If generals and other military leaders don't resign, what distinguishes them from any who would replace them?

[bigtree]

...if they stay and acquiesce to Trump declaration of 'war' against American, Democratic-run cities, what's the difference between them and ones Trump might replace them with?

Both would essentially be acquiescing to war against Americans, something that should be abhorrent to our military forces.

I'm not a big fan of the military as an institution. I'm even less enamored if it after listening to Hegseth dumb it down to something out of the 40's or 50's; a time when white men coveted their superiority over everyone else, and defended that privilege with the armed forces and government all Americans help fund and maintain.

What are we tolerating when we allow soldiers we arm, now ostensibly armed and arrayed against us, to abuse our rights - even as they, themselves, are being subjected to abuses of their own rights?

It would be one thing to deploy a military force against a foreign nation; one in which it's leaders refused to strive for diversity within ranks, and leadership that closely resembles America. It's quite another to deploy that deliberately homogeneous force against a diverse nation; deepening the tyranny of using the weight and power of our government that we fund and support, against Americans in opposition.

If these military leaders go along to get along, or stay in the vain hope they can influence policy away from this president's autocratic, anti-democratic tendencies, they're late.

This has gone on for long enough that these generals and others in the leadership know what's at stake, and know well the anti-democratic statements and declarations Trump has made.

We can pretend they haven't already been acquiescing to it all along, but, after today, there's really no denying where their president stands, and it's not with the American people as he uses the troops as the instrument of his tyranny against us.