The Biden Presidency

Cheimoon said:
What I'm curious about: why would the Secretary of Defence have to be a former top military officer? I know that's the tradition in the US, but that's not much of a reason (although I know traditions are hard to break). First, it's a political job. Yes, affinity with the military is obviously important, but these people not making tactical decisions and they don't draw up those equipment contracts. Lots of top diplomats could do this - as proven by other countries (which is my second point), where this job isn't necessarily filled this way. In Westminster democracies, it's actually difficult to do, as there aren't a lot of former top military officers running for MP, and you can't be a member of cabinet if you have not been elected in a riding. But also in the Netherlands, where ministers don't have to have any political background, ministers of defence rarely have any military background. I know the US is much bigger than those countries and all that jazz, but that's still not an argument for why you need a top former military officer. What's the actual argument?
Click to expand...
I wouldnt say it is a tradition.
 
I saw Fauci in a press briefing earlier today. He was talking about how he could just state the facts and not get a repercussion from an Trump if he didn't like the facts.
It was refreshing.
 
Grinner said:
Imperial agendas!

:lol:
Click to expand...


It is insane. I mean what's imperial about this:
Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined.
Click to expand...

Or spending more on your "defense" budget than the next ten highest countries combined meanwhile having one of the most sensitively guarded buildings in your capital breached in minutes. This all signals defense and not imperial ambition.
 
Crackers said:
I saw Fauci in a press briefing earlier today. He was talking about how he could just state the facts and not get a repercussion from an Trump if he didn't like the facts.
It was refreshing.
Click to expand...
looked and sounded like a new person
 
calodo2003 said:
Yawn. You try to apply such perverse logic at times. You obviously don’t know what the SecDef’s role in government is.

You’re the type that needs to have the last post. I’ll let you have it. No point in continuing the chess match with the pigeon. It’s tedium.
Click to expand...

If you really were the type to let others have the last post, you wouldn't commit half your post to telling them you'd let them have the last post while accusing them of being someone who needs to have the last post. After spending the first half insulting them, I should add.
 
neverdie said:
It is insane. I mean what's imperial about this:


Or spending more on your "defense" budget than the next ten highest countries combined meanwhile having one of the most sensitively guarded buildings in your capital breached in minutes. This all signals defense and not imperial ambition.
Click to expand...


Sure thing cupcake. America is invading the world. Watch the skies.
 
2cents said:
Actually if you’ve been reading through you should have noticed that while some on here are opposed to this appointment, others are supportive. It’s like the Cafe doesn’t speak with one voice.
Click to expand...
Actually, seems to me about everyone thinks it's not a great idea to make these kinds of appointments, except some accept that this is how it works and others don't. People agree much more than they think, as far as I can tell.
 
Well the optimism has evaporated in record time.

I love the way that the Republican Party are complaining that Biden is filling the Government with communists and half this board are complaining that he is not doing so. Maybe we do have more in common than we think?
 
Cheimoon said:
What I'm curious about: why would the Secretary of Defence have to be a former top military officer? I know that's the tradition in the US, but that's not much of a reason (although I know traditions are hard to break). First, it's a political job. Yes, affinity with the military is obviously important, but these people not making tactical decisions and they don't draw up those equipment contracts. Lots of top diplomats could do this - as proven by other countries (which is my second point), where this job isn't necessarily filled this way. In Westminster democracies, it's actually difficult to do, as there aren't a lot of former top military officers running for MP, and you can't be a member of cabinet if you have not been elected in a riding. But also in the Netherlands, where ministers don't have to have any political background, ministers of defence rarely have any military background. I know the US is much bigger than those countries and all that jazz, but that's still not an argument for why you need a top former military officer. What's the actual argument?
Click to expand...
It usually isn't a former military officer, although it has been on a few occasions but not the majority of prior SecDefs. Personally I'd never go for a former flag officer due to the civilain control of the military aspect. That said, I think the main challenge of the job as it stands today is that it is highly administrative and bureaucratic. HHS and Social Security have bigger budgets because they administer benefits for the public, while the Defense Dept budget represents all personnel and equipment they purchase and maintain. It seems that if a SecDef doesn't have a good grasp of some of the ins-and-outs of managing the military, it becomes hard for him/her to actually effect whatever change they want and a lot can carry on as before just due to inertia.

But that doesn't mean that a flag officer is needed, since the Defense Dept has thousands of career civilians that also know how the sausage is made. Ash Carter who served as Obama's SecDef in his last 2 years was one of those. But even when it comes to civilian appointments, former politicians and private sector executives have often been preferred.
 
MTF said:
It usually isn't a former military officer, although it has been on a few occasions but not the majority of prior SecDefs. Personally I'd never go for a former flag officer due to the civilain control of the military aspect. That said, I think the main challenge of the job as it stands today is that it is highly administrative and bureaucratic. HHS and Social Security have bigger budgets because they administer benefits for the public, while the Defense Dept budget represents all personnel and equipment they purchase and maintain. It seems that if a SecDef doesn't have a good grasp of some of the ins-and-outs of managing the military, it becomes hard for him/her to actually effect whatever change they want and a lot can carry on as before just due to inertia.

But that doesn't mean that a flag officer is needed, since the Defense Dept has thousands of career civilians that also know how the sausage is made. Ash Carter who served as Obama's SecDef in his last 2 years was one of those. But even when it comes to civilian appointments, former politicians and private sector executives have often been preferred.
Click to expand...
Ah OK, thanks - that's good context to have. So I guess some of criticism here on taking someone from the defence industry has more substance to it than has been suggested.
 
entropy said:
No offense but you were frothing at the mouth about China just a few days ago. Last year this time it was about Russia. If there is anyone here who is stuck in the 80s or more prone to archaic thinking, it is more likely to be you.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how bad of me talking about totalitarian states with atrocious human rights records that persecute political opponents and journslists. Terrible.
 
I’d just like to point out that the current hemming and hawing about the Secretary of Defense is over a man with this also on his resume...

BS - US Military Academy
MA - Auburn
MBA - Webster

Commander of US Central Command
Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
Commander of US Forces - Iraq
Commander of Multinational Corps - Iraq
Commander of XVIII Airborne Corps
Commander of 10th Mountain Division
Commander of 3rd BCT, 82nd Airborne Division
Commander of 2nd Bn, 505th Para Inf Regiment
 
So having a private career in the defense industry after being a 4 star general is relevant... but actual qualifications for the job are irrelevant. Okay then.
 
Carolina Red said:
I’d just like to point out that the current hemming and hawing about the Secretary of Defense is over a man with this also on his resume...

BS - US Military Academy
MA - Auburn
MBA - Webster

Commander of US Central Command
Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
Commander of US Forces - Iraq
Commander of Multinational Corps - Iraq
Commander of XVIII Airborne Corps
Commander of 10th Mountain Division
Commander of 3rd BCT, 82nd Airborne Division
Commander of 2nd Bn, 505th Para Inf Regiment
Click to expand...
But he is a military man, how dare they put them there?

Also, fire Fauci cause he has something to do with medicine and is in a public health post. We need a full cultural revolution, dude.
 
Cheimoon said:
Ah OK, thanks - that's good context to have. So I guess some of criticism here on taking someone from the defence industry has more substance to it than has been suggested.
Click to expand...
This all emanates from a problem that goes beyond just the defense industry and beyond just the US, despite being quite pronounced in the US. Which is that there is a gap in the prestige-to-pay ratio (I'm making up the term a bit but have read about the concept elsewhere) of the public sector vs private.

So if we look as Lloyd Austin as an example, as a 4-star General he had very high prestige and power. He spoke on behalf of the United States and the US Army on a daily basis. He had thousands of personnel whom he would direct, and probably also a considerable personal entourage to help him do his daily job. Whenever he was in a room, if the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of JCS, or the President himself wasn't there, he was probably the most important person in that room (there's other people more important than him in govt but don't want to get exhaustive). But meanwhile his bank account only saw some $200K annually, minus tax. That's by no means poor, but its also what an Investment Banker 3 years out of college might make, and its a fraction of what even someone in charge of any division at a Raytheon makes (not that he was a division head at Raytheon, just an intra-industry comparison).

This situation is the same at virtually every equivalent post in government. A US Attorney for SDNY can investigate and take down a global football corruption scheme, organizing arrests to happen simultaneously in numerous countries around the world. But they make as much or less than a 2nd year lawyer at a white shoe firm makes. When these people leave government they are almost immediately tempted by offers to make in just a few years what they made in the public sector for decades. They are often both competent, which is why they rose to the top of their fields in govt, and have very high prestige in their field. Companies are willing to throw millions of dollars at them depending on the role, and the companies figure its a good deal.

So the question is what to do about it. Just continue with the present regulations that at least force them to sell out of their private sector interests when going back into government service? Prohibiting senior government officials from ever serving in the private sector? But wouldn't you have to increase pay to still see a pool of competent applicants? Increase pay regardless so that private sector works is less attractive in a relative sense? I don't have a firm view on the solution, but I think the problem here another symptom of what I described.
 
Revan said:
But he is a military man, how dare they put them there?

Also, fire Fauci cause he has something to do with medicine and is in a public health post. We need a full cultural revolution, dude.
Click to expand...
I am not sure who has claimed that him being a former general is a problem.What I said was that, as per constitution the military leadership is civilian, and there is a law that prohibits someone who has been out of active duty for less than 7 years to assume the position of Secretary of Defense. A waiver is needed , which he (and Mattis in 2016) got . But it is not preposterous to criticize Biden (not Austin) for picking him.

Not sure how you arrived to your Fauci analogy.
 
Frosty said:
I love the way that the Republican Party are complaining that Biden is filling the Government with communists
Click to expand...

The corporate right call anyone slightly left of milquetoast neocon a communist - so that's not exactly a surprise. Same is true on the other side, only their insult de jour is neo-nazi.
 
The suggestion seems to rely heavily on the idea that Raytheon wouldn't win any contracts with the US military in the next four years without this appointment.

If they happen to win an inordinate number of contracts then, detectively, we can say the critics were correct; however, most government contract processes are somewhat insulated from that sort of corruption, unless your name is Justin and you're the Prime Minister of Canada.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.