In 1991, the Tailhook scandal rocked the U.S. Navy. Hundreds of aviators at a Las Vegas convention engaged in misconduct that shocked the public. The fallout was swift. Policies that had long rewarded tactical excellence and operational rigor gave way to gender sensitivity training, compliance mandates, and a culture of political correctness. Officers who once climbed the ranks based on battlefield skill suddenly found themselves judged on how well they adopted progressive talking points. Conservatives conceded too much to progressives, even if only rhetorically, and responded with caution, attempting to preserve what little influence remained. Once a warfighting meritocracy, the military had begun a subtle shift. The pivot favored optics over lethality.

Over the next three decades, this dynamic deepened. The Peter principle—the idea that competent individuals rise only to the level of their incompetence—was weaponized. Political loyalty and agenda signaling replaced combat effectiveness as the dominant criterion for promotion. Diamonds, the true experts in warfighting, began to sink under the weight of bureaucratic mandates, while incompetents and social climbers got to the top rungs of the Pentagon.

However, in 2025, reformers like Pete Hegseth have emerged, leading a merit-first reclamation project that aims to restore skill, innovation, and operational readiness.

The military of the Cold War and Second World War era functioned as a near-pure meritocracy. Promotions depended on results in combat, ingenuity under pressure, and relentless effort. Soldiers and officers were evaluated by what they accomplished, not by whether they adopted specific social narratives.

Navajo Code Talkers exemplify this ethos. They provided critical contributions without quotas or political signaling. The military rewarded diamonds—those who excelled in their roles and carried units to victory. Success metrics centered on warfighting, not cultural compliance. But that began to change in the 1990s with the Tailhook scandal.

The 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy extended this trend. It framed the military as a social laboratory. Officers were rewarded for signaling support for LGBTQ inclusion, and cultural alignment increasingly outweighed operational skill. Tactical expertise became secondary to political correctness. Agenda-driven officers rose in the ranks. The seeds of a Peter principle inversion were sown.

Free Fall

The integration of progressive agendas accelerated throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The 1994 Defense Authorization Act mandated tracking diversity in command positions. By 2015, the integration of women in combat roles under President Obama cemented a merit inversion. Quotas and diversity metrics favored those skilled in navigating progressive expectations rather than the harsh realities of the battlefield. Transgender policies only extended this dynamic.

In Peter principle terms, officers who excelled at strategy, operations, or combat found themselves judged against cultural benchmarks. Those who could perform audits, deliver reports in line with DEI goals, and adopt progressive language were promoted regardless of tactical proficiency. Analysts at the Heritage Foundation reported that the Army had a 25% drop in enlistment in FY 2022, a direct result of these policies. Surveys by War on the Rocks highlighted a decline in trust and cohesion across the military. Merit had become collateral damage. The Peter principle had become a functional weapon in the service of social agendas.

Promotion pipelines favored progressive bureaucrats over fighters, and the military’s up-or-out system amplified the effect. Officers who excelled in combat often struggled in staff roles that required cultural audits or progressive advocacy. Anecdotes from veteran forums describe enlisted leaders who advanced through inflated metrics tied to DEI compliance. The result was a command structure increasingly populated with politically attuned but operationally weak leaders.

The U.S.’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 illustrated the operational cost of this inversion. Decision-making suffered. Strategic hesitation prevailed. Actual expertise was undervalued.

Cultural and operational costs compounded the problem. Readiness suffered, DEI training diverted time from field exercises, and gender-neutral standards and policy concessions lowered physical benchmarks. Critics described this era as turning the military into “HR with guns.” While public trust declined, political neutrality eroded as leaders responded to cultural pressures. Generals adapted messaging to preserve career prospects rather than focus on mission success.

Heritage Foundation research linked progressive overreach to tensions with allied militaries. Competent forces abroad were frustrated by an American military increasingly preoccupied with optics. Peter’s insight about the natural sinking of diamonds under unsuitable hierarchies played out in real time.

Any rigid hierarchy could experience a Peter principle effect, but the military’s structure amplified it. Anonymous complaints and grievance mechanisms were weaponized against nonconformists. Honest evaluations and lateral tracks, recommended by Peter himself, were ignored in favor of quotas and social audits. The military had become a case study in hierarchical dysfunction, with merit and innovation the casualties of progressive ascendancy.

Reclaiming Merit

A counter-revolution has begun under Pete Hegseth, a combat veteran and former platoon commander. Media outlets have attempted to paint him as over-promoted, citing unsecured communications or minor procedural lapses. The smear campaigns, however, ignored decades of systemic mismanagement. Secretary Hegseth represents the diamond Peter envisioned—an operationally capable leader buried under bureaucratic incompetents.

Hegseth’s early initiatives have focused on restoring operational merit. Recruiting has surged, and turnover among agenda-driven officers has accelerated.

His reforms look to be comprehensive. He issued 10 directives in October that were framed as surgical remedies to Peter principle distortions. Fitness and grooming mandates reverted to pre-1990s standards. Gender-neutral tests were maintained, but daily PT and strict appearance regulations returned. AI audits prioritized operational lethality over social compliance, resulting in an immediate readiness boost.

Accountability reforms streamlined Inspector General and Military Equal Opportunity processes. The definition of “toxic leadership” shifted to protect honest mentorship and strict guidance. Grievance abuse tied to DEI metrics was curtailed, and quotas were eliminated. Promotions now emphasize warfighting merit, non-essential training was cut, and funds were redirected to simulations and innovation labs. Early results indicate an 18% increase in recruitment and a revitalization of officer initiative.

Secretary Hegseth’s reforms reflect a broader strategic lesson: diamonds can rise again if the bureaucracy is streamlined and metrics are restored to operational relevance. Performance indicators, including the expansion of combat readiness exercises, affirmed the efficacy of merit-based policies. Alliances initially wary of abrupt reversals adapted as American forces have demonstrated renewed competence. The Peter principle is proving its worth in real time.

The implications for a broader reorganization across the public sector are clear. Merit audits, specialist tracks, and reinforcement of hard work over rhetoric can help ensure that diamonds are elevated. Safeguards such as lifetime competency boards or dedicated operational oversight can protect institutional integrity.

Risks remain, however. Progressive media, sympathetic civilian oversight, and cultural inertia could reverse gains. Sustaining reform requires vigilance. Embedding meritocracy through structural safeguards and transparent evaluation mechanisms is essential. If preserved, the counter-revolution can produce a lean, innovative, and highly competent force. Talent can prevail over the denizens of the bureaucracy.

By refocusing on warfighting excellence and pruning bureaucratic inefficiencies, the military is regaining its competitive edge. Vigilance is essential. Without it, the forces of political progressivism could again override the return of merit. In military life, as Peter might have put it, political games allow bureaucrats to rise, but true warriors will always return to their rightful place.