should Biden pick a civilian to head the military?

[dead0man]

Two Senate Democrats signal opposition to waiver for Biden's Pentagon pick

[Dr. MB]

I don't get that rule. SecDef should have experience with the military.

[Santander]

I'm sure he's fine, but there are certainly other good options with more daylight between themselves and their military career.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't get that rule. SecDef should have experience with the military.

The idea is theoretically to ensure that the military is under civilian leadership, but really, it was put in place by Republicans who were not happy with Secretary Marshall.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What Santander said. On The Issues, Austin actually seems pretty good, but I still don't like the precedent (already set by Mattis) that this would entrench.

[gerritcole]

I prefer generals

[Santander]

I don't get that rule. SecDef should have experience with the military.

You don't need to be a recently-retired general to have experience with the military. There are plenty of generals and admirals in the Pentagon.

[Bootes Void]

does it even matter?

Anyways it seems like Austin is a good pick

[Torie]

I don't think military experience is a prerequisite in this job. We have joint chiefs of staff for military strategy. But experience in managing massive procurements and contracts is very desirable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't think military experience is a prerequisite in this job. We have joint chiefs of staff for military strategy. But experience in managing massive procurements and contracts is very desirable.

But not sufficient as McNamara and Rumsfeld demonstrated. Indeed, both of them focused far too much on the dollars and not the people that were their responsibility.

[Torie]

I don't think military experience is a prerequisite in this job. We have joint chiefs of staff for military strategy. But experience in managing massive procurements and contracts is very desirable.

But not sufficient as McNamara and Rumsfeld demonstrated. Indeed, both of them focused far too much on the dollars and not the people that were their responsibility.

I was wondering if someone would comment with the point you made. Well done! I guess the point is that they are two separate skills, which usually require different people. McNamara was hired as a "brilliant" procurement guy from his experience at Ford (he actually lived in Ann Arbor the better to hang around with other "eggheads," but I digress). He was not the right guy to handle defense strategy and war management, and Johnson should have relied on others for that. McNamara in his famous interview said he knew the Vietnam War was not winnable, but on his watch tens of thousands of US troops died, in addition to hundreds of thousands of others. It is not clear in my mind if he ever told LBJ of his bleak opinion on the matter. In all events it was a massive cf all around, and is the reason I consider both men absolutely villainous.

[Del Tachi]

I would pick a civilian to lead the military.  DoD is a huge bureaucracy that needs someone from elsewhere in government or the private sector to come in and knock down the entrenched silos.  The culture of the uniformed services is bizarre and alien to most Americans, and such a culture is only further engrained at the Pentagon when you have retired admirals/generals constantly at the helm.

Someone like Mark Esper or Panetta is actually a perfect pick for SecDef (from a credentials standpoint)

[Horus]

Yes, but if he's insisting on a military guy, it doesn't get much better than Austin.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't think military experience is a prerequisite in this job. We have joint chiefs of staff for military strategy. But experience in managing massive procurements and contracts is very desirable.

But not sufficient as McNamara and Rumsfeld demonstrated. Indeed, both of them focused far too much on the dollars and not the people that were their responsibility.

I was wondering if someone would comment with the point you made. Well done! I guess the point is that they are two separate skills, which usually require different people. McNamara was hired as a "brilliant" procurement guy from his experience at Ford (he actually lived in Ann Arbor the better to hang around with other "eggheads," but I digress). He was not the right guy to handle defense strategy and war management, and Johnson should have relied on others for that. McNamara in his famous interview said he knew the Vietnam War was not winnable, but on his watch tens of thousands of US troops died, in addition to hundreds of thousands of others. It is not clear in my mind if he ever told LBJ of his bleak opinion on the matter. In all events it was a massive cf all around, and is the reason I consider both men absolutely villainous.

McNamara might have been good as what is now the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.

By the time we got majorly involved, Vietnam wasn't really winnable, but it might have possible right after WW2 to get Ho to be like Tito in Yugoslavia, but we'd have had to throw the French under the bus to do it.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Appoint someone who will destroy it.

[Chips]

Appoint someone who will destroy it.

Something like that. Not destroy it but I would order our soldiers home if I ever headed the military.