If the US military has such a good interviewing process then how do we keep ending up with generals who lose wars? Back during WW2 they fired or promoted officers based primarily on battlefield performance, which eventually worked pretty well for eliminating the incompetent.
Promotions and demotions are not the result of an interview process. To make general you need decades of military experience and decisions are highly political. Because war is highly political. Generals can't win if the politicians demand the impossible i.e. use guns to turn Afghanistan into a feminist non-tribal nationalist democracy without settling large numbers of Westerners there. Any educated and ethical general would resign before committing to take on such a mission for the president.
Could you describe (or provide a link to an explanation) that process?