AgBQ-00 said:

---

Fwiw Mike Glover likes the choice


He breaks down point by point questions he has and why he thinks he'll be a good secdef

His main point of him being an outsider that does not have the taint of military politics on him is a big plus

---

Not sure how being an outsider is the biggest selling point for someone being SECDEF. Thats like saying that when a company is looking for a new CEO, the last place they should look is at the other C-suite officers. Get Bob the janitor up here to take over. He has zero corp politics about him.

Not going to read 11 pages, but I'm assuming Hegseth's appearance on the Shawn Ryan show has been mentioned. After listening to it I think Hegseth will be an amazing choice and might actually damn near fix the military.

DanielDay said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Fwiw Mike Glover likes the choice


He breaks down point by point questions he has and why he thinks he'll be a good secdef

His main point of him being an outsider that does not have the taint of military politics on him is a big plus

---

Not sure how being an outsider is the biggest selling point for someone being SECDEF. Thats like saying that when a company is looking for a new CEO, the last place they should look is at the other C-suite officers. Get Bob the janitor up here to take over. He has zero corp politics about him.

---

He's a different kind of choice but he's not really that much of an outsider. Dude has 20 years in the military and served in combat. He's written a book about how to get rid of the woke in the military and is a champion for soldiers.

TTUArmy said:

---

DanielDay said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Fwiw Mike Glover likes the choice


He breaks down point by point questions he has and why he thinks he'll be a good secdef

His main point of him being an outsider that does not have the taint of military politics on him is a big plus

---

Not sure how being an outsider is the biggest selling point for someone being SECDEF. Thats like saying that when a company is looking for a new CEO, the last place they should look is at the other C-suite officers. Get Bob the janitor up here to take over. He has zero corp politics about him.

---

I think you may be missing the larger point. DC is filled with the same old, C-Suite, career dumbasses that keep sending our country into the abyss. The elitist culture and current way of doing things in the swamp has to change. Pete is more than qualified for the job.

---

Thanks for the insight. I'm not sure I believe our military is failing or even struggling but I will defer to be people who know better than I do.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107463

We have profound readiness issues, exacerbated by DoD's lack of focus and the White House's failure to properly fund the military.

Changes are required to move DoD away from the Austin/Brown DEI-centric, woke-oriented Pentagon to a misson-centric focus giving our warriors everything they need to fight, and win (A will entirely lacking with the present Commander-in-Chief), future wars.

Trump returns. Out with fighting Quixotic conflicts against Climate Change. In with modernization, supplying and equipping our forces to either deter or destroy our enemies wherever they may exist.

Claverack said:

---

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107463

We have profound readiness issues, exacerbated by DoD's lack of focus and the White House's failure to properly fund the military.

Changes are required to move DoD away from the Austin/Brown DEI-centric, woke-oriented Pentagon to a misson-centric focus giving our warriors everything they need to fight, and win (A will entirely lacking with the present Commander-in-Chief), future wars.

Trump returns. Out with fighting Quixotic conflicts against Climate Change. In with modernization, supplying and equipping our forces to either deter or destroy our enemies wherever they may exist.

---

your rationale sounds convincing but I'm not hearing that from Trump. There is no desire there to continue with forward operations in Europe or the western pacific. I thought it was more about pulling back to US borders.

Hope I'm wrong but just because I want to believe a politician thinks like me, it doesn't mean they do.

Not for long. https://t.co/v8teGiv3eH

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) November 16, 2024

My man

SIAP but this was from overa week ago. Quite interesting.

What does that even mean?

I questioned his ability to manage crisis and the duties inherent in the position due to his lack of experience dealing with those situations or having exposure to the ecosystem in which they are managed.

Your response is that he's going to make potential adversaries afraid of us because we will kill a bunch of people if they do? I don't get it.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

What does that even mean?

I questioned his ability to manage crisis and the duties inherent in the position due to his lack of experience dealing with those situations or having exposure to the ecosystem in which they are managed.

Your response is that he's going to make potential adversaries afraid of us because we will kill a bunch of people if they do? I don't get it.

---

What it means is that the days of bad actors being able to count on a "proportional response" or "limited humanitarian assistance" are likely over. If you come at us or our friends, we are going to use the amount of force in response that we think is necessary to bring the conflict to a quick and bloody (for the bad actors) end. No more slow rolling weapons to Ukraine just enough to keep them from getting overrun, no more threatening Israel by withholding arms sale approvals if they don't limit the scope of their retaliatory attacks on Iran.

People objecting to Pete seem to think he is going to be stuck into the role with zero support and no other experienced leaders supporting him. As SecDef, he is not going to be writing out orders for individual units and negotiating with contractors for pricing. He is there to be the hand on the tiller and to set the direction for the actions of the others working under him, just like every past SecDef.

txags92 said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

What does that even mean?

I questioned his ability to manage crisis and the duties inherent in the position due to his lack of experience dealing with those situations or having exposure to the ecosystem in which they are managed.

Your response is that he's going to make potential adversaries afraid of us because we will kill a bunch of people if they do? I don't get it.

---

What it means is that the days of bad actors being able to count on a "proportional response" or "limited humanitarian assistance" are likely over. If you come at us or our friends, we are going to use the amount of force in response that we think is necessary to bring the conflict to a quick and bloody (for the bad actors) end. No more slow rolling weapons to Ukraine just enough to keep them from getting overrun, no more threatening Israel by withholding arms sale approvals if they don't limit the scope of their retaliatory attacks on Iran.

People objecting to Pete seem to think he is going to be stuck into the role with zero support and no other experienced leaders supporting him. As SecDef, he is not going to be writing out orders for individual units and negotiating with contractors for pricing. He is there to be the hand on the tiller and to set the direction for the actions of the others working under him, just like every past SecDef.

---

I mean this respectfully, but it is clear that you lack a clear understanding of what the SECDEF does, his responsibilities in the chain of command/administration of the department of defense, and what his role entails in crisis situations. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just tough to have a discussion with people about it that view the role like they see it in the movies. It is an unfathomable amount of responsibility and tacit knowledge is required to do it well, and not just about the military.

Look at Robert Gates' qualifications. He managed organizations with huge budgets, had vast intelligence experience, and spent decades in the intelligence/defense ecosystem. His experience prepared him well, so well that he served two presidents from two opposing parties.

George C Marshall is another example of a great, well qualified SECDEF.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

txags92 said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

What does that even mean?

I questioned his ability to manage crisis and the duties inherent in the position due to his lack of experience dealing with those situations or having exposure to the ecosystem in which they are managed.

Your response is that he's going to make potential adversaries afraid of us because we will kill a bunch of people if they do? I don't get it.

---

What it means is that the days of bad actors being able to count on a "proportional response" or "limited humanitarian assistance" are likely over. If you come at us or our friends, we are going to use the amount of force in response that we think is necessary to bring the conflict to a quick and bloody (for the bad actors) end. No more slow rolling weapons to Ukraine just enough to keep them from getting overrun, no more threatening Israel by withholding arms sale approvals if they don't limit the scope of their retaliatory attacks on Iran.

People objecting to Pete seem to think he is going to be stuck into the role with zero support and no other experienced leaders supporting him. As SecDef, he is not going to be writing out orders for individual units and negotiating with contractors for pricing. He is there to be the hand on the tiller and to set the direction for the actions of the others working under him, just like every past SecDef.

---

I mean this respectfully, but it is clear that you lack a clear understanding of what the SECDEF does, his responsibilities in the chain of command/administration of the department of defense, and what his role entails in crisis situations. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just tough to have a discussion with people about it. It's an unfathomable amount of responsibility and the tacit knowledge required to do it well, and not just about the military.

Look at Robert Gates' qualifications. He managed organizations with huge budgets, had vast intelligence experience, and spent decades in the intelligence/defense ecosystem. His experience prepared him well, so well that he served two presidents from two opposing parties.

George C Marshall is another example of a great, well qualified SECDEF.

---

Just look what Gates' qualifications and moral compass did for the Boy Scouts of America.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. He was a qualified and exceptional SECDEF. That was my point. Y'all love to distract the discussion when you don't have a solid counter-argument.

Just to be clear. I believe the DOD is a mess. It's a $1T organization. It's one of the world's largest employers and carries one of the largest budgets one can manage. It has also failed yearly financial audits 7 years in a row. It is under prepared and is in desperate need of pulling its' pants up after being caught with them down. I'm not exposed enough to it to understand all of the intricacies of why, but it's pretty clear at a high level.

This appointment for our country is a can't miss and high risk. If he goes through, I will support him and pray he is effective. As a business, the DOD is a complete rebuild in a time where we must simultaneously improve our combat readiness and ability to raise an army.

We need someone truly great to take on that challenge.

I will be curious if he makes it through Senate confirmation. Besides his dubious resume to be ready to lead the administration of an institution with an $800+ billion budget that has its own legal & healthcare systems, there is that sexual
Assault accusation incident in 2017.

At minimum, reading the 22 page police report, during a year where the smoke is still clearing of divorce from wife #2 with whom he had three kids, and then having just had a baby born a couple months earlier with a mistress who eventually became wife #3, he gets intoxicated at a speakers conference and had what he himself said was consensual sexual encounter with a woman met at the hotel bar, to whom he then paid an undisclosed financial settlement to a few years later.

That's best case regarding his behavior. Worst case is the police report is completely accurate regarding what the woman said happened.

That job is a particularly serious job requiring a serious adult. definitely one of the most questionable of Trump's cabinet picks.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Just to be clear. I believe the DOD is a mess. It's a $1T organization. It's one of the world's largest employers and carries one of the largest budgets one can manage. It has also failed yearly financial audits 7 years in a row. It is under prepared and is in desperate need of pulling its' pants up after being caught with them down. I'm not exposed enough to it to understand all of the intricacies of why, but it's pretty clear at a high level.

This appointment for our country is a can't miss and high risk. If he goes through, I will support him and pray he is effective. As a business, the DOD is a complete rebuild in a time where we must simultaneously improve our combat readiness and ability to raise an army.

We need someone truly great to take on that challenge.

---

…and despite all the "qualified" people who have run it up until now, they annually "misplace" billions and billions of American taxpayer dollars. What we need is to keep hiring "qualified" men for the job.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Just to be clear. I believe the DOD is a mess. It's a $1T organization. It's one of the world's largest employers and carries one of the largest budgets one can manage. It has also failed yearly financial audits 7 years in a row. It is under prepared and is in desperate need of pulling its' pants up after being caught with them down. I'm not exposed enough to it to understand all of the intricacies of why, but it's pretty clear at a high level.

This appointment for our country is a can't miss and high risk. If he goes through, I will support him and pray he is effective. As a business, the DOD is a complete rebuild in a time where we must simultaneously improve our combat readiness and ability to raise an army.

We need someone truly great to take on that challenge.

---

…and despite all the "qualified" people who have run it up until now, they annually "misplace" billions and billions of American taxpayer dollars. What we need is to keep hiring "qualified" men for the job.

---

Exactly. Give me a combat soldier, who has written a book on the mistreatment of the American soldier to run this organization any day over some woke Ivy League "qualified" person.

Why is this argued as a binary choice when it isn't? There are many choices in between. A serial philanderer may be fine to many, but it demonstrates terrible judgement and lack of commitment. And many of us may make a mistake in either our personal or professional lives, but hopefully not the same mistake twice or three times or four times. I am hoping Trump chooses someone with demonstrated, consistent commitment and judgement for the leader of our military and top advisor during warfare and peacetime operations.

Quote:

---

Why is this argued as a binary choice when it isn't? There are many choices in between. A serial philanderer may be fine to many, but it demonstrates terrible judgement and lack of commitment.

---

Donald Trump is a serial philanderer. He did an good job as a transformational leader and agent of change. I trust his judgment in picking Hegseth to do the same at DoD. Trump didn't pick him because he is a well rounded guy that has experience in building the POM submission for the DoD for the PresBud to Congress. He picked Hegseth to clean out the rot and the corrosive DEI and woke culture that has metastasized in the DoD to include the JCS.

You speak of many other qualified choices. Name one that has specifically advocated for firing/retiring Generals and Admirals that have been complicit in pushing DEI policies. Name one that has advocated for removing all gender-normed standards for physical qualifications for every military occupational specialty from cockpits to infantry. Name another candidate that has spoken on the record about removing transsexuals from that military because their presence is prejudicial to good order and discipline.

The moral compass of the DoD is not on the correct azimuth and that has led to loss of mission focus, erosion of standards, and lack of accountability. Hegseth is the right guy for the job at this time.

We are all entitled to our opinion, as little as any of them even matter. Name 1? Myself or many of my Aggie friends share the positions and perspectives of hegseth. Also without any similar baggage. And frankly, we all have more experience in relevant skills than hegseth, including but not limited to more combat and military experience.

His personal background, including discrepancies, should not drive the decision. But when combined with his professional experience, and to your point, his perspectives and opinions (never practiced at any level), it all rounds out the candidate for this position. At some point, the personal background starts to work against the potential effectiveness of the remainder of his rsum. It becomes a distraction. A cloud. A reputation that precedes and follows him.

As a leader, which he is being appointed, to be effective he cannot simply be a one man hammer. He has to engender the respect and following of some percentage of those around him. Those that serve. Those

Like I said, we all have opinions and perspectives. it really is only the president's that matters, until it goes to the Senate. They do get a vote.

I hope whoever is approved, becomes affective at instituting the same perspectives snd opinions of hegseth. My personal opinion is simply it's embarrassing that this is the best executor of that plan that the president could find.

I am stubborn. Character still counts to me I know it's less important to many today.

My point precisely. If you or me or any of out likeminded friends were nominated by Trump for the position we would be (mostly) squeaky clean but would not have the experience of being scrutinized in the public eye or having been the target of persecution by the institution of the Pentagon like Hegseth has. Hegseth has a record of being resilient under not only sharp criticism but actual persecution for his political beliefs.

As a public figure, nobody else I can think of has the vision and the time spent in the crucible that Hegseth has. That is why I believe he is an excellent pick for SecDef. On the other hand, he would be (IMO) entirely disqualified from consideration on moral grounds if he was applying to be a youth pastor despite his public professions of faith.

oldag941 said:

---

Why is this argued as a binary choice when it isn't?

---

The president chooses his cabinet. Well, democrat presidents are allowed to.

OKCAG02 said:

---

45-70Ag said:

---

Aggieland Proud said:

---

Serious question as I don't know. Does he have power to fire the generals or where does he power actually lie?

---

Trump is now putting together a council that will examine which WOKE Pentagon generals need to be FIRED.

Let’s GO. 🔥

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 12, 2024

---

As a 22 year veteran and current active duty member, I don't know how I feel about this. Accountability is important but really don't like the idea of Generals making risk averse decisions in fear of being fired.

---

Making dumbass decisions, like basing promotions on how gay or trans you are was once considered a serious offense. (BeBop reference)

NTAS said:

---

Eso si, Que es said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Of all Trump's picks, this IMO is one of his weakest ones.

The SECDEF plays a very high-impact role in some very high-stakes crisis management situations that sometimes come with very short timelines to act. If there is a single cabinet position that demands relevant experience, in this case in the upper echelons of military leadership, the SECDEF is it.

For example, he carries the backup nuclear football and the president has master override codes for the nuclear triad that he can give SECDEF in the event of a major conflict/event of if he's ever in danger or cut off from communication w/ CENTCOM. That means that the SECDEF, without the need for future approval from the President or anyone else, can be granted the unilateral authority to launch nuclear weapons or some other response against a hostile actor in a crisis situation. The understanding one needs of our military capabilities, strategies, and tactics (as well as that of our adversaries) to handle that responsibility is immensely important.

There have probably been a lot of underqualified folks in the position throughout history, I'm not saying he's the first. I'm just left wishing for someone a bit more experienced and frankly qualified for the role.

I'm not attacking the platform he's pushing in terms of preparedness, anti-woke, etc. He just seems underprepared for what the role hopefully never has to manage but could during his tenure.

I'm not attacking him as a person by any stretch, just putting my concern out there.

---

Trumps doctrine is peace through strength. Hegseth has repeatedly said the most humane war is an expedient war and the US does not have the stomach to stack enemy bodies and end a war quickly, letting them drag on and increase the suffering.

If you are China or N Korea, do you really want to attack the US being led by Trump with SECDEF who says stack bodies?

That is peace through strength. If you come at me, my military will not F around. My generals are focused on proficiency and my SECDEF will turn them loose on you

---

Can I inject this straight into my veins?

F*** leftists and what they think of Trump's picks. Who cares if they want to portray Hegseth as a weekend Fox anchor. Listen to the man speak, read his book. If I wasn't so damn old I would enlist and serve in his military.

---

Nick Saban is a first year ESPN analyst. WTF does that guy know about football anyway?

oldag941 said:

---

We are all entitled to our opinion, as little as any of them even matter. Name 1? Myself or many of my Aggie friends share the positions and perspectives of hegseth. Also without any similar baggage. And frankly, we all have more experience in relevant skills than hegseth, including but not limited to more combat and military experience.

His personal background, including discrepancies, should not drive the decision. But when combined with his professional experience, and to your point, his perspectives and opinions (never practiced at any level), it all rounds out the candidate for this position. At some point, the personal background starts to work against the potential effectiveness of the remainder of his rsum. It becomes a distraction. A cloud. A reputation that precedes and follows him.

As a leader, which he is being appointed, to be effective he cannot simply be a one man hammer. He has to engender the respect and following of some percentage of those around him. Those that serve. Those

Like I said, we all have opinions and perspectives. it really is only the president's that matters, until it goes to the Senate. They do get a vote.

I hope whoever is approved, becomes affective at instituting the same perspectives snd opinions of hegseth. My personal opinion is simply it's embarrassing that this is the best executor of that plan that the president could find.

I am stubborn. Character still counts to me I know it's less important to many today.

---

Yawn...Sounds like you want another bureaucrat general to take this position

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

Did Trump choose him?

Then he meets the qualifications for the job. Next.

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

So a unicorn is what you are expecting?



If there are so many others out there that fit that outline, should be no problem to just name one. The fact that nobody is willing to do so strongly suggests that you are in fact chasing a unicorn.

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

He's qualified if he's chosen. Heck you guys had a vegetable as president the last 4 years. Sour grapes.

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

Why is he not qualified? Just curious.