Read on Twitter
Can someone write down for me a clear explanation of what the “civil military relations” problem with retired generals serving as Secretary of Defense is exactly?
I’m happy to believe everyone that it’s bad, but it’s not obvious to me what the issue is.
I’m happy to believe everyone that it’s bad, but it’s not obvious to me what the issue is.
This article says it was bad that Mattis was a retired general, but then it concedes that replacing Mattis with a series of non-generals didn’t improve anything.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/opinion/biden-defense-secretary-dod.html?searchResultPosition=1
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/opinion/biden-defense-secretary-dod.html?searchResultPosition=1
I don’t have a strong opinion as to whether Mattis was better than Shanahan or Esper, but I’d think if you wanted to convince me that the retired generals thing is bad you’d want to say “but then when Mattis was replaced with Shanahan and Esper things got better because …”
The whole conversation seems under-theorized to me.
Who are the historically great Secretaries of Defense? Who are the really bad ones? I don’t feel like I have a good sense of where the conversation is on this.
Who are the historically great Secretaries of Defense? Who are the really bad ones? I don’t feel like I have a good sense of where the conversation is on this.
But does someone like Esper (formerly Raytheon’s top lobbyist) or Flournoy constitute bringing in information from outside the system?
I can see the case for that for sure, but it doesn’t seem to cleave the general/not-a-general line well. https://twitter.com/broomtorowicz/status/1336312187472785409
I can see the case for that for sure, but it doesn’t seem to cleave the general/not-a-general line well. https://twitter.com/broomtorowicz/status/1336312187472785409
I could see the argument that the SecDef should be someone like Anthony Brown or Tammy Duckworth, a civilian politician who has served in uniform but whose main career is outside the military-industrial complex.
