SecDef Nomination

6,269 Views | 91 Replies | Last: 20 days ago by Noblemen06
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yep. I just dont get the "must be a fmr flag officer" thing.

I'd actually prefer a non-mil or limited mil experience guy for all the reasons you mentioned re: parochiaism.

Also prefer someone with fresh(er) eyes and under 60 years old.

Too much entrenchment in the MIC.

McCarthy was actually the first guy I though of. He's young, he has some real boots on the ground experience, and he has a lot of time in the building for his age.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not sure it turned political. Contentious, sure.
Gator_2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

His sole military quals are that he was once a Guard major with a couple of overseas deployments.

He's never run a large organization of any kind, or had any senior national security, political or even corporate experience that would prepare him to run giant DOD, particularly at a time when China is an accelerating threat, Russia is invading its neighbor, and the ME is on fire.

There's a reason, after all, why majors aren't promoted directly to general, much less to SECDEF.

He's nominated over vastly more qualified other Republicans because Trump believes he'll do what he's told, no matter what that order is.
That last point is not accurate at all. I suggest you read his book. Even if you don't think he's qualified, (because he's not a retired 4 star or beholden to the Military Industrial Complex?) it' apparent that he understands the institutional rot going on at the DoD and can provide the wake up call it needs.

Maybe he's better suited to be Secretary of the Army or run the VA, but he definitely has some unique perspectives that the DoD desperately needs.
Easy come, easy go
PanzerAggie06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Trinity Ag said:

cavscout96 said:

But wait... We was only a CAPTAIN?!?!?

"Gasp!"

So was Esper.


Chuck Hagel was a measly Sergeant
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
The strength and weakness of the US government is that it is highly structured and uses incremental budgeting -- which is basically a requirement for entities that operate at this scale.

All this machinery can run on its own. You could leave the Cabinet positions vacant and the ship of state would continual to sail -- although it will start to drift without singular leadership to prioritize resources and resolve disputes.

Hegseth may or may not be an effective SecDef -- he certainly wouldn't be my first pick. But the military isn't going to come apart.

The downside of big bureaucracies is that they tend to co-opt their leaders and oversight. When you are raised in a system you get too bought into the process.

Outside leaders can shake things up -- if they have the brains and the energy. They often get overwhelmed and sidelined.

We'll see.
Strong Men Armed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.
He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.
Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strong Men Armed said:

Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.
He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.
Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.
I expect flag officers and generals to act in accordance with the constitution. There must be a keeper of the nation's values.
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Strong Men Armed said:

Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.
He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.
Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.
This is a fever dream.

The Army is not going to just abandon posse comitatus because MSNBC thinks Trump wants to turn the military into Brownshirts.

I am not a big fan of Presidents culling generals based on perceived political affinities -- but don't kid yourself that this has not already been happening.

Current or potential GOs got passed over if they opposed:

- Mandatory DEI curricula
- integrating women in combat arms, or promoting gender neutral standards to do so
- the declassification of gender dysphoria as a medically disqualifying condition (and all that led to)
- Manipulation of promotion and command selection lists based on desired sex and ethnicity outcomes

I'm not talking about publicly -- I'm talking about internal discussions over pros and cons and base principles. They may not have been fired, but they were most certainly passed over at the flag grades -- the political level of the Army.

And the current crop picks the future crop.

The Army and USMC did not open up the combat arms to women because it improved the effectiveness of the force, or to widen the recruiting pool -- it was 100% because of perceived inequity, because those branches produce the highest percentage of senior officers, and the Service Chiefs.

Frankly, if this is the decision civilian leaders believe was important as a civil rights issue, then roger that -- Generals salute and move out.

But don't gaslight the public that it improved our readiness or capability, or not negatively affected morale and cohesion.

And now the decision has been made, and the results are being seen -- and any officer openly questioning the utility of women in combat arms, the lack of gender neutral standards, or trans integration today will 100% see the end of their career as a result.

Is this OK?



PanzerAggie06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Strong Men Armed said:

Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.
He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.
Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.
Plenty of the those GOs will have daughters, wives, and nieces in those protests. Along with friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. While I don't always hold GOs in the highest order I have confidence that even the most rabid of conservative generals will tell President Trump to go **** himself if given the order to send the troops in to quell a protest of civilians. The one nice thing about the possibility of Hegseth being SecDef is that he doesn't strike me as the type that is going to intimidate a room full of three and four stars. And another thing.... in his heart of heart, Trump doesn't give a rats ass about abortion.
Hincemm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"he (Trump) can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants"

this feels like a big time reach...

has Hegseth been on G series orders before?
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Strong Men Armed said:

Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.
He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.
Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.
This thread is probably veering into the Politics board territory now, so I don't want to go too far.

But a President (via his SecDef) absolutely has the authority to eliminate the social justice/equity personnel policies that previous administrations established through executive fiat.

And GOs unwilling to accept and support these changes in policy should be asked (told) to retire. The same as what happened to those who opposed them in the first place.

And those actions -- whether you agree with them or not -- do not equate to turning the military into a personality cult to destroy democracy.
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What will the DOD and the upper echelons of the military look like when Hegseth takes the reigns. He should surround himself with the best and the brightest, but that has yet to be seen.
HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Strong Men Armed said:

Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.

He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.

Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.
(hope you don't mind I added some line breaks to your original message for clarity)

Serious question - were you high when you wrote that?

Or is my sarcasm meter just completely broken?

(I know my gaydar is broken but they don't make parts for it anymore and I refuse to upgrade to a newer model)
Strong Men Armed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nope… wasn't high… but what exactly shocks you about what I proposed? The President-elect is looking to have in place civilian and military leaders who will carry out his every wish, whether it meets the Constitutional smell test or not. He has talked openly about declaring martial law and sending in the troops. He doesn't care about Posse Commitatus. And he will retire flag officers until he finds those who will deliver the loyalty he so admired in Hitler's generals (Trump never got the memo about the generals trying to kill Hitler).
I guess I still take my commissioning oath seriously, despite having been retired for 30 years…. To support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And I don't get fellow officers who are more than willing to violate that oath. Our officer corps writ large has never inserted itself in national politics, but now we'll be divided into loyal/disloyal piles over this choice: loyal to Trump, or loyal to the Constitution.
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
LoL.

You seriously need to turn off cable news.

Quote:


He has talked openly about declaring martial law and sending in the troops.
That is nonsense.

He got asked if he would consider using the military (ie, National Guard) if there was massive civil unrest after the election/inauguration. And he said he would consider it.

As would ANY President if rioting mobs were burning down DC.

Do you think that is going to happen? If so, what should a President do? Let it burn?



Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I believe Trump has stated he does not have the responsibility to support the constitution.
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is political to a degree. However it can be discussed by adults in an adult manner.

Right now, two posters are making this like the Politics board, by throwing out unsubstantiated claims that aren't even addressing the OP.
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team was in the middle of announcing new Cabinet picks this week when they were informed of a sexual assault allegation about one of his previous selections, Pete Hegseth, stunning several members of Trump's team who have since raised questions about the viability of his nomination, according to two people close to the situation.

If you don't vet properly, then you don't see the warts.

Article
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Allegations that were found baseless, but the accusation is all that matters, apparently
Jock 07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Strong Men Armed said:

Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.
He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.
Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.


So dramatic
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lol. Thanks. Needed the laugh
rackmonster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
First things first. Military Service, or lack thereof, has no bearing on one's Qualifications to be SecDef.
Before he contacted polio, FDR was SecNav.

But. Hegseth has way too much baggage. And he's being disingenuous at best about his Guard experience as it relates to his tattoos. He claims that the reason he was barred from the Inauguration Day 2021 Duty was his "Jerusalem Cross" tattoo that he sports on his upper chest. J.D. Vance claims that this is an example of "Anti-Catholic Bigotry." huh? Hegseth isn't even Catholic, He's an Evangelical. I was born and raised Catholic as was my wife. I had 12 years of Catholic schooling. I was never around any Protestants on a daily basis until my fish year in the Corps. I never saw a Jerusalem Cross, or even heard of it until a few days ago, with this story. Ditto my wife, 16 years of Catholic schooling. She never saw that, didn't even know what it was when I showed it to her.

What Hegseth doesn't tell us? It's the "Deus Vult" tattoo on his bicep, not the Jerusalem Cross, that makes him so nuclear. A battle cry from the Crusades, "God Wills It" in Latin. ( I had to study 2 years of Latin.). That phrase and tattoo has been co-opted by Neo-Nazi groups. A few years ago, a gunman shot up 2 Mosques in New Zealand. He killed 49 people. That phrase was prominent in his Manifesto. At Charlottsville (Good people on both sides!) it was displayed on at least one flag.

Okay, maybe Hegseth didn't know about that. WRONG! No excuse. He attended Princeton, then Harvard. He's no dummy. And as a Military Officer, he had an obligation to know. The military has a clear policy about offensive tattoos.

That is a Non-Starter. Right then and there.

There's more. Hegseth says he applied for a position with the New York State Guard. He was not accepted. He claims that it was because of his high profile right wing politics, that the NY Guard was, of course, too "Woke" (Ever the Victim). The NY Guard said that they didn't have a slot for someone of his rank at the time he applied. Hey, that happens all the time. He claimed that Democratic NY Gov. Cuomo was instrumental in his rejection by the NY Guard. Cuomo's office was contacted.. Cuomo stated that he never even knew of Hegseth until the last few days.

Is being disingenuous a reason why he is unfit to serve as SecDef? No.

Is sporting a Neo-Nazi tattoo a reason he is unfit? Absolutely. Non-Starter.

Source. Washington Post Article Nov. 16, 2024.




Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is reported he paid a woman who accused him of sexual assault. This is not good.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Lots if things "get reported."

Duke lacrosse were gang rapists... until the weren't.

Kavanaugh was a rapist in college, until he actually wasn't.

Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian plant until it absolutely wasn't.

See the trend? What's disingenuous is all of the pearl clutching and equivocation.

The Jerusalem Cross has ben a thing for centuries. Developed by the crusaders, who were.... gasp... Catholic.

If your Catholic school/church doesn't teach history, you probably need to revisit their curriculum because it is clearly lacking. Maybe they don't teach crusades in the same way that Germany doesnt teach anything meaningful about WWII.

Last, just because some bigotted organization attempts to co-opt an ancient / age-old tradition (or Latin phrase), it does not invalidate the actual tradition/phrase's historical value or it's real usefulness.

Its really no differnt than the USMA cadets who were the subjects of a witch hunt for thowing the "OK" sign - which has been a middle school prank for decades - because someone tried to tie it to a white power movement.

I'm have no real opinion on Hegseth, but I absolutely have an opinion on BS sattements that are either false, intended to obfuscate, or condemn anyone without due process.

Edit - typos
Ol Jock 99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So all this went down in 2017.

In 2017, he was married to wife 2, knocked up soon-to-be wife 3 (while still married to wife 2), and had a "relationship" with this other chick that required him to write a sizable check.

Real quality guy. Even without proof of rape.
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
rackmonster said:

First things first. Military Service, or lack thereof, has no bearing on one's Qualifications to be SecDef.
Before he contacted polio, FDR was SecNav.

But. Hegseth has way too much baggage. And he's being disingenuous at best about his Guard experience as it relates to his tattoos. He claims that the reason he was barred from the Inauguration Day 2021 Duty was his "Jerusalem Cross" tattoo that he sports on his upper chest. J.D. Vance claims that this is an example of "Anti-Catholic Bigotry." huh? Hegseth isn't even Catholic, He's an Evangelical. I was born and raised Catholic as was my wife. I had 12 years of Catholic schooling. I was never around any Protestants on a daily basis until my fish year in the Corps. I never saw a Jerusalem Cross, or even heard of it until a few days ago, with this story. Ditto my wife, 16 years of Catholic schooling. She never saw that, didn't even know what it was when I showed it to her.

What Hegseth doesn't tell us? It's the "Deus Vult" tattoo on his bicep, not the Jerusalem Cross, that makes him so nuclear. A battle cry from the Crusades, "God Wills It" in Latin. ( I had to study 2 years of Latin.). That phrase and tattoo has been co-opted by Neo-Nazi groups. A few years ago, a gunman shot up 2 Mosques in New Zealand. He killed 49 people. That phrase was prominent in his Manifesto. At Charlottsville (Good people on both sides!) it was displayed on at least one flag.

Okay, maybe Hegseth didn't know about that. WRONG! No excuse. He attended Princeton, then Harvard. He's no dummy. And as a Military Officer, he had an obligation to know. The military has a clear policy about offensive tattoos.

That is a Non-Starter. Right then and there.

There's more. Hegseth says he applied for a position with the New York State Guard. He was not accepted. He claims that it was because of his high profile right wing politics, that the NY Guard was, of course, too "Woke" (Ever the Victim). The NY Guard said that they didn't have a slot for someone of his rank at the time he applied. Hey, that happens all the time. He claimed that Democratic NY Gov. Cuomo was instrumental in his rejection by the NY Guard. Cuomo's office was contacted.. Cuomo stated that he never even knew of Hegseth until the last few days.

Is being disingenuous a reason why he is unfit to serve as SecDef? No.

Is sporting a Neo-Nazi tattoo a reason he is unfit? Absolutely. Non-Starter.

Source. Washington Post Article Nov. 16, 2024.





Well, hell if Cuomo said something about a political adversary it absolutely HAS to be true.

I have no strong feelings about Hegseth, other than he seems to be a bit of a lightweight for the SecDef position.

But stop weaving together nonsense from people who have clear agendas to torpedo the nom.

rackmonster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ol Jock 99 said:

So all this went down in 2017.

In 2017, he was married to wife 2, knocked up soon-to-be wife 3 (while still married to wife 2), and had a "relationship" with this other chick that required him to write a sizable check.

Real quality guy. Even without proof of rape.
Hegseth's attorney on the incident.

"She was the aggressor. She was sober. He was drunk. She took advantage of him".

And this clown thinks woman can't fight?

Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This appointment is a compelling reason for using the normal vetting process instead of being vetted by the news media.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tanker123 said:

This appointment is a compelling reason for using the normal vetting process instead of being vetted by the news media.
Enlighten us.

What is the "normal" vetting process for a cabinet position?

I'll hang up and listen...
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cavscout96 said:

Tanker123 said:

This appointment is a compelling reason for using the normal vetting process instead of being vetted by the news media.
Enlighten us.

What is the "normal" vetting process for a cabinet position?

I'll hang up and listen...


I am not an expert on the vetting process especially for such a high appointment. However, I can say a federal agency will conduct the vetting process. I will strongly assume for the SECDEF position, the background checks should be significantly extensive to include numerous interviews, records searches, and anything that might compromise the applicant.
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Tanker123 said:

cavscout96 said:

Tanker123 said:

This appointment is a compelling reason for using the normal vetting process instead of being vetted by the news media.
Enlighten us.

What is the "normal" vetting process for a cabinet position?

I'll hang up and listen...


I am not an expert on the vetting process especially for such a high appointment. However, I can say a federal agency will conduct the vetting process. I will strongly assume for the SECDEF position, the background checks should be significantly extensive to include numerous interviews, records searches, and anything that might compromise the applicant.
Federal agencies don't vet candidates for political appointments at any level -- nor should they.

That is the party's responsibility.

Security clearances are a different matter.

Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trinity Ag said:

Tanker123 said:

cavscout96 said:

Tanker123 said:

This appointment is a compelling reason for using the normal vetting process instead of being vetted by the news media.
Enlighten us.

What is the "normal" vetting process for a cabinet position?

I'll hang up and listen...


I am not an expert on the vetting process especially for such a high appointment. However, I can say a federal agency will conduct the vetting process. I will strongly assume for the SECDEF position, the background checks should be significantly extensive to include numerous interviews, records searches, and anything that might compromise the applicant.
Federal agencies don't vet candidates for political appointments at any level -- nor should they.

That is the party's responsibility.

Security clearances are a different matter.


Does the SECDEF need vetting for his clearance? That is the vetting process I was talking about.
Old Army Ghost
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ol Jock 99 said:

44 and on his 3rd wife. Impressive.

Seems highly unqualified, but I'm by no means an expert. Anyone read any of his books?
good to see trump promoting traditional family values
Old Army has gone to hell.
2004FIGHTINTXAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We have had many very "qualified" SECDEFs who have been utter disasters. I'm all for a 44 year old outsider. I mean what's the worst that could happen? Spending 20 years in Afghanistan and leaving all our equipment for the Taliban? Oh wait . . .
japantiger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
I have a dim view of military leadership above the 0-6 level. I am looking for someone to come in and purge the officer corps of anything/anyone DEI related and anyone that had anything to do with 20 years of lies about what was going on in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We have plenty of bureaucrats to manage the day to day affairs. We don't need another one. While I know there are some good General officers, I don't really know who they are and would not trust any of what I have seen lately to assume that role.

We won WW2 with no more than 7 four star generals; we have 44 now. Get the number down to 12 accounting for new complexities and go from there. Scale every other General (and full birds) rank down accordingly.

I am looking for a clear and ruthless visionary who understands what needs to change and then works tirelessly to make it happen.

But equally important, I am looking for a President that gets us out of endless foreign engagements that suck the life out of our country. Since McArthur was fired, our foreign intervention strategy has been to bleed out our Treasure while the politicians negotiate a cease fired and non lasting peace with thugs and criminals. This has to stop. For the last 108 years, 4 generations of my family have deployed to Europe to protect them from themselves. Enough. We need to largely get the hell out of there and focus on our own security and interests. If something is important, Europe can fund it and send their youth to die for it.

Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.