Read on Twitter
Senator Murphy expertly lays out in this thread why the argument against granting General Lloyd Austin a waiver is bogus and why it actually MAKES SENSE to grant a waiver here where it should have been DENIED to Mattis. https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1351245298924974082
It also highlights how arguments from the left against granting this waiver simply do not make logical sense and completely misunderstand norms.
So much so that we should consider how often leftists critiques of Biden donât actually logically support *their* arguments.
So much so that we should consider how often leftists critiques of Biden donât actually logically support *their* arguments.
We are likely to get a lot of this coming very soon, so itâs important to be prepared for it.
They want a fight, so they will pick one any chance they get.
They will try to gaslight us with claims weâre just blindly supportive of Biden, when few of us are.
They want a fight, so they will pick one any chance they get.
They will try to gaslight us with claims weâre just blindly supportive of Biden, when few of us are.
I want this example to stand out because of how important it is when trying to rebuild institutions that have lost their legitimacy not to misunderstand the basic constitution principles at play.
While Senator Chris Murphy gets it, Senator Elizabeth Warren does not.
While Senator Chris Murphy gets it, Senator Elizabeth Warren does not.
Warren, and several other Democratic Senators, take a view that a waiver is bad on principle because civilian control of the military is essential and that granting a waiver ostensibly makes that more difficult.
I find that view wholly reductive, ESPECIALLY now.
I find that view wholly reductive, ESPECIALLY now.
Warren is maintaining the same stance she took in 2017 against the Mattis waiver.
But as Murphy points out, the circumstances are entirely different and the *purpose* of a waiver is to make good exceptions.
Warren essentially argues against the *existence* of waiver.
But as Murphy points out, the circumstances are entirely different and the *purpose* of a waiver is to make good exceptions.
Warren essentially argues against the *existence* of waiver.
So Warren is wrong for two reasons.
First, the ability of Congress to grant a waiver is good, actually.
These are NOT ACTIVE DUTY OFFICERS under consideration. They canât be.
Austin IS a civilian.
The question is: can he do the job best?
First, the ability of Congress to grant a waiver is good, actually.
These are NOT ACTIVE DUTY OFFICERS under consideration. They canât be.
Austin IS a civilian.
The question is: can he do the job best?
I think Warrenâs objection is reductive because it assumes that former generals *cannot* be good for the problem military-civilian balance.
But in this case, I think a general is possibly essential to this mission.
But in this case, I think a general is possibly essential to this mission.
What Trump did with the Mattis waiver wasnât hand over control of the military. Far from it.
He intended, at least, to do the opposite. Trump wanted to *consolidate* power and bring the military *closer* to him by cutting out a middleman.
He intended, at least, to do the opposite. Trump wanted to *consolidate* power and bring the military *closer* to him by cutting out a middleman.
Trump wanted Mattis to lead the military directly under his command.
We can debate to what level he succeeded, but at the very least he blew up that norm Warren and others are so worried about.
Itâs gone. Poof. Over.
We can debate to what level he succeeded, but at the very least he blew up that norm Warren and others are so worried about.
Itâs gone. Poof. Over.
As I said a few weeks ago, you absolutely CANNOT restore a norm by pressuring the same party that still abides the norm to unilaterally continue to follow it. Thatâs ridiculous. Itâs not how norms work.
We must consider the norm broken and it must be fixed, not simply ârestoredâ by fiat.
Thatâs Bidenâs task. He knows it. And he believes a general is best able to help him do that.
And I agree.
Thatâs Bidenâs task. He knows it. And he believes a general is best able to help him do that.
And I agree.
Where Trump used a general to consolidate power, Biden intends to have a general help re-separate the military from the civilian branch.
This is important because a civilian executive *needs* to perform a different analysis on decisions before orders are sent to the military.
This is important because a civilian executive *needs* to perform a different analysis on decisions before orders are sent to the military.
Trump sat in the Oval and heard a problem and could immediately bark orders to Mattis to go carry out his whims.
âLetâs bomb the hell out of em, Jim,â was all it took.
Yâall think thatâs the Biden approach too?
âLetâs bomb the hell out of em, Jim,â was all it took.
Yâall think thatâs the Biden approach too?
Of course not. Biden will have no problem getting all of the best data and input available. Heâll likely have Kamala Harris right next to him for every major military decision, along with his robust national security team.
In THIS case, a general in the room both does not hinder the ability of Biden to make decisions independent of the militaryâbecause General Lloyd will be but one voice of input, AND it will allow him to make sure those orders are carried out well.
Meanwhile, with a general at the helm, what we get is what Warren is still warning about, but in this case we NEED.
Trump gave us TOO MUCH civilian control over the military.
To restore the PROPER balance, we need a more independent military.
Trump gave us TOO MUCH civilian control over the military.
To restore the PROPER balance, we need a more independent military.
This, this is the EXACT situation for which a waiver is intended.
This is the moment Biden needs the best, and a waiver will ensure he can do that.
Tying his hands because you disagree with his choice right now is bad.
This is the moment Biden needs the best, and a waiver will ensure he can do that.
Tying his hands because you disagree with his choice right now is bad.
81 million of us elected Joe Biden to be president. Which means we selected HIM to make the decision on who is best for the role.
I didnât vote for any of the Senators who are objecting. Certainly 81 million Americans did not.
Thatâs what matters here, imo.
I didnât vote for any of the Senators who are objecting. Certainly 81 million Americans did not.
Thatâs what matters here, imo.
