For more context: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/03/1255164460/1a-army-07-03-2025

So, we have a sitting US Senator/astronaut/Navy Vet who is being harassed by the "Secretary" of Defense for making a video telling troop that they can (and must) refuse unconstitutional orders. This tells us a bit about how the administration and DoD view the constitution versus chain-of-command.

Thusly, I can only assume that these "Lieutenant Colonels" are there to be ordered to do things which they cannot refuse if constitutional, and will still be expected to do if unconstitutional.

Totes not fascism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_201

https://www.army.mil/article/286317/army_launches_detachment...

A good example is Jensen Huang donating to the ballroom project and Nvidia’s Groq acquisition not being blocked for antitrust. But you see this with many other leaders too. The All In podcast is basically a MAGA podcast now. Many VCs are silent about current events as they hope their portfolio companies get defense contracts.

But events like this (and the Intel stake) seem like an exact implementation of what has come to be called The Third Position[0], which, if I understand correctly, was the etymology of the world 'fascism' itself.

Mussolini's 1913 Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria was apparently named after 'fasci', or corporate syndicates, his vision of which is basically exactly what we're seeing here: the state owning stakes in the means of technocratic production, and corporate leaders in positions of military command.

And although "The Third Position" is usually called a _neo_-fascist movement, I believe that Mussolini articulated it, more or less in its entirety, some time in the early 1920s?

I'm more of a political scientist than a historian, so it's possible I have this wrong.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position

Discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44268547