How can you trust regime media reporters to report anything right
when they can’t even spell my name correctly? There’s a second H in
Schlichter, guys. By the time you read this compendium of crap,
expect a stealth edit to have fixed the egregious error. Sure, my name
is a little tough for those not fluent in Deutsch, but it’s out there
all over the place. After all, according to the Washington Post, I’m an
important conservative influencer worthy of an exposé because I decided
to continue to serve my country after retiring following 27 years in
uniform. Of course, their spelling error isn’t their only error; it’s
emblematic of their shoddy work in general. In fact, it’s fair to say
the entire ridiculous article is complete baloney. If I had any residual
trust for the regime media — and I don’t — this would’ve torpedoed it.
It’s a hit piece, but it hits like a girl.
Once WaPo published, a bunch of other outlets picked it up,
regurgitating the original regurgitation. Oh well. I do appreciate that
the regime media has now acknowledged me as an important conservative
influencer. I got 300 or so new followers for @KurtSchlichter. Thanks for the validation, jerks. For
those of you who missed this non-story, which would be most of you, on
Sunday, WaPo decided that the fact that the Department of War (DOW)
hired three retired colonels to investigate and report on the status of
the military’s war colleges is a major scandal of epic proportions. Move
over, Watergate! Guys who served their country continue to do so! The
article claims “they amplify Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s viewpoints
and attack those who scrutinize the Trump administration,” which is
true to the extent that we agree with the Secretary of War; it’s funny
how they whitewash leftist critics as “those who scrutinize the Trump
administration.” We were lambasting lefty haters before this gig; we’ll
be doing it after, only now validated by WaPo as key conservative
voices. The article’s implication was that we were somehow being paid to
tweet DOW talking points, which is false. But it had the predictable
effect on the predictable dummies of X, who obediently morphed from
screaming that I am a “Zionist Jew lover” and “Epstein protector” to a
“fed.” It was all an IQ test, and a lot of people failed. The
article in question is titled “Pentagon Secretly Installs Military
Influencers In Civilian Roles.” But even the title is a lie. No one was
secretly installed in anything. We were asked to do a very specific job
within our military and civilian wheelhouses, and we did it. We didn’t
make it about us, which is apparently an alien concept in D.C.
Here’s what happened, and this explanation is only for the benefit of
patriots. The leftists who seized on this innuendo don’t care about the
truth, and it’s irrelevant whether the regime media reporters wrote
garbage on purpose or because they are grossly incompetent. I don’t
argue with people who, through malice or ineptitude, act in bad faith
unless I’m in court. But I will use this situation as a cautionary
example of why the regime media is trash and why your contempt for it is
so well-deserved. Last spring, a senior Pentagon official — not
from public affairs, which had zero to do with this project — reached
out to me, Tom Anderson (aka @CynicalPublius), and Rob Maness (@RobManess)
about undertaking a review and making recommendations about the
military’s war colleges, which senior military leaders attend as
colonels and Navy commanders and captains. These programs (there are
about 10 of them, of various sizes and forms) have had their problems,
including but not limited to the same creeping wokeness that had
affected the entire military until President Trump essentially banned
it. But DEI was not the focus of the project, as the WaPo implies; the
focus was how to ensure these institutions are preparing future generals
and admirals for the challenges of war in the 21st century. The poison
of DEI was a component of the inquiry, but just one part of a complex
issue. We would come on board as temporary special government
employees, since we needed that status to use government information
systems, access information, and perform our duties. None of our duties
involved tweeting or messaging; again, the claim we were paid to
publicly message is a lie. We would visit the campuses, interview
people, review course materials, and prepare a report with
recommendations. We began by reviewing reams of written materials. We
eventually made several visits to the Pentagon and to various schools,
plus had some video interactions. We each talked to hundreds of people.
We conducted detailed interviews with large and small groups, including
commandants, students, civilian and military faculty, administrators,
and civilian and military leaders in the field. So this was not a
“secret” in any sense, as the WaPo implied to paint it in a sinister
light, while at the same time noting that we were talking to people in
connection with the project. It’s weird that a journalist did not see
the contradiction between calling it “secret” while reporting that we
were doing it publicly. But, hey, Democracy Dies in Darkness or
something.
Maybe the reporters expected a personal email notifying them of the
project; that’s the kind of arrogance we’ve come to expect from the
journos. We eventually produced a report of about 17,500 words. It
is up to the Secretary of War to release it or throw it in the trash as
he sees fit. I will say we are proud of it and that we made
recommendations we think will help train the best possible senior
officers to face the challenges of the future. Every moment we worked,
we were focused on one thing — making sure our young troops got the
quality leaders they deserve. I know that motive is not as juicy for the
regime media and their lefty friends as some fantasy influencing
scheme, but it’s the truth. So why pick us? Why would three
right-wing internet guys get picked for this job? Well, because we have a
very special set of skills. All three of us are retired O-6 colonels,
graduates of one or more of the war colleges, and we all have extensive
tactical and command experience. Tom Anderson was an Army logistics
officer with multiple deployments. Rob Maness was a B-1 weapons officer
who was in the Pentagon on 9/11. I was a chemical and an infantry
officer, serving both on active duty and — importantly — in the
reserves, which make up about half of America’s military forces and are
often overlooked in projects like this one. The WaPo failed to provide
these important details to its readers. Why? It also failed to
mention our significant civilian experience beyond our writing. Tom is a
highly regarded mergers and acquisitions attorney. Rob was a senior
executive at a major company. I was a 30-year trial lawyer with Fortune
500 clients who obtained multi-million-dollar verdicts and argued and
tried cases in state and federal trial and appellate courts. I reviewed
countless documents, wrote countless briefs, took hundreds of
depositions, and conducted many investigations in my career. I’m not
telling you this to show how awesome I am — WaPo did that when it
painted me as a major conservative influencer — but to illustrate how
the paper left out important information that would undermine the
preferred narrative. It’s unclear whether they left out these key facts,
all publicly available, on purpose or through incompetence, but they
left them out. Again, why?
It is true we are conservative, but why would it be wrong for an
administration to bring in like-minded individuals to help enact its
policies? The unarticulated premise of the article is that it is somehow
sinister for a conservative administration to hire conservatives to
effect conservative change. Of course, this is never an issue under a
liberal administration. It’s as if they assume the default is leftism
and anything that challenges that is somehow beyond the pale. Well, no.
The American people elected President Trump on a platform that included
fixing our military and eliminating DEI, and there is nothing wrong with
his administration appointing people who will help rather than hinder
his agenda. Before this article came out, WaPo reporter Dan Lamothe tried to get me to comment. He texted me on my cell: “Colonel,
this is Dan Lamothe. Working on a story about undisclosed SGE and HQE
employees for the Pentagon. You pop up in the system. Looking to touch
base about it today, please.” And he DM’d me on X: “Kurt –
Dan Lamothe with The Washington Post here. We’ve confirmed you appear in
the Pentagon system as an HQE employee and wanted to seek clarification
about what your role is. You appear under P&R, so I presume it’s
possible the rumors are true that you’re working on war college-related
efforts. You have continued to write on defense and immigration issues.
Have you disclosed your government affiliation to readers anywhere?
Thanks very much. Dan” Gee, I guess we’re on a first-name basis.
Now, I know what you are thinking: “What obscenities did you reply with,
Kurt?” Well, none. I did not reply. Why? 1. I don’t comment on my work. 2. I don’t talk to the regime media. 3. Screw the Washington Post. You
may also note how he said I “appear in the Pentagon system” and “pop up
in the system.” So what was a Pentagon reporter doing in the Pentagon
personnel system? Is that where he got my phone number?
He also focused on what I “disclosed.” The article provides no
citation to any binding authority that requires a columnist who everyone
knows is a retired colonel to disclose that he is working on evaluating
the war colleges. I suppose he could be referencing his nebulous
version of journalistic ethics, one that — in my opinion — does not
appear to include fairness, accuracy, or objectivity. Dan Lamothe may be
mad that I did not tell him of my latest endeavors, but too bad.
Anyway, if I had made a big deal about it, he and his ilk would be
slamming me for using a government job for my own benefit. Also,
if disclosure is so important because of transparency and so forth, why
did WaPo cite anonymous sources for its most obnoxious claims? Why not
disclose them? And why not disclose the people who gave reporters access
to our personally identifying information in the computer system at the
Pentagon? Oh well, I’ll leave that to the appropriate authorities to
deal with. I’m not going to play the “rules for you
but not for me” game with the regime media. In any case, I did not write
on the war college issue, and Townhall was aware I was doing something
for the Pentagon but would not be writing about whatever it was. And I
will tell you that I let the Pentagon review this column because it
relates, tangentially, to my work. They did not ask for any changes. If
these revelations were supposed to scandalize my fans, that’s yet
another WaPo fail. The response of my readers has been delight that I am
helping my country again; they understand that professionals don’t
promiscuously talk about what they do. If any are upset about it, they
are free to go read someone else’s writings. Maybe their wife's
boyfriend will gift them a Bulwark subscription for Kwanzaa.
So, three retired colonels decided to help their country one more
time by using their extensive experience to help fix the military
education system. We all had other things to do; we all could have made
vastly more money in our civilian careers if that was our goal. We could
no longer ruck up, but we could do something. And the Washington Post
tried to turn our work into something shady. It failed. We have
had a tremendous outpouring of support, but we don’t need it. The
Washington Post, like the rest of the regime media, is a pompous joke;
if you want to know why it’s dying, this fiasco is Exhibit A. We wear
its hate like one of our medals. Oh, and next time you hack scribblers
want to play mean girls with me, remember that “Schlichter” has two H’s. | 
