Posted on Dec 9, 2020
Biden: Here’s why I chose Lloyd Austin for defense secretary
2.63K
10
9
5
5
0
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 3
As long as he is qualified and capable - he should be confirmed to be SecDef. From my foxhole, he is both
(2)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
Except he's only been out of service 4 years - the minimum for former military members to be nominated is seven years. Congress would have to approve a waiver and that may not happen since the waiver was created as an exception - not to be commonly used for SECDEF since it's a civilian position.
(0)
(0)
CSM Chuck Stafford
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - That's what waivers are for -- my assessment stands with the addition that he is a goodnatured man to be around
(0)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
CSM Chuck Stafford - And the waiver has only happened two times in over 70 years since the position was created. There is a reason why the position was made to be filled by a civilian and not military members.
When a waiver was issued for Mattis it was to balance out Trump - and that obviously didn't work. When George C Marshall got the first waiver, he was still on active duty when Truman nominated him actually. Congress then stipulated that the waiver should only apply to Marshall.
Yeah he seems like a great guy and was a great military leader - but being a military leader doesn't always translate to being an effective civilian SECDEF. Also Congress, when the 1947 Act was passed, felt that recently retired officers might be too "cozy" with their friends still on active duty. Marshall did remain close to his friends on active duty, as did Mattis.
The entire reason of codifying into law this is a civilian position for good reasons actually. Even Marshall agreed: "At Marshall’s confirmation hearing, Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson asked him about civilian control. Marshall reflected that as a second lieutenant, “I thought we would never get anywhere in the Army unless a soldier was secretary of war.” But he added, “As I grew a little older and served through some of our military history, particularly the Philippine insurrection, I came to the fixed conclusion that he should never be a soldier.”
When a waiver was issued for Mattis it was to balance out Trump - and that obviously didn't work. When George C Marshall got the first waiver, he was still on active duty when Truman nominated him actually. Congress then stipulated that the waiver should only apply to Marshall.
Yeah he seems like a great guy and was a great military leader - but being a military leader doesn't always translate to being an effective civilian SECDEF. Also Congress, when the 1947 Act was passed, felt that recently retired officers might be too "cozy" with their friends still on active duty. Marshall did remain close to his friends on active duty, as did Mattis.
The entire reason of codifying into law this is a civilian position for good reasons actually. Even Marshall agreed: "At Marshall’s confirmation hearing, Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson asked him about civilian control. Marshall reflected that as a second lieutenant, “I thought we would never get anywhere in the Army unless a soldier was secretary of war.” But he added, “As I grew a little older and served through some of our military history, particularly the Philippine insurrection, I came to the fixed conclusion that he should never be a soldier.”
(0)
(0)
He forgot it’s been less than 7 years since his retirement and needs a congressional approved waiver. Many democrats voted against Mattis, so now the same folks are faced with either voting no for Austin or just plain hypocrisy, which should not surprise anyone coming from a politician. At the same time, I assume the republican camp to pay Biden back with the same coin. Business as usual!
(0)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
The main reason people voted for the waiver for Mattis is because of Trump and his inexperience and they thought Mattis could balance him out and he'd listen to Mattis. Obviously that wasn't the case - but no one really foresaw that. There were quite a lot of Democrats who didn't want the waiver for Mattis.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next