I'd argue the most successful Secretary of Defense since the position was created in 1947 was William Perry, who had two distinct advantages: his time in office was the easiest to rethink the post-Cold War defense budget, but his immediate predecessor set that in motion. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1336310512636862464

he'd get my nod just on his refusal to fund missile defense. Fighting the worst impulses of Congress and the Pentagon on acquisitions is a hugely underrated part of the job.

If you're looking for independence and civilian control, what you want in a SecDef is not just a career outside uniform, but a background and an ideological temperament that is willing to disagree with the defense industry writ large on what it sees as vital spending needs.

I should say, too, that it isn't just having to disagree with what the Pentagon is asking for, or what Raytheon et all are selling. It's also having to have the support of the President in this fight, and to be able to sway Congress on the spending priorities. It's a huge task!

I sometimes say that the F-35 was built more to survive Congress than combat, and I'm not really joking. Lockheed Martin has a clickable map where you can see the jobs impact of the plane on every state (except ND & Hawaii) & Puerto Rico (but not DC, lol) https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map#vermont

I think civilian control of the military is important, and I appreciate that it takes a waiver to override safeguards against someone who recently commanded military forces leading the department. But there are other ways for civilian leaders to have interests bound with DoD.

If the concern is military prioritizing its interest over that of the President (and, in theory, the public), you can't get there alone with civilian careers in DoD or defense industry. But it's hard for anyone interested in the job to build up relevant qualifications elsewhere.

This is a broader problem, but the post-1947 National Security State is a perpetual motion machine built to ensure the continued relevance of a standing military despite public opinion, not in service to it. If it feels fundamentally undemocratic, well, it was built that way.

I don't have any great recommendations for a SecDef nominee who can break this trend, in part because it is perhaps impossible to build a career where a person gains relevant expertise & also avoids aligning their interests, personally & ideologically, with DoD & defense industry

Perry's SecDef tenure stands out in part because he operated in a unique moment: the post-Cold War drawdown before the War on Terror build up, which also took place in a frenzy over ~fiscal responsibility~ & ~balanced budgets~. He made some good long-term choices in that context.

The hard work of reimagining the role of the US in the world, and especially that of its military, was already somewhat underway in the mid-1990s, and it didn't last. Harder, now, to do it with the Forever War a going concerns and a ~New Cold War~ on the horizon.

@threadreaderapp unroll