=

This could be the guy. He has resources. He has connections. He has morals. He can't be bought- he won't sacrifice his principles to just wait out 3 more years and become entitled to full military retirement benefits. He said "$2 million", which is roughly what you'd get in pension, insurance, and various other benefits for the rest of his life. He could have had that if he did not make this second video. He's right- the USMC would've gave him a billet somewhere quiet and launch an "investigation" which would take 3 years or so, allowing him to retire quietly and sweep all of this under the rug. But he's not having that- in this video, he says "Fuck you, I don't want your money, you all suck and need to be held accountable for the tremendous amount of cocks you suck" in a far more eloquent manner than I could. He's a "troublemaker". You see them in any job. Guys who point out bullshit. Guys who point out "Why do you do this like this, when you could do it much more efficiently like this?" **Management/leadership HATES people like this, because it makes them feel threatened.** In this case, a Lt. Colonel (O5- essentially middle rank of officers for USMC) is pointing out that abandoning Bagram AFB before evacuation is an absurd, obviously terrible decision that cannot be justified in *any* way. This makes his higher ranked officers look really, really bad- especially since he got a viral video out about them. So now, his senior officers will do their best to make this man's life hell on his way out of the Corps, and they'll probably try to keep fucking him over after he's out for humiliating them. If a mid-ranked officer can spot a terrible strategic decision, then the group of fucking *generals* who made this decision are far less competent strategists than their junior officers.