I Earned My Stripes at Sea—Why Are Tech Execs Getting Rank Without Earning It?

I spent years in the Navy, swabbing decks, standing watch at 0200, and earning every stripe through sweat, saltwater, and sacrifice. So when I saw that four tech executives—straight from cushy chairs at Meta, Palantir, and OpenAI—were commissioned as lieutenant colonels in the U.S. Army Reserve, it felt like someone had just spat on the rank structure I gave my life to respect.

No boot camp. No sea trials. No deployments. Just a handshake and an officer’s rank because they’re good with computers and have friends in high places. Don’t get me wrong—cyber and tech are part of today’s battlefield. I get that. But giving civilians a fast-pass to O-5 rank—while enlisted and junior officers grind their way through years of service—isn’t innovation. It’s a slap in the face to every sailor, soldier, airman, and Marine who’s ever earned their bars the hard way.

They’re calling it Detachment 201: Executive Innovation Corps, and they’re saying it’ll bring Silicon Valley brainpower into the Reserve ranks to help modernize the force. Fine. We need modernization. But this isn’t a tech company. This is the U.S. military. Out here, rank means something. You don’t just “network” your way into leadership. You earn it. At sea, in the field, and through grit.

And let’s talk conflict of interest. These aren’t just “innovators.” They’re executives—people whose companies already rake in millions in defense contracts. Now they get to wear the uniform and sit inside the chain of command? You telling me that's not a little too cozy?

When I was active duty, I knew my CO had earned his anchors. He knew what it meant to lead. These tech execs? They’ve never had to write a casualty report. Never had to send a junior home in a box. Never had to lead through a typhoon or a firefight. But they get silver oak leaves like it’s just another badge on their LinkedIn.

We’re not jealous—we’re protective. Of the uniform. Of the rank. Of the meaning behind it. You can bring in consultants. You can hire advisors. But don’t hand out rank like it's a tech conference lanyard. The military isn’t a startup—it’s a fighting force built on trust, loyalty, and sacrifice.

Let the tech execs help—but don’t let them skip the traditions that forged us.

 Sources 

1. Turak, Natasha. Tech execs are joining the Army — no grueling boot camp required. CNBC. June 2025.
https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-execs-just-joined-the-army-boot-camp-not-required-2025-6

2. Newman, Lily Hay. What Big Tech's Band of Execs Will Do in the Army. WIRED. June 2025.
https://www.wired.com/story/what-lt-col-boz-and-big-techs-enlisted-execs-will-do-in-the-army

3. NDAA 2019. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Title V – Military Personnel Policy.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5515/text

4. Business Insider. Tech execs, Uncle Sam wants you for the US Army. June 2025.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-army-tech-executives-meta-openai-palantir-uncle-sam-2025-6


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When Duty Collided with Conscience

Image
On July 1, 2026, Air Force Major Jason Watson made a decision that will likely define the rest of his military career. While wearing his Air Force service uniform, he stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol holding a sign calling for the impeachment, conviction, and removal of President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. He also publicly criticized the administration's military actions, saying he believed they were unconstitutional. By his own statements, Watson believed he had a moral duty to speak out. He knew there would probably be consequences, but he chose to protest anyway as an act of civil disobedience. One thing that has confused a lot of people is why he was arrested. Some have said he had permission to be there and then somehow lost it. That's not exactly what happened. Representative Al Green escorted Watson onto the House steps. Under Capitol rules, demonstrations are allowed there only under certain conditions, including when a member of Congres...
Read more

Trump’s Iran Strikes: Unconstitutional, Dangerous, and a Christian Call for Accountability

Donald Trump has proven to be a dangerously impulsive leader, and his recent actions reveal a pattern of narcissistic decision-making that puts the country and the world at risk. From unilateral military strikes to flouting constitutional processes, his behavior demonstrates a disregard for law, accountability, and the perspectives of allies. Leadership of this magnitude demands wisdom, restraint, and a commitment to the rule of law — qualities Trump has repeatedly shown he cannot exercise responsibly. For the safety and stability of the nation, he must be removed from the office of the President of the United States as quickly as possible, along with enablers like JD Vance and Mike Johnson, whose support empowers these reckless tendencies. Donald Trump — in the name of the United States — recently launched military strikes against Iran, escalating a conflict that already threatens global stability and regional security. These actions were taken without formal authorization from Congre...
Read more

DHS’s Subpoena Campaign Threatens First Amendment Freedoms

In a constitutional federal representative democracy like the USA, government officials are supposed to protect the rights of the people, not intimidate them. Yet the Department of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Secretary Kristi Noem, is aggressively trying to identify Americans who criticize ICE and its enforcement actions. This is not just an overreach; it is a direct attack on the First Amendment. DHS has issued hundreds of administrative subpoenas to major tech platforms, including Google, Meta, Reddit, and Discord, demanding the names, email addresses, and other identifying information of users who post critical content about ICE¹. These subpoenas do not require prior judicial approval, allowing the agency to bypass the usual legal safeguards and target critics with alarming impunity². This is an abuse of bureaucratic power, and it chills dissent. First Amendment law clearly protects both speech and the anonymity of speakers. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that anon...
Read more