This point by @jimgolby makes me think about three aspects of the Austin nomination that haven’t gotten much attn.

One is the politics that enable the choice. Lots of research shows that the public likes it (increasingly) when generals serve in cabinet positions. 1/7 https://twitter.com/jimgolby/status/1337069249303605248

In fact, they want generals in cabinet positions completely unrelated to national security!

(on public opinion & generals in cabinets see work by @RobertJRalston @jimgolby @tcjost @PeteWhitePolSci and others) 2/7

This means an administration won’t pay any costs (and may even get some strokes) for choosing a retired general as secretary of defense. Illustrates why and how the public is an essential constraint on civ-mil! 3/7

Second, there’s been some talk about how the appt. of a second career military officer as secretary in two consecutive presidencies erodes norms. But I am not sure the full risk has been appreciated. 4/7

Consider what happens when the next civilian w/o prior mil experience is chosen to lead the dept.? Public says: but is this person qualified because he/she has no military experience and president’s opponents tag onto that critique. Handicaps that civilian on day one. 5/7

Also, as @jimgolby highlights above our @PVGlance piece also shows that selection of a retired general reinforces a bad dynamic: the military itself may come to expect that a SecDef should have served to be legitimate. 6/7 https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2020/12/08/how-bidens-pick-for-defense-secretary-might-shake-up-civil-military-relations/

Some context here: there is longstanding survey research showing large numbers of mil personnel think a SecDef should have served to be respected. Note the word choice here: respected. 7/7

Also, on probs w/ a mil. litmus test see this piece by @ahfdc https://www.justsecurity.org/72084/a-military-litmus-test-evaluating-the-argument-that-civilian-defense-leaders-need-military-experience/