Congressmember Strickland

No one is disputing that senior officers serve at the pleasure of civilian leadership.

The issue in front of this is whether the decision to remove General Randy George strengthened the Army or created an avoidable disruption during an active operational period.

General George, who also served as commanding general at First Corps at JBLM,

has been serving for four decades, including multiple command and operational leadership roles, culminating as Chief of Staff of the Army, responsible for readiness, force modernization, and the welfare of over a million soldiers and civilians.

He was removed in the middle of an active conflict involving U.S.

operations against Iran, when leadership continuity is most critical.

Public reporting indicates that General George's removal may have followed disagreements over Army personnel matters, including concerns regarding withheld promotions.

So my question, Secretary, is this.

What specific national security risk, mission risk, or leadership concern did General George present that justified removing him in the middle of a conflict, or was he removed because he challenged some decisions being made?

So I'm asking you, why did you fire him?

No, it's a simple question.

Leadership concern.

What did he present that justified removing him in the middle of a conflict?

So I'm asking you my question one more time, sir.

Don't try to flip it on me.

Why was he removed?

Was he a national security risk, mission risk, or leadership concern?