Read on Twitter
Susan’s thread is spot on. Key argument: voting for waiver to allow Austin to serve as SecDef is effectively eliminating the relevance of the ban in the future. Retired GOs as SecDef will be presumed as an acceptable norm. https://twitter.com/susan_hennessey/status/1336424386551746571
In considering this, there are at least three buckets of concerns. First, whether enabling such a career path impacts the incentives for GOs while serving to be more outwardly politically aligned (or seek political favor) a dangerous proposition for an apolitical institution.
Second, whether the career and preparation of a general officer is appropriate to the needs of leading the DOD (particularly since it may become presumed that this is a traditional path). Such careers can generate exceptional military leadership (though not guaranteed). However,
Good scholarship and experience has pointed to the necessity of understanding the merits and distinction of military and civilian leadership and preparation. @jimgolby explores very well here, including Marshall’s own words.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/opinion/biden-defense-secretary-dod.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/opinion/biden-defense-secretary-dod.html
And @ahfdc’s analysis of whether civilian defense leaders need military experience assesses that https://www.justsecurity.org/72084/a-military-litmus-test-evaluating-the-argument-that-civilian-defense-leaders-need-military-experience/
The third bucket of concern is the present civil military moment, which is of significant concern but will not be unique. Members of Congress should not set aside the tough civil military homework any nominee will be tasked with addressing when considering this waiver.
In doing so, they should reflect on views shared today: that only a general officer can take on this chaos, or, that some servicemembers only feel comfortable serving a SecDef with military experience. They should not avoid the question of whether they are validating such views.
These questions can and should be considered separately from the nominee himself. However, his understanding of and thoughtfulness about these questions are also deeply important should not be glided over.
(Delighted to be consistent and fully unheard for four years) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-surrounding-himself-with-generals-thats-dangerous/2016/11/30/e6a0a972-b190-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html
Several people have raised this too. I am conflicted on whether it’s a part of this discussion but it’s resonating strongly with some. https://twitter.com/erikrehnberg/status/1336663110028054528
