'Eventually the WARRIOR Will Answer': Infantryman Puts Amy McGrath in Her PLACE and It's GLORIOUS

Amy McGrath trying to shame Pete Hegseth for ending 'climate change worship' is funny, considering we're 100% sure he doesn't care about her or what she thinks. But you know, she had to try.

Do you know WHY the military was working on green energy Pete? Because the majority of war zone deaths in places like Iraq and AFG were from convoys that were replenishing outposts due to our reliance on fossil fuels. If we can become more self sustaining, we save lives on the… https://t.co/65TbV5ELpy
— Amy McGrath (@AmyMcGrathKY) April 23, 2025

Post continues:

... battlefield. But all you care about are bulls**t culture wars, not real wars.

She's so edgy, dropping a curse word in her post. What IS it with Democrats and cursing lately? Did someone tell them it would make them seem more relatable? Cooler? They were wrong.

While her post is especially stupid, she's not the focus of this post. No, no, the focus of this post is the infantryman who just decimated her.

Take a look at this:

Hi Amy, I’m glad you brought this up. Truth be told I don't even know who you are but I looked you up. Alternate views on defense policy are welcome. But this one crosses into fiction.

Let’s talk about “green energy” in the military.

Do you think green energy would have saved… https://t.co/FeUI5yNL5F
— InfantryDort (@infantrydort) April 24, 2025

Post continues:

Do you think green energy would have saved us from a disastrous strategy that made our forces (who were designed for battle) play policeman for 20 years?
Do you think green energy would solve the problem in GWOT of the fact that restrictive ROE prevented us from killing enough bad guys to keep those convoys safe?
Do you think green energy would have solved the problem that our “lines” had more holes in them than Swiss cheese because of the problems mentioned above?
Do you think green energy makes up for the fact that we can win battles on the ground but not win a war to save our lives because our objectives are so nebulous?
We don’t lose wars because of fuel types. We lose wars because we forget what war is. And I assure you, nobody at the tip of the spear was asking for solar panels when we were short on CAS, ISR, or mission clarity.
Yes, research matters. Innovation matters. But you know as well as I do that prior DoD initiatives around green energy were driven more by politics than performance. And it shows.
What’s more disappointing isn’t disagreement, it’s the tone. You once spoke about service above self, about duty beyond ego. But now, every post reads like it’s meant to score points instead of raise standards.
You’ve questioned the credibility of the Secretary of Defense, and by extension, those of us who’ve walked a similar path. You’ve pointed to women with Ranger tabs to diminish him, as if the absence of that tab somehow disqualifies a man from leading warriors or understanding ground combat.
I’ve earned the Ranger tab.
I’ve got a few bronze stars.
I’ve fought on the ground.
I’ve buried Soldiers I led.
So where does that leave me? Does my service only count when it agrees with your narrative, or does it lose value when it proves you wrong?
I don’t need to defend my record, but I won’t stay silent when others casually diminish it. Especially one with a very similar Infantry path that the SECDEF walked himself.
Wearing the uniform doesn’t mean you speak for all of us. And altitude doesn’t equal authority. Flying at 20,000 feet doesn’t mean you understand the war on the ground. I don't care what anyone else tells you, it just doesn't.
Disagreement is healthy. Debate is welcome. But when you make a habit of questioning the warrior, eventually the warrior will answer.