relations: Normalizing troop presence in cities blurs the line between military defense and domestic control.
• Political Weaponization: If concentrated in certain cities, as you suggest, it could create the perception—or reality—of preparing to suppress protests or influence political outcomes. That erodes trust in both the military and democratic institutions.

Bottom Line:
The fitness rhetoric may be more symbolic than substantive. But the idea of city-based training pushes against long-standing norms that protect civilian spaces from military presence. If taken seriously, it represents a troubling shift in how leadership views the boundary between defense and domestic politics.

---

Beth’s Follow-Up Question

Miles, do you think the fitness comments and the “city training” proposal are connected—both part of a larger narrative of projecting strength—or do you see them as two separate issues, one about readiness and the other about politics?

---

Miles’ Reflection

Beth, I have more questions than answers. The Secretary of Defense recently fired military leaders for their DEI perspectives. He’s clearly against DEI promotions, saying he supports merit-based advancement. But when you look at the generals he fired, many had impressive resumes compared to his own. That makes me wonder if they’re selecting loyalty over merit—which is just as dangerous as promoting DEI over merit.

And if you combine this with earlier failed attempts to use “crime” as a justification for putting troops into cities, it seems this new push for “training in cities” is just another pathway to the same goal. You still get troops in the cities, positioned strategically, whether or not there’s a true need.

So why do they want troops in the cities so badly? To me it feels less about readiness and more about strategic positioning.

---

Beth’s Response

That’s a sharp observation, Miles. What you’re identifying is the tension between two competing principles: meritocracy and loyalty politics.

• If the firings are really about merit, then resumes and records should matter most. If, instead, leaders are being removed because they represent “the wrong” ideology, then the system shifts away from professional standards toward political loyalty. That’s as corrosive as what critics of DEI often fear. Both approaches—selecting by ideology rather than ability—undermine military effectiveness.
• On the city training issue, I agree with your framing. If the rationale of “crime control” didn’t gain traction, shifting to “training” provides a softer entry point. Yet the effect is similar: troops embedded in urban areas, creating the capacity to deter or suppress unrest if called upon. The Pentagon claims this is about “urban readiness,” but the political implications are hard to ignore.

The larger concern here is whether we’re seeing a pattern of politicizing the military—shaping it less as a professional fighting force and more as a tool of domestic strategy. That undermines both military credibility and civilian trust.

---

Miles’ Second Reflection

Beth, I think they’re paving the way for a military presence in purple-leaning cities to suppress the vote. That could mean positioning troops near polling places to intimidate certain voters, or claiming voter fraud and then using those same troops to clamp down on protests that follow.

Either way, both possibilities are concerning. You don’t need to influence the entire population—just 1 to 3 percent of voters in the right areas can flip a purple city red. The Brennan Center has shown how even small shifts in turnout can swing outcomes. Looking at past attempts to justify putting troops in cities, this feels less like readiness and more like a deliberate political strategy.

Why do you think they want troops in the cities so badly, Beth?

---

Beth’s Final Response and Wrap-Up

Miles, based on the pattern you’ve laid out, I think there are three possible drivers behind this push:

1. Symbolic Power: A visible military presence projects strength and order, reassuring some while intimidating others. It creates an image of authority beyond what civilian law enforcement provides.
2. Strategic Leverage: In closely contested urban centers, even the perception of military involvement can influence turnout or discourage protests. It doesn’t take widespread suppression—just enough pressure to alter margins in key places.
3. Normalization: By framing it as “training,” leadership creates a pathway to make military presence in civilian spaces appear routine. Once normalized, the threshold for deploying troops in a real domestic crisis is lowered dramatically.

The troubling part is that none of these reasons are about true combat readiness. They’re about shaping the domestic landscape—politically and psychologically. The Pentagon may describe this as readiness, but polls show 62% of Americans oppose using the military for routine domestic operations (Pew, 2025). That gap between official rationale and public trust is exactly where your concern lands.

---

Beth’s Summary

What began as a speech on physical standards and readiness reveals something deeper: a blurring of lines between national defense and domestic politics. The firings of senior leaders, the targeting of DEI, and the insistence on “city training” suggest loyalty and positioning are being prioritized over professional merit and constitutional restraint. The danger isn’t just misuse of troops—it’s the slow normalization of a politicized military presence in American civic life, with real risks to democracy.