Current Events > Biden's Secretary of Defense pic is a retired general who works for Raytheon

(+) Yeah! (+)

But he's black so the centrist liberals are happy! More diverse drone strikes

https://twitter.com/ZeeshanAleem/status/1336110908129611778
(thread there)

---

Idk how he got away with picking John Kerry. Or being the Democratic nominee when Kamala Harris and Corey Booker were running.

Welcome to the theater of life

---

What're you even trying to say >_>

As a leftist, war criminal diversity is important to me.

---

FrankJaegr posted...

What're you even trying to say >_>

That military personnel who work for defense contractors and have a vested financial interested in continued warfare shouldn't be heading the DoD.

---

Phynaster posted...

That military personnel who work for defense contractors and have a vested financial interested in continued warfare shouldn't be heading the DoD.

That's racist

So he has a lot of experience...?

---

Phynaster posted...

That military personnel who work for defense contractors and have a vested financial interested in continued warfare shouldn't be heading the DoD.

He's a GENERAL

I think what you want are qualified babysitters

FrankJaegr posted...

What're you even trying to say >_>

This. Is it good or bad?

---

So hy is this man good or bad? The highlighted point doesn't really point to anything good or bad for him being appointed to this position.

---

ChocoboMogALT posted...

So he has a lot of experience...?

FrankJaegr posted...

He's a GENERAL

I think what you want are qualified babysitters

The military are not supposed to be overseeing the military. A citizen is supposed to hold that position and Trump and Biden have had and will have to get a waiver to use retired military

---

toadfan64 posted...

So hy is this man good or bad? The highlighted point doesn't really point to anything good or bad for him being appointed to this position.

Do you think its good that someone with a financial interest in keeping the bombs dropping and the weapons selling is in charge of the DoD?

---

Phynaster posted...

Do you think its good that someone with a financial interest in keeping the bombs dropping and the weapons selling is in charge of the DoD?

He knows MONEY
He knows WAR

Department (money) of Defense (war)

Phynaster posted...

The military are not supposed to be overseeing the military. A citizen is supposed to hold that position and Trump and Biden have had and will have to get a waiver to use retired military

Five of the last ten SoD's were former military.....

---

TC are you ok?

---

why wouldn't someone with military experience be overseeing the military

---

Doom_Art posted...

why wouldn't someone with military experience be overseeing the military

Progressives believe people in power should be as unqualified for their position as possible.

DirkDiggles posted...

Five of the last ten SoD's were former military.....

By law they have to be 7 years out of service or more, unlike Mattis or Austin

Doom_Art posted...

why wouldn't someone with military experience be overseeing the military

Because the military should be accountable to the people and not to itself

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Progressives believe people in power should be as unqualified for their position as possible.

LMAO now this is rich

---

"Biden's Secretary of Defense pic is a retired general who works for Raytheon"

Bad part is not "retired general," it's "works for Raytheon."


---

Phynaster posted...

LMAO now this is rich

dudes who had no issue with bernie hiring people like brie brie now suddenly care about qualifications lol

Anyway as far as this guy goes, having a SoD who hasn't worked for contractors does not mean the US suddenly adopts a ridiculous isolationist foreign policy.

Doom_Art posted...

why wouldn't someone with military experience be overseeing the military

https://www.npr.org/2016/12/02/504165486/trumps-defense-pick-challenges-rules-around-civilian-control-of-the-military

The National Security Act of 1947, which established the current national defense structure, had a key stipulation, requiring that the secretary of defense be a civilian well removed from military service. In fact, the law is quite clear:

"That a person who has within ten years been on active duty as a commissioned officer in a Regular component of the armed services shall not be eligible for appointment as Secretary of Defense."

The idea was to ensure that the nation's armed forces be controlled by a civilian. Congress almost immediately waived the rule, allowing President Truman to name revered Army Gen. George Marshall to serve as defense secretary in 1950. The law was changed in 2008, reducing from ten to seven the number of years that a nominee must be retired from the military.

Still, Mattis does not qualify, because he retired from the Marine Corps in 2013.

The question is, how big of a problem is this for Mattis' confirmation chances? A few Democrats have already weighed in. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York issued a statement Thursday, saying:

"While I deeply respect General Mattis's service, I will oppose a waiver. Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule."

The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith of Washington, says hearings will be needed if he is to support a waiver:

"[While] I like and respect General Mattis a great deal, the House of Representatives would have to perform a full review, including hearings by the Armed Services Committee, if it were to consider overriding the statutory prohibition on recent military officers serving as the Secretary of Defense."

https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/12/08/944231676/bidens-defense-pick-raises-concerns-over-civilian-control-of-the-military
Now, most Democrats ended up voting for Mattis, but some at the time said the waiver was a one time exemption.

Even as several Democrats who had opposed a Mattis waiver said Tuesday they might be open to granting one for Austin, the Senate's narrow makeup the best case scenario for Democrats is a 50-50 split means only a handful of defections could sink Austin's bid.

One key voice in the debate is Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Four years ago he reluctantly voted to give Mattis a waiver but said at the time he would never do so again. "Waiving the law should happen no more than once in a generation," Reed said in 2017. "I will not support a waiver for future nominees."

But when Reed spoke to reporters Tuesday afternoon on Capitol Hill, he sounded open to reversing course.

The lawmaker called Austin a "very qualified general officer" who "brings a lot to the Department of Defense."

---

I hope you guys were thirsty for conflict after four years of no major wars.

People are getting wound up around the wrong thing here.

It doesn't matter that the guy is a retired General. That's actually desirable, you want someone with military experience leading the military.

The issue comes from the potential conflict of interest that comes from appointing a guy who went into the private sector and is now back in public service. It can cause his motives and agenda into question. Even Mattis wasn't clean - he had worked closely with Theranos to get DOD contracts for them.

The difficulty here is in finding a person who has military experience *and* who doesn't have that conflict of interest but good luck finding that because everyone - politicians, military, etc. - generally love going into the private sector and get advisory roles at lobby groups and shit like that.

---

TC is correct. if you don't see the issue with a defense contractor overseeing our defense, then idk. this is equivalent to that blackwater dude running our stuff

---

Remember, it's OK when Democrats do it and if you dare criticize them you must be a secret Trumper or a trust fund socialist Chapo fanboy from Brooklyn.

It's sad, because aren't liberals supposed to know better and not have cultish behavior?

---

The worst part is that on the news the last few nights I see them praising Bidens picks for the diversity alone. Diversity is good but if they're still doing the same shit that their predecessors have done then what difference does it make if they're black or a woman?

---

Thats cool, my brother works for Raytheon

GodBlessAustin posted...

Idk how he got away with picking John Kerry. Or being the Democratic nominee when Kamala Harris and Corey Booker were running.

Didnt people vote in the Democratic primary? Or are you saying the DNC should have preemptively decided for the masses?

---

Returning_CEmen posted...

Thats cool, my brother works for Raytheon

My friend works for Raytheon lol

his father also worked for his Raytheon

unfortunately his grandfather didnt which wouldve been some sweet continuity there

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Progressives believe people in power should be as unqualified for their position as possible.

I'm a progressive. Stop projecting

---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

The worst part is that on the news the last few nights I see them praising Bidens picks for the diversity alone. Diversity is good but if they're still doing the same shit that their predecessors have done then what difference does it make if they're black or a woman?

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1336477646469931010?s=20

---

Phynaster posted...

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1336477646469931010?s=20

Imagine if you read about this in a dystopian fiction novel. Anyone who read it would recognize the power structure as cartoonishly corrupt and evil. Here in the real world, people just brush it off as eh, politics is complicated, you just dont understand or some other such trite nonsense.

---

Hexenherz posted...

The issue comes from the potential conflict of interest that comes from appointing a guy who went into the private sector and is now back in public service. It can cause his motives and agenda into question.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Anyway as far as this guy goes, having a SoD who hasn't worked for contractors does not mean the US suddenly adopts a ridiculous isolationist foreign policy.

Hexenherz posted...

People are getting wound up around the wrong thing here.

It doesn't matter that the guy is a retired General. That's actually desirable, you want someone with military experience leading the military.

The issue comes from the potential conflict of interest that comes from appointing a guy who went into the private sector and is now back in public service. It can cause his motives and agenda into question. Even Mattis wasn't clean - he had worked closely with Theranos to get DOD contracts for them.

The difficulty here is in finding a person who has military experience *and* who doesn't have that conflict of interest but good luck finding that because everyone - politicians, military, etc. - generally love going into the private sector and get advisory roles at lobby groups and shit like that.

That's true.

Hell, when I was in A School, one of our instructors, a long-retired Senior Chief turned IT A School instructor,, had mentioned several times about we could take out clearance, our experience, and our certs into the private sector for a very profitable career. He specifically mentioned Raytheon.