France just arrested Telegram CEO Pavel Durov for his alleged failure to sufficiently limit criminal activity on Telegram. What "criminal activity" translates to in European terms is anyone's guess. In Britain, criminal activity is liking memes or posting dissident opinions on social media. The New York Times reported that the Telegram app had been on law enforcement radar partially due to its use by "far-right extremist groups" for communicating, recruiting, and organizing. That's Clue Number One, the only clue anyone should need to understand. Durov's only criminal activity was refusing to censor the free exchange of ideas.

American politicians and industry leaders immediately condemned Durov's arrest. "Dangerous times," prophesied Elon Musk. "The need to protect free speech has never been more urgent," implored RFK Jr. France has "crossed a red line," wrote Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski. "This is about silencing dissent and controlling information," observed political commentator Ian Miles Cheong.

Indeed. But while there was no disagreement about what Durov's arrest meant for free speech, there was disagreement as to its merits. Alexander Vindman—yes, that one—voiced his support for France's crackdown on dissent by tweeting, "There's a growing intolerance for platforming disinfo & malign influence & a growing appetite for accountability. Musk should be nervous." He goes on to criticize "free speech absolutists weirdos."

Free speech absolutists weirdos. Like Washington and Jefferson and Martin Luther King? Like Voltaire and John Stuart Mill? Like Salman Rushdie and George Orwell and Horace Greeley? 

Liberals like Tulsi Gabbard, Bill Maher, Russell Brand, and the aforementioned Kennedy understand the absolute necessity of the component of free speech in an open democracy, no matter how messy it gets. It should unsettle Americans of all stripes that a former American military officer not only strenuously opposes free speech, but that he's so proud about it, as if his should be the default position.

Unfortunately, when it comes to our military's officer class, I fear Vindman is merely an ugly symptom of a deeper foundational rot. His gleeful participation in the Trump impeachment sham introduced us not to a selfless patriot courageously playing the part of a whistleblower but rather to a narcissistic mid-level bureaucrat who felt that he himself, rather than the commander-in-chief to whom he swore an oath, should dictate foreign policy.

When I first joined the military, the president at the time was Bill Clinton, and believe me, almost all of us vehemently opposed his foreign policies. But we all understood, when we signed our names and took our oaths, that we'd most likely be called upon to support missions we didn't agree with. We took our oaths seriously and didn't work to sabotage our president. As teenagers of entry-level rank, we understood what Lieutenant Colonel Vindman didn't. 

Is Vindman the exception or the rule? Well, who else do we have as a basis for comparison? Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley, who reassured Communist China that he'd give them a heads up if he thought President Trump was going to start a war against them? Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who has wasted almost his entire tenure searching for non-existent white supremacy among the ranks rather than ensuring our military is battle-ready?

Former Air Force General Michael Hayden, who was one of the 51 signatories alleging that the Hunter laptop emails were Russian disinformation, with the intended effect of tipping the election to Biden, all the while knowing full well that the emails were genuine?

Former Army General Susan Escallier, who approved the plea deal with al-Qaeda terrorist and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Former Marine Captain Robert Mueller III, who led the Russian collusion witch hunt against President Trump, effectively crippling the first two years of his administration?

Then-Lieutenant Colonel Ben Phillips who, despite repeated reports and warnings about the extremist and anti-American behavior of Major Nidal Hasan, nonetheless reviewed his performance as "outstanding" and "best qualified" a mere three days before the latter murdered thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood? Then-Chief of Staff General George Casey, who said the "real tragedy" of the Fort Hood terrorists shootings would be "if our diversity became a casualty as well"?

Yeah, but what about all the unnamed, unnoticed officers who really are true patriots but who lack the standing to effect any meaningful change?

I've only heard about one of them. After our humiliating, unconditional surrender to a rabble of illiterate goatherds in Kabul 2021, there was a single officer who publicly spoke out against what he rightly saw as an absolute betrayal by our Pentagon leadership of everything and everyone they swore to protect. Marine Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Scheller posted a video online and civilly, respectfully, but forcefully demanded some accountability.

For his courage and integrity, he was burned at the stake.

And not a single military officer spoke up in his defense.

So that tells me pretty much all I need to know about the quality of officers currently leading our troops. No doubt thousands of them, like the aforementioned Mueller (who served valiantly in Vietnam and was wounded in battle), have proven their courage against foreign enemies in faraway lands. But we need them to show that same courage against domestic enemies as well. And I don't mean against some chimerical "white supremacy." I mean against our degenerate, corrupt leadership that is literally getting our troops killed for political expediency.

"Change" doesn't mean you need to stage a military coup. It can be a peaceful show of dissent, as Lt. Col. Scheller did. He sacrificed his career to save his soul and was court-martialed into obscurity. Vindman, on the other hand, sold his soul to bolster an MSNBC career, where he champions the demise of free speech.

The careerist cowards slithering in the Pentagon halls are degrading our military more effectively than any Islamic terrorist group could ever hope to. And while it's true that recruitment is down because nobody wants to serve under an Obama, Biden, or Harris administration, it's especially true that nobody wants to serve under an officer class whose self-serving, ladder-climbing perfidy goes against every value that recruits are taught in basic training.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the recruitment numbers, which, unlike Vindman, don't lie. Army recruitment for males has dropped 35% in the last decade. Recent years have seen the Navy and Air Force miss goals by the thousands. The Marine Corps barely meets its quotas, partly due to them being the smallest of the military branches.

Military pay has always sucked, so it's illogical to pin that on failing recruitment. COVID affected all industries, many of which have since recovered, so that can't be isolated as the culprit. But nobody wants to join an organization with incompetent, unaccountable leadership that normalizes the betrayal of its workers.

I still keep close with many of my friends from the Marine Corps. They're spread out all over the country and have all taken very different paths in life. Every one of them loves this country, loves the Marine Corps, and is proud of their former service. And every one of them—every single one of them—tells young relatives, neighbors, and prospective enlistees the same exact thing: Don't join today's military. It's gone full woke. Your leaders won't have your back.

For any active duty officers field grade and above reading this, take it for what it's worth and do something productive with it. All of us would gladly enlist all over again were we guaranteed to serve under the courage and integrity of a Lt. Col. Scheller. But odds are we'd get suffocated beneath the slithering putridity of a Lt. Col. Vindman.