I agree. Few thoughts based on my experiences in reasonably senior military positions on the Joint Staff (1x) and in OSD (3x). There is a very real, and very necessary, tension between OSD and the Joint Staff. (1/8) https://twitter.com/LorenRaeDeJ/status/1332364097166446595

Naturally, they look at the world somewhat differently. When the tension is balanced equally, the resulting friction produces better results. When the balance is skewed…not so much. (2/8)

IMO, the balance skewed towards the civilian side under Secretary Rumsfeld. It skewed toward the military under Secretary Mattis. It was not particularly healthy in either case. This is not to place blame...it was attributable to background and life experiences. (3/8)

The Secretary of Defense is a political position. A Presidentially-appointed cabinet member. Who represents the POTUS’ priorities and works the Hill on behalf of DoD. This is what career politicians know how to do. (4/8)

Military officers spend entire careers striving to remain apolitical. Which is crucial for proper civ-mil relations in this country. (5/8)

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a four star who provides best military advice to the SecDef. Adding a retired 4* as SD tilts the balance towards the military, as much as that Secretary would claim otherwise. (6/8)

The analogy would be to suggest placing a retired politician or Ambassador as the commander of one of the Combatant Commands. Nobody in the military would buy that idea. Why then is it ok for a retired four star to run the Department of Defense? Stars are not fungible. (7/8)

Finally, I see a difference between the position of SD and other roles, such as Under Secretaries, Service Secretaries, and Assistant or Principal Deputies. Prior military experience can be beneficial in some of those positions. (8/x)