Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» Is appointing a distinguished retired GENERAL as Secretary of Defense better than appointing a Civilian? Or not so hot? Why?
Being a distinguished former military general may not always mean that she or he would make a good Secretary of Defense. I believe it would depend more on the character and personality of the person rather than on their military careers. Being Secretary of Defense of an entire country would be a daunting task for anyone, military or civilian. Would they have the character, personality, fortitude, and integrity to perform those duties?
This post was edited by rusureamisure? at December 9, 2020 3:39 AM MST
I guess it depends on if the stereotype of generals is true. You know - Generals always prepare for the last war.
The Secretary of Defense should be looking at the causes of past conflicts, and looking to avoid / prepare for them ... but also looking at current trends and looking to avoid / prepare for future conflicts.
I would hope that the Secretary of Defense would put as much effort into working with diplomats, as with the military.
Apparently Joe has a very long and good working relationship with the General so I think that is a good thing. We've been there before. Didn't Mattis get a waiver? Time will tell. Thank you for your reply Walt and Happy Wednesday to thee and thine. I think the Secretary of Defense should at the very least have served in the military in war. Just so he/she can understand what the stakes are. :)
A lot depends on the individual. Eisenhower would have nailed it, Macarthur would have bungled it badly.
Certainly appointing someone with experience in a certain field is better than one with no idea. Most of Trump's appointees were rich cretins with no idea of how to do anything other than exploit people.
I'm a fan of horses for courses. Secretary of Defense should be a veteran (not necessarily a high ranking officer, a senior NCO is fine), Secretary of Education a former teacher, Secretary of Health a doctor or nurse etc.
I ABSOTIVELY POSILUTELY AGREE with every word! Our "sectry of education" is a rich bit** who only ever attended private schools. The EPA guy was a hater of environmental regulations so eliminated many of them. The dumb cluck duck went out of his way to appoint uneducated inexperienced ignorant haters of what they had control over. With Joe it won't be so. I just worry about how much damage the dumb cluck duck will have effected before he flies off into the sunset for parts unknown. SIGH. Waiting is hard. Thank you for your reply R and Happy Wednesday to thee and thine. Jim is watching a TV show about a couple looking for a home in Canberra as I write this! Small world! :)
There are probable constitutional differences here, but I would say that the post can be held by a civilian (in the UK, it is - a Cabinet Minister, and as such is also a constituency Member of Parliament), because the post is the link between State, Government and Military.
Whilst previous military experience is obviously valuable, what really matters is the ability to perform that linking role, which is a blend of very high-level administration and diplomacy. He or she needs to be able to discuss high-level economic, political and military matters with both the top-brass and the fellow politicians, but does not need to have fired a rifle, piloted a plane or commanded a warship to know what those are for and why the Services need yet more of them.
For their part of course, the senior military officers need to be able to communicate their needs and thoughts to civilian ministers without blinding them with science, acronyms or jargon; and I would think most can, and do. When I have heard such people talking about their work on the radio, or interviewed, they do come across as being among the best public speakers going, through years of experience.
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply Durdle. I think the framers of the Constitution favored Civilian control over the military but military folks can get a WAIVER since it's been done before. Civilian control but not by a person no never served in the military. I would not want that any more than I'd want a dentist with no education or experience filling a cavity or cleaning my teeth. Knowing what's it like so one can relate is essential it seems to me. The person selected (of whom I have never heard) is apparently very distinguished well liked and has a sterling reputation. The proof of the pudding is in the eating so we shall see. Time will tell. Thank you for your thoughtful reply! :)
In a democracy like the USA and UK the (civilian) Government tells the military what to do; but perhaps there is a difference between our countries in the nature of the role and appointment to it.
In the UK, the Government's link to the military is called the Secretary of State for Defence, not the Secretary of Defence. There is no reason he or she could not be a former Services officer, with valued and valuable military experience, but the post is a civilian one. Also the incumbent would have served as a Member of Parliament for some years before being selected for a Cabinet position, and in fact still is the local MP for a Parliamentary Constituency (an MP's election area).
There is a further separation too, in the UK, via the Ministry of Defence. That is largely Civil Service so neither political nor military; but works with the military and government on behalf of the State. Its role is supporting the Armed Services in a multitude of ways.
If however the nation has its Secretary work the other way round, i.e. primarily with the Armed Forces and reporting to the Government, then years of high-level military experience would probably be an asset. Such a role might then be a Civil Service one, as the Secretary is no longer a serving officer, and though an advisor to, is not an executive member of, the Government. (Unless given executive authority of course.)
Do you believe it is better for the country to have its military governed by civilians? Our prezi Dwight Eisenhower warned us to beware of the military industrial complex and he was a distinguished General. I think it's good to KNOW first-hand what fighting on a battlefield is like so servie in the military during a war should not be underestimated. So we'll see how it works out. General Austin and Joe Biden have a long history so that bodes well I think. Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply Durdle. Do you think another war of great magnitude is coming? World War 3? Wouldn't this be the perfect time to wage one with the pandemic weakening everyone everywhere? Terrible thought. :(
It is better the country is governed by civilians.
The military has the knowledge and experience to govern itself, civilians do not; but the Armed Services must always be that - Services, to the State.
The services should also be aside from both politics and commerce; the latter supplies the Armed Services but having no power over either the Services who buys the equipment or the Government who oversees it all and pays the bills (from tax revenues).
In practice it is a team effort, because the government can tell the military to do only what the military actually can do, and to give it the means to do it.
I do not know if there is any such thing as a "military industrial complex" as a definite, single entity. Perhaps it does work like that in the USA, but here in the UK the defence industry is a supplier and the Forces' purchasing is overseen by civilian Governmental departments, albeit with military and supporting technical advice.
+++++
WW3? Well, that is something we can all dread but I think it would be very different from World Wars One and Two, and probably not the self-defeating nuclear conflagration backed by blitzkrieg tactics, feared in Cold War times.
I think the main weapons would be more subtle: massive Internet attacks, and large-scale fomenting of subversion and terrorism. In any case the possibility of a war has to be considered along with who would be the aggressor, what they want from it, and whether they can achieve their aims politically and economically.
++++
Joe Biden formally accepted as your next President then - it was announced here on the BBC Radio Four News as I was typing the above.
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply Durdle. Okay. How about a President? Is it better for a president to have served in the military or is that not necessary? We had Ike who was a General and I liked him. Even though he was Republican I think he was smart and honest and did a lot of good for the country. :)
Thank you for your reply Stu. So what do you think about a president? That is do you think it is better to have a president who served in the military or is that not a necessity? I mean we've had a few who didn't and I wonder if they might have done a better job had they had that experience? Happy Tuesday to thee and thine! :)
I think it depends on the individual, but with the exceptions of Clinton, Obama, and Trump, every recent president from Truman to Bush 43 has had some military service. Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, and Reagan achieved the highest ranks.
All between FDR and Clinton (Roosevelt attempted to join but polio made him 4F). Dubya saw stateside service in the Texas Air National Guard, does that count?
So what do you think then? Were those who had military experience "better" presidents? Or maybe did they interact with the military in a more knowledgeable productive way? I guess it's hard to say. Thank you for your reply StuB and Happy Wednesday to thee! :)
I don't really know much about that. However, of the four I mentioned who reached the highest military ranks, Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan each was a consequential two-term president with significant accomplishments. It's anybody's guess as to how much that had to do with their military service.
rusureamisure? 