Opinion of Lloyd Austin

[President Johnson]

Seems like a really good choice. Freedom fighter.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

daddy

[Middle-aged Europe]

The following info from his Wikipedia made him appear more likeable to me:

His approach as CENTCOM commander has been described as that of an "invisible general", due to his reluctance to speak publicly about military matters.[28]
...
He has been described as an "intensely private" man[56] who loathed talking to the news media when he was in Iraq and has a habit of "referring to himself in the third person".[3]

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of him having switched to the board of a large military contractor the same month he retired from the military. That's IMO a greater conflict of interest than going straight from four-star general to Secretary of Defense.

[😥]

FF

[Lord Halifax]

Seems like a really good choice. Freedom fighter.

Far too many ties to the arms industry, a very poor choice. A Democratic SecDef should be someone opposed to the military-industrial complex not a poster boy for it.

[Lambsbread]

Seems like a really good choice. Freedom fighter.

Far too many ties to the arms industry, a very poor choice. A Democratic SecDef should be someone opposed to the military-industrial complex not a poster boy for it.

This. I’m skeptical of someone who served on the board of Raytheon leading DoD. I’ve heard some good things about him and we will certainly see how he approaches the job, but we should not give him the benefit of the doubt simply because he’s not cartoonishly extreme.

[Horus]

Seems hesitant to enter into new conflicts so ff.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

HP for connections to arms industry.

[President Johnson]

Seems like a really good choice. Freedom fighter.

Far too many ties to the arms industry, a very poor choice. A Democratic SecDef should be someone opposed to the military-industrial complex not a poster boy for it.

The question is whether that influences his decisions or advice he gives to the president (who makes the major decisions anyway). Otherwise, I don't see a problem with having private sector experience.

[KaiserDave]

We'll see

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

I'm not a huge fan, but I have some hopes that he'll be a relative dove without being a knee-jerk quasi-isolationist. Even if his only major initiative is purging the right-wing extremist military-within-a-military he'll probably be the best, or least bad, SecDef in my lifetime, just like I expect Garland to be the best AG even if he sits on his hands for four years.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm not a huge fan, but I have some hopes that he'll be a relative dove without being a knee-jerk quasi-isolationist. Even if his only major initiative is purging the right-wing extremist military-within-a-military he'll probably be the best, or least bad, SecDef in my lifetime, just like I expect Garland to be the best AG even if he sits on his hands for four years.

True, but relative doves tend to get shoved out of the window under any pressure. Remember how much effort it took to get Chuck Hagel installed, and how quickly he fell out of power and was swiftly fired?

[Beet]

I'm not a huge fan, but I have some hopes that he'll be a relative dove without being a knee-jerk quasi-isolationist. Even if his only major initiative is purging the right-wing extremist military-within-a-military he'll probably be the best, or least bad, SecDef in my lifetime, just like I expect Garland to be the best AG even if he sits on his hands for four years.

True, but relative doves tend to get shoved out of the window under any pressure. Remember how much effort it took to get Chuck Hagel installed, and how quickly he fell out of power and was swiftly fired?

Yeah, my hope is that the Biden cabinet can be relatively stable (unlike the Trump cabinet) and the major Secretaries stay in for all four years.

[dead0man]

I like him, but I share some of the concerns mentioned here.


still, FF until proven otherwise.