From "Why I Chose Lloyd Austin as Secretary of Defense/We need a leader who is tested, and matched to the challenges we face in this moment" by Joe Biden (in The Atlantic).
For those who opposed the waiver for Mattis, it is easy — almost mandatory — to oppose the waiver for Austin. Senator Elizabeth Warren said yesterday: "I have great respect for Gen. Austin. His career has been exemplary, and I look forward to meeting him and talking to him more, but I opposed a waiver for Gen. [James] Mattis, and I will oppose a waiver for Gen. Austin."
It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin. It will seem as though reciprocity is required and to deny it will open them up to accusations of racism. (Austin is African American.) Their only defense would entail disparaging Trump — he somehow needed special help and lacked options.
Here's a Wall Street Journal article that I was able to read without a subscription, "Biden’s Pick for Defense Chief Rekindles a Civilian-Military Debate/Gen. Austin will need a congressional waiver, as did Gen. Mattis, posing a test for Democrats." Excerpt:
Some defense experts questioned why Gen. Austin should receive a waiver, given that his expertise is the Middle East and the incoming administration says that China is emerging as the main threat to U.S. interests. Mr. Biden didn’t mention China in his Atlantic article defending his decision to pick Gen. Austin.
That is, what is the special reason that Austin is needed? Is it race? If so, what about gender? I see: "Michèle Flournoy Again Finds Her Shot at the Top Pentagon Job Elusive/President-elect Joe Biden’s decision to instead nominate retired Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III enraged many of the women Ms. Flournoy elevated from the trenches of national security policy" (NYT):
“An entire generation of national security women used her as their role model in how to navigate a male-dominated job,” said Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, who also worked for Ms. Flournoy. “The lesson she provided for women is that you have to always be the best prepared in the room. I literally learned that from her, and I now pass that down to the young women who work for me.”...
But even her supporters acknowledge that Ms. Flournoy’s WestExec consulting role, and her position as an adviser to the investment fund Pine Island Capital Partners, put her in the cross hairs of many liberal critics, something her business partner in those roles, Antony J. Blinken, seemed to escape when Mr. Biden announced him as the nominee for secretary of state....
Posts
192 comments:
I’ll tell ya how... Fuck you. No. Resist. We got the last four years as a template. Use it liberally, non-stop. Not one fucking inch.
Lloyd has now confirmed he is evil. Guilt by association. Team Election Theft/Coup.
"It will seem as though reciprocity is required"
But it isn't. Considering that Dems never reciprocate on reciprocity.
Seems like every day there are more and more laws that can just be ignored or waived. Constitutional issues. Classified information security laws. Federal laws. Local enforcement of trespass/shoplifting/resisting arrest. Almost like rule of law does not matter any longer. Or that we no longer need a legislature to pass laws or executives to enforce them.
They have no defense to accusations of racism? How about go fu** yourself commie (to the accusers, not the hostess ��)?
Of course sooner or later around here it all comes back to gender discrimination. Did it really take this special person to teach a grown adult that it’s important to be prepared if you want to advance to the top ranks in your profession? If it does, you don’t have sufficient awareness and I don’t want you in charge. And if she thinks that only applies to women, even more reason to discount her opinions.
I wonder how many ghostwriters it took to assemble that middle-school level essay in the Atlantic and slap Biden's name on it as the author.
I mean, I generally think a president should get his staff. But, I still think the same thing I thought with Mattis: I'm sure he'll do a good job... but shouldn't your first pick be a person who DOESN'T need a waiver? It just seems like bad management to offer up a choice like this first. If you don't get the waiver, everyone after is going to appear immensely unqualified. After all, were they qualified, you wouldn't have tried to go around the process.
He'll probably get (and maybe should get) a waiver, but it is an odd choice to make such a weird personnel choice early on.
Lloyd Austin is deep in the Deep State. AA got him his shoulder stars. And his membership in the CFR.
as gspencer said, if you look at Gen. Austin's career, it's one of deep statism
he was O'Bama's boy; it makes perfect sense for him to be Jo Biden's boy now
and Rules? Laws? WHAT do THOSE matter to the winners of the 2020 'election'?
Also, I haven't clicked through, just read what Althouse put up. Do they come out and say: "We don't really need Middle East expertise right now, now that so many peace deals have happened in the recent past, and that area is about as stable as we can reasonably expect, so we should focus somewhere else," or do they just leave it quietly understood?
I’ll tell ya how... Fuck you. No. Resist. We got the last four years as a template. Use it liberally, non-stop. Not one fucking inch.
In other words, keep losing. Brilliant strategy, Donald.
It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin.
Standard Althouse. Republicans are supposed to do what the Democrats want in the name of comity and reciprocity, while her beloved Democrats are free to sit on a coronavirus relief package desperately needed by people hurting in serious economic pain for purely political considerations, and that’s just good, smart, politics. In Althouse’s world Democrats get to play dirty politics; Republicans must be above politics for the good of the country. Uh huh. Suuuurrrre.
Once upon a time liberals cared about people who were less well off than themselves. What happened to you? Or were you always selfish and thoughtless, just pretending to be liberal when it suited you?
You don't need to disparage Trump to oppose the waiver even if you voted for Mattis. Just state that Mattis turned out to be a dud.
Austin has been in the Army (or West Point) since 1971
he didn't serve in Vietnam, he didn't serve in the Golf war. The closest he got to action was in the invasion of iraq, were he was Assistant Division Commander for Maneuver (ADC-M), 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), in other word Rear Echelon Mother Fucker
here is from wiki...
1981, Austin was assigned to Indianapolis, Indiana, where he was the operations officer for the Army Indianapolis District Recruiting Command
served as Chief, Joint Operations Division, J-3, on the Joint Staff.
His next position was chief of staff of the United States Central Command
September 1, 2010, Austin became Commanding General (CG) of United States Forces – Iraq (USF-I) He directed the drawdown of forces and departed Iraqon December 18, 2011.[15]
December 2011, Austin was nominated to become Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Under his direction, the Army took steps to reduce the incidence of suicide in the ranks
Austin became the commander of CENTCOM on March 22, 2013, after being nominated by President Obama
His approach as CENTCOM commander has been described as that of an "invisible general", due to his reluctance
Austin oversaw the development and execution of the military campaign plan to counter ISIL in Iraq and Syria. He had earlier described ISIL as a "flash in the pan
Austin argued that the US military's primary focus in operations against ISIL should be Iraq, as opposed to Syria.
In 2015, Austin conceded
quite a paper pusher! he was SO GOOD at filling out forms; that he got a Silver Star for it!
@Farmer, you can’t win if you don’t fight. Resist! We don’t need affirmative action hires running the DOD.
AA>It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin.
Too many Republicans are feckless, spineless, venal, and so used to losing to Democrats that they see that as their role in government.
It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin.
I supported the waiver for Mattis' confirmation, but his behavior and performance in office has convinced me it was a mistake. Biden should have a very compelling reason for wanting Austin, not just "he's the guy I want".
Just state that Mattis turned out to be a dud.
Indeed he did.
The last time Slow Joe asked for a waiver was to allow Hunter to get into Naval Intelligence as an officer, even though he was over the age limit and had no specific intelligence expertise (if that sounds familiar see Barisma board of directors.) That didn't turn out too well for Joe since Hunter was forced out of the Navy for drug use.
At the very least Joe should have Austin's laptop examined for child porn or links to Chinese oligarchs before putting forward the nomination. Had he done that with Hunter it would have saved him a lot of grief.
. Senator Elizabeth Warren said yesterday: (...) "I opposed a waiver for Gen. [James] Mattis, and I will oppose a waiver for Gen. Austin."
Kinda funny seeing a Dem being consistent. (Or non-evil, for that matter.)
Biden should have a very compelling reason for wanting Austin
he HAS one! Austin is African American!! and he's a Democrat!! and they don't have anyone else!!
"links to Chinese oligarchs"
Hell. they will give him a memory stick with a current bookmarks file of email addresses and web links for both their Chinese friends and Iranians.
Experienced and credentialed? Who cares. Is he clean and articulate? What's the status of the crease in his pants?
"The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power." -Federalist #8
At the very least Joe should have Austin's laptop examined for child porn or links to Chinese oligarchs before putting forward the nomination. Had he done that with Hunter it would have saved him a lot of grief.
I expect that, like the rest of his "administration," there are plenty of links to CCP. That is what Joe and the Ho are about.
I'm just surprised it wasn't Swalwell ...
Biden campaigned on a return to normal.
Is this normal?
It worked for the democrats Farmer. It’s time to use that same strategy for good, not evil. By the way, on the intertubes, it’s donald. Lower case.
For those who opposed the waiver for Mattis, it is easy — almost mandatory — to oppose the waiver for Austin.... It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin.
Each waiver is unique--to a unique person under unique circumstances. If there is a reason for the rule, then it is inappropriate, even irresponsible, to say, "you [decision] last time so, to be consistent, you have to [same decision] this time."
This is why waivers need to be taken seriously. Once granted, the standard for granting them is lowered next time so that, eventually, either we have to be hypocrites or we have to eliminate the rule. So we're back to the question--is there a reason for the rule? And is there a reason why the rule does not apply in this case?
The answer to the question, should the waiver be granted, is probably no in both these instances (Mattis and Austin), but it would be outrageous for someone to vote yes this time simply because they voted yes last time.
Note: sorry for 2X posting and deleting. The lack of an edit function in blogger means I am often faced with the choice of leaving in a mistake or deleting to fix. Usually I leave a mistake in, but sometimes the comment is too ambiguous to not fix.
Gilbar said:
“he didn't serve in the Golf war.”
Oh I bet he’s battled a tough par 5 in his lifetime.
I’ve also informed the one democrat supporter that does work for me that I’m not gonna use him anymore because he supports democrats. On four jobs with me this year he made over $20,000.00 at over $500.00 per day.
This election will influence every single thing I do from here on out.
Oh Ann, this is jall ust so boring....just like you like it, eh?
“It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin.”
Simple enough. Mattis was a mistake! No dump on Trump there. He will readily concur.
Also, we have endured four years of seditious behavior from Democrats. It may have cost them, but maybe not. Republicans have decisions to make. Do they follow Althouse “it’s hard to see” rules of civilized behavior or do they kick Democrat ass. If they keep the Senate, I vote for kicking ass.
It will seem as though reciprocity is required and to deny it will open them up to accusations of racism. (Austin is African American.) Their only defense would entail disparaging Trump — he somehow needed special help and lacked options.
I thought the reason for voting for the Mattis waiver was because no one (even the GOP) trusted Trump to not drop the military and break it; and wanted someone highly experienced in charge at the DOD. The disparaging of Trump by the GOP on that score is already done.
It's not racism if the alternative is Jeh Johnson, who is also Black. I mean, Democrats will say it's racism, but there's literally nothing they won't criticise as "racist" at this point.
Flournoy would be the first woman SecDef. Her name has floated around for years. Why would Biden pass on such an easy pitch?
It worked for the democrats Farmer. It’s time to use that same strategy for good, not evil. By the way, on the intertubes, it’s donald. Lower case.
Well, Donald, keep thinking in the terms that have been forced upon you, and you will continue to lose. As you have for 30 years.
Nice pull, J Farmer.
Flournoy is hypermilitaristic, willing to immiserate millions, an arms race enthusiast, a military-industrial complex shill, a unilateralist, and preventative war supporter. Or as it's known in US foreign policy, a centrist.
Flournoy would be the first woman SecDef. Her name has floated around for years. Why would Biden pass on such an easy pitch?
You start hiring people because they've put in the work and are qualified for the job and the rest of your cabinet is going to get a lot more scrutiny.
Nice of the Atlantic to give Joe some ink.
m
Is anyone really surprised that the Joe Biden administration is going to be anything but a neoliberal cluster fuck?
You people should get completely behind everything that Biden wants to do because it will only lead to Republican victory in 2022.
Unless of course the vaccines work really well and the covid is over well before the 2022 election and people are partying like it's 1999 then you are fucked.
I give the Biden administration a 25% chance of pulling off the vaccine victory.
“Biden campaigned on a return to normal.”
To be fair, he never really campaigned. Just came out of his basement maybe once a week, took the bus an hour or two from his house, and spoke before a handful of Dem regulars, along with the press, suitably spaced out in their private circles on the ground, then got back on the bus, slept on the way home, his duty to show that he was still alive complete for the week.
"Flournoy would be the first woman SecDef. Her name has floated around for years. Why would Biden pass on such an easy pitch?"
Last 3 paragraphs of the NYT article:
"In 2009, Ms. Flournoy, in her role as under secretary for policy to Robert M. Gates, the Pentagon chief at the time, met with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal at an airfield near Mons, Belgium, to hear the general make his case for a large troop increase in the region — something Mr. Biden, then the vice president, deeply and openly opposed. The political conflict over that war, and statements criticizing Mr. Biden attributed to General McChrystal’s aides, would later cost General McChrystal his job as commander in Afghanistan. Mr. Biden is said to have sought a defense secretary with whom he has a personal and natural alliance."
By the way, I think it's obvious that if Austin gets a waiver, it will mean, more or less, that the law is meaningless. If you can overcome a rule whenever you want, it's not a rule anymore. You already need Senate confirmation for an appointment. The 7-year rule isn't adding anything. Waivers are given whenever the President wants one.
Rules are made to be broken if you believe in the spirit of America the enlightenment and the liberal democratic form of government that we were all lucky enough to be born into. Live Free or Die, baby
The problem with the law much of it is bullshit and everyone knows it. That's what makes people disrespect the law and why the profession of law yers held in such disregard and contempt. The nice thing about science and engineering is that it is absolutely positively impossible to violate the laws of physics.
If you can overcome a rule whenever you want, it's not a rule anymore.
Serious question, is this a "rule" or a "law" and what is the difference?
To me, there's no functional distiction between a "law" and a "regulation" (because there are real consequences for trangression).
I concede that Biden put his name on this article, but I wonder who really wrote it.
"by Joe Biden"
I know most if not all of the things released by politicians are actually written by staff and ghostwriters, but this breaks the willing suspension of disbelief. If he wrote it, there would probably be a long section of "sdikhfiudshfapijw3u9ru34w8q07rht4hra;sidjvos" for when he passed out on the keyboard. Or typewriter.
Meh...he has enough women of color...doesn't need a white woman. It is all about color to the left. Content of Character doesn't matter anymore. Time to do away with MLK day.
The nice thing about science and engineering is that it is absolutely positively impossible to violate the laws of physics.
Please explain that to the climate warriors who think Science is political. Meanwhile the climate refuses to cooperate so now we have "Climate Change."
Guess we’ll see. I’m a libertarian Farmer. I’ve been getting my ass kicked for 42 years. I’m also old now and don’t give one fuck what happens from here on. I will do my small part. And I will be a complete asshole about it.
Easy for Republicans who voted for Mattis because of Trump's inexperience in foreign policy and defense to vote against Austin because isn't joe's vast experience a selling point?
Blogger Howard said...
"Nice pull, J Farmer"
He didn't hit anything.
Howard said...
"Rules are made to be broken if you believe in the spirit of America the enlightenment and the liberal democratic form of government that we were all lucky enough to be born into. Live Free or Die, baby"
Oh! You mean that ironically.
The one thing that should happen is the one thing that absolutely cannot happen. The DoD should be curtailed and reduced. It was built to contain a threat that no longer exists. We seamlessly went from containing the Soviet Union to defending a "new world order," "liberal international order," "rules-based order," etc. etc. etc. But that's vague and amorphous and doesn't concentrate the mind like a good foreign enermy goes. That's why the establishment has been desperate for a new world/cold war for decades. They were hoping the "Global War on Terror" would foot the bill, but after a decade and a Nigerian trying to set his dick on fire on Christmas, the keystone cops of Arabia were not really striking fear in the hearts of men anymore. Luckily, another menacing Arab group with a cool name, ISIS, was coming up. Then we found ourselves in the interesting position of being in Syria against Syria, Russia, and Iran but also with Syria, Russia, and Iran against ISIS, fighting on both sides of a civil war. And now that that civil war is over, we can pivot back to our pivot to Asia. And what great enemies now challenge the mighty United States? China and 2/3 of the Axis of Evil. The trillions of dollars we've poured down the Pentagon drain sure have bought us...something.
j. Farmer @ 8:31
Hence the civilian CIC.
Oh. And the 2ndA. One of the first things the Biden appointment will do is to try and take the teeth out of the 2ndA. My money is in jan. 2 but certainly before the end of jan. Oh. again. and raise taxes before april 15.
@donald:
Guess we’ll see. I’m a libertarian Farmer. I’ve been getting my ass kicked for 42 years. I’m also old now and don’t give one fuck what happens from here on. I will do my small part. And I will be a complete asshole about it.
Sounds like we have a lot in common ;)
Except I'm a communitarian, the opposite of a libertarian.
Republicans should us democrat tactic. Approve the waiver, then grill the General specifically what of his accomplishments should elevate him to SecDef. While the grilling is going on, we can find an actress that will swear the General found a pubic hair on a coke can and bragged about the size of his genitalia. Then refuse to confirm (after shredding his reputation). Republicans are consistant about the waiver, dems are not. Republicans refuse to confirm because the General is mind numbingly un-accomplished.
J. I do believe the new administration will make as much use of our military and it's equipment as they possibly can.
Personally. I'm in favor of a 10% across the board cut in federal spending.
A commenter said, "You people... blah blah blah." Brilliant prose as usual.
The use of a retired soldier as the SECDEF is not hugely troublesome by itself.
What is hugely troublesome is the politicization of the General Officer ranks, both active and retired. The indorsements of candidates by Generals is contra all the traditional mores of the military.As a young officer, I was taught that one never discussed religion or politics in either a professional or a social setting. Obviously that advice is no longer heeded.
Let's leave it at that.
Austin is guilty on that count.
The second count is from his CENTCOM Service. He was a yes man for Obama on ISIS, agreeing they were the JV, and corrupting the intel analysis coming out of CENTCOM to meet WH needs.
guilty
He'll be a Biden yes man, reinforcing Biden's bad foreign policy decisions
Mattis had a backbone. Austin, not so much.
It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin. It will seem as though reciprocity is required and to deny it will open them up to accusations of racism.
Elected GOP will do as they are told, as they always do. They should resist everything Harris(biden) wants just to gum the works as much as possible. The new Harris(biden)secdef, whoever it is, will do little-to-nothing to improve readiness, morale or tech capabilities as the left cares not for those things. Fuck 'em.
@Rusty:
Hence the civilian CIC.
No dispute from me. I detested Trump's love of "the generals."
Oh. And the 2ndA. One of the first things the Biden appointment will do is to try and take the teeth out of the 2ndA. My money is in jan. 2 but certainly before the end of jan.
So a Biden appointment will do something either 18 days before Biden is inaugurated or within 11 days after.
The one thing that should happen is the one thing that absolutely cannot happen. The DoD should be curtailed and reduced.
First tell us what your national security strategy is.
Be specific, and show your work.
Vaginas and melanin, Vaginas and melanin, Vaginas and melanin, Vaginas and melanin.
In other words, Wednesday.
The law?
Laws do not apply to the corrupt democrat party elite.
Well, Donald, keep thinking in the terms that have been forced upon you, and you will continue to lose. As you have for 30 years.
Once again we are treated to Farmer’s idiosyncratic view of political history. From where real people sit, the Republican politicians have been too willing to be accommodating, negotiating in good faith with people like Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer, for whom “good faith” is a code word for “suckers.”
The working class people that the Democrats callously tossed out of their coalition, and who were picked up by Donald Trump for his base, were used to demanding and getting. If Republicans want to put together a winning coalition then they will listen, hear, and produce.
The one thing that should happen is the one thing that absolutely cannot happen. The DoD should be curtailed and reduced.
I agree.
But we cant reduce, Dept of Ed, HUD, Dept of energy,...and dozen other cabinet level bureaucracies, that have zero constitutional basis to exist. President Trump attempted to move agencies out of DC. An excellent idea, that the deep state shut down. We cant do simple things, good luck trying turn off the graft spigot of the DoD.
He'll be a Biden yes man, reinforcing Biden's bad foreign policy decisions
Mattis had a backbone. Austin, not so much.
Nobody with a backbone has made general in 20 years. Remember Casey hoping the mass shooting at Fort Hood would "not affect our efforts to attain diversity in the Army?"
Mattis is odd. His behavior in the Theranos scandal was weird.
@Hey Skipper:
First tell us what your national security strategy is.
Be specific, and show your work.
For starters, actually having a national security strategy. Right now, we have an international security strategy that involves things like attending to the security interests of the Saudi and Emirati royal families, defending the Israeli occupation, opposing the internal nature of regimes and overthrowing them, and treating an attack on Estonia as if it were an attack on the United States.
I have no idea anymore why we have laws and rules in this country. We don't follow any of them except in pursuit of Democrat partisan goals. A "nation of laws" is the biggest bullshit ever. In both of these waivers, do you mean to tell me that in the whole country we didn't have anybody else qualified?. I imagine that when these things come up, the people involved don't even look for someone who fits all the requirements. They just get the guy they want say the hell with the law. Change the law first, and make that case.
Except I'm a communitarian, the opposite of a libertarian.
You and Hillary. Now I understand.
J. Farmer said ...
Except I'm a communitarian, the opposite of a libertarian.
Is that the new way to spell “communist”? Asking for a friend.
You don't need to disparage Trump to oppose the waiver even if you voted for Mattis. Just state that Mattis turned out to be a dud.
This right here...
Democrats like war. The House just passed this:
"The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Tuesday despite President Trump’s threats to veto the bill. The massive bill allocates $740 billion for military spending and includes amendments that could block planned troop draw downs from Afghanistan and Germany."
"By the way, I think it's obvious that if Austin gets a waiver, it will mean, more or less, that the law is meaningless."
Only this particular law?
It seems to me that most laws are meaningless (looting, rioting, graft, corruption) as they are not enforced, or are only enforced against a certain class of people.
Take a look at what the new DA in LA will not be prosecuting...
I'd like a waver on the income tax law. Can I just ignore it, and wait for people to get tired of bitching about it. It would be nice if there was some consequence for people in power breaking rules. We should be regularly docking the pay of congress people when they fail to do their job, which means we would save that entire budget item.
@Big Mike:
Once again we are treated to Farmer’s idiosyncratic view of political history. From where real people sit, the Republican politicians have been too willing to be accommodating
By "real people," you mean Republican partisans. And you know, Democratic partisans think the same thing about their party, that they're too accommodating to the right. It's almost as if partisans have a distorted view of reality.
The elite are centrists, and our system serves elite interests. This is not a new development. It's baked into the system. The Democrats and Republicans are right and left wings of the political establishment.
Austin is Obama’s choice, having already revealed himself to view Isis as a “flash in the pan” just like Obama called them “the JV team” while Isis was successfully controlling territory we fought and died to “win” for Iraqis. Austin was wrong yet is still called a Middle East “expert” by the #FakeNews media. That plus his lack of concern for China indicate he should not be granted any special waivers. Every nominee should receive Kavanaugh-level scrutiny from the Senate in my opinion. Every. Single. Nominee.
The elite are centrists, and our system serves elite interests.
At least it does since Clinton and maybe Bush I who was Reagan's worst mistake.
Here is Farmer's political philosophy, or so he says.
However, it was not until the 1980s that the term "communitarianism" gained currency through association with the work of a small group of political philosophers. Their application of the label "communitarian" was controversial, even among communitarians, because, in the West, the term evokes associations with the ideologies of socialism and collectivism; so, public leaders—and some of the academics who champion this school of thought—usually avoid the term "communitarian", while still advocating and advancing the ideas of communitarianism.
"It takes a Village to Raise a Child" was very much a part of this new approach to Socialism.
@Michael K:
You and Hillary. Now I understand.
No, Michael, I'm afraid you're as confused as ever. And for the same reason. You seem to see political ideas only as a means of judging someone as good, bad, smart, or stupid. Try judging the idea instead of the person.
Is that the new way to spell “communist”? Asking for a friend.
@Big Mike:
Is that the new way to spell “communist”? Asking for a friend.
No. It's merely a recognition that trying to combine traditionalism and liberalism is a recipe for self-immolation. But at least you and your buddy will have the flames to warm you.
Back to Althouse question:
It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin. It will seem as though reciprocity is required and to deny it will open them up to accusations of racism
After the way that the Dems treated Trump nominees, I feel no guilt about some payback.
On the specific case presented, grant him a waiver and defeat the nomination. He doesn't have the right instincts or spine.
"Oh, it's a hell of an honor. But didn't I always tell you honey, if I just stayed in place and never spoke up, good things are bound to happen."
I’m so old I remember when Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex.
The elite are centrists, and our system serves elite interests.
I'd hestitate to define the elite as political centrists exactly. I imagine them as globalists, fans of big government, big business, and war. Their true nature is authoritarian. They may rely on the votes of centrists, but they're not themselves political centrists.
In my view you have a group of "centrists" within the electorate. These are primarily the somewhat disparaged low information voters who are politically disengaged, those who a persuadable to certain narratives. They make up maybe a 3rd of the electorate. And these days the lion share of the rest of the electorate is made up of post-Trump conservative populists on one side and socialist populists (the Bernie Bro/AOC/Warren set) on the other.
@Michael K:
At least it does since Clinton and maybe Bush I who was Reagan's worst mistake.
Yes, the USA didn't become elitist until the late 1980s and early 1990s. What the fuck was the elitism that Andrew Jackson was complaining about in the 1820s?
Here is Farmer's political philosophy, or so he says.
So long as you're going to copy-and-paste from Wikipedia, you might as well copy the actual definition:
"Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.
"Ideological communitarianism is characterized as a radical centrist ideology that is sometimes marked by socially conservative and economically interventionist policies This usage was coined recently. When the term is capitalized, it usually refers to the Responsive Communitarian movement of Amitai Etzioni and other philosophers."
Now, what do you find so objectionable about this philosophy?
You are asking politicians to refrain from acting hypocritically. C'mon man!
One waiver of the law can make some sense as an exception provided the reasons make sense. A second, or more, waiver will essentially render the law meaningless. It is either a good idea and the proper course to require a minimum amount of time outside the military to ensure the holder of the civilian leadership post is no longer beholden to those he is nominated to lead, or it is not.
I am amused by the Biden box-checking controversy - choosing a black male (FIRST!) rather than a female.
Here's hoping Ann is looking at that texas motion. The gist of it makes more sense than any other theory I saw. The remedy tho.
I'm afraid scotus will just suggest the states clean up their act for future elections.
Who in the current GOP uses their power to stuff their family foundations and private family coffers using ILLEGAL MEANS. Anyone?
An honest answer. It IS the powerful democrat party left who illegally wash tax payer dollars thru international power grifters for personal financial gain. to the tune of millions...
These international players themselves seek access for more money and power. or they seek cover for their corrupt deals so they land the correct side of blackmail, and in favor with the correct American politicians.
All illegal.
The Clinton-Pelosi-Biden axis of international pay-to-play for family grift is a unique elite and protected racket.
@Nonapod:
I'd hestitate to define the elite as political centrists exactly.
You're right that the term is not a great fit. Globalists versus nationalists is another way to describe the dichotomy but has its own taxonomic challenges. I say "centrist" only because politically they tend to be supporters of the cultural left and of liberal capitalism.
We in the USA are more vulnerable than any time in the last 40 years. A squishy bureaucrat who is soft on China is the last thing we need.
And now I see I have repeated a point by our host upthread. Sorry. Consider it support for the idea rather than redundancy.
On the scale from individualism to collectivism, communitarianism definitely seems more on the collectivist side. Phrases like "economically interventionist" indicates a belief that government can and should be a factor in determining success/wealth/well being.
Re: Althouse:
By the way, I think it's obvious that if Austin gets a waiver, it will mean, more or less, that the law is meaningless. If you can overcome a rule whenever you want, it's not a rule anymore. You already need Senate confirmation for an appointment. The 7-year rule isn't adding anything. Waivers are given whenever the President wants one.
I think the waiver requires approval by the House as well, right (haven't looked at the law, just based on commentary in other articles)? In which case the waiver requirement just turns it into a requirement for confirmation by both House and Senate, which doesn't seem all that unreasonable as a balance to the civilian-military concerns. Although frankly, the difference between 4 years and 7 years out doesn't seem huge to me, so I think a waiver would be fine if Congress wants to give it.
The Senate can’t delegate its advise and consent power to the House.
If Senators don’t want to confirm this guy because he retired from the military four years ago, they can.
He seems no worse than anyone else Biden would nominate for the job.
J. Farmer @ 9:55
Something like that. They-the democrats- have to take the teeth out of the 2ndA so that they can have their people in the streets intimidating the populace. The government hates competition.
J. Farmer said ...
The elite are centrists,
Only if you have a weird, idiosyncratic view of where the center is.
and our system serves elite interests.
True. Trump tried to change that, with some success that I'm afraid will be temporary.
@Nonapod:
Phrases like "economically interventionist" indicates a belief that government can and should be a factor in determining success/wealth/well being.
There's never been a government, American or otherwise, that isn't economically interventionist.
@Rocky:
Something like that. They-the democrats- have to take the teeth out of the 2ndA so that they can have their people in the streets intimidating the populace. The government hates competition.
Ah, before you attributed this to a "Biden appointee" but now it's just the generic Democrats. In any event, I'll bet you a thousand dollars this doesn't happen by the end of January. Interested?
@Big Mike:
Only if you have a weird, idiosyncratic view of where the center is.
How many people have to share my position before it stops being idiosyncratic? Can we define the center as about halfway between the Democratic and Republican platforms?
True. Trump tried to change that, with some success that I'm afraid will be temporary.
The system isn't a presidency, and a presidency can't change the system.
J Farmer: For starters, actually having a national security strategy. Right now, we have an international security strategy that involves things like attending to the security interests of the Saudi and Emirati royal families, defending the Israeli occupation, opposing the internal nature of regimes and overthrowing them, and treating an attack on Estonia as if it were an attack on the United States.
You say the DoD needs to be downsized. That is an empty statement without providing what you think the NSS should be; or, alternatively, showing how the DoD isn't properly structured to support the NSS.
What is your proposed NSS? How should the DoD be structured to support it?
And you beg a lot of questions. Why do we "attend the security interests of the [gulf states]"? How does defending the Israeli occupation affect our force structure? Are there any benefits to credibly being able to treat an attack on Estonia as if it was an attack on the US?
My bet is that if you were to articulate your notion of an NSS, then consider what forces would be needed to support it, you wouldn't end up particularly far off from where we are now.
"We need a leader who is tested, and matched to the challenges we face in this moment."
- Joe Biden
Does Biden fail to see the irony in that statement?
Re posting from last night;
"I have been puzzling over this off and on today. My conclusion is that the seven year hiatus is a good idea. Also I think the
SecDef should be a civilian not an ex-military type. Besides the obvious problem of Obama appointed officers at the top I think it is the rare career military man who doesn't see every problem as a nail for which he has the hammer. A civilian has at least some experience in a field other than the military and is more capable of telling the Generals, who are always eager to fight the next war, to stand down. I think that was part of the problem with Mattis. He knew only a couple of ways to approach and solve a problem and they always included sending somebody's kids into harm's way. Trump did not have that kind of knee jerk reaction neither should a future SecDef."
Seeing the brief CV someone posted there is no question that Austin should neither be waived nor confirmed. If a retired general is appointed he should, like Mattis, have commanded troops in combat at some time during his career. That is the only way to truly understand what the military is all about - putting lives on the line. The Departmentof Defense should not be treated like a social services organization.
As they say in some parts of the world, "It takes a child to raze a village."
As a philosophical libertarian (and democrat and republican) I don't have any objection to communitarian preferences on the part of others, especially if they share my disdain of the political elites and establishments as they actually exist today.
The absurd and antiquated foreign policy ideas that have led the country to so many disasters and left us so weak and broke should be resisted by every thinking person.
Narr
Farmer left out "collective security" in his list of foreign policy mythologies
Why not require the Secretary of Defense to have actually served in combat, instead of just commanding combat soldiers?
Perhaps we should limit it to the Medal of Honor recipients.
How many people have to share my position before it stops being idiosyncratic?
Well, more than just you.
Can we define the center as about halfway between the Democratic and Republican platforms?
No.
So Farmer is pro using jackbooted government thugs to extract the wealth and property of innocent citizens at the point of a gun to buy votes from people who literally vote for a living. Nothing incoherent about that. I get the message.
"There's never been a government, American or otherwise, that isn't economically interventionist." In rebuttal: Coolidge.
Calling the waiver a waiver is misleading. It requires that the House and Senate pass a bill and the President signs it.
In other words the waiver is a law which modifies a previously passed law and it has the same validity as the law it modifies.
John McCain sponsored the bill which provided for the Mattis "waiver."
You know what?
Having cabinet positions fit a woke jigsaw puzzle may not be a bad idea.
Lloyd Austin ran the failed Obama/Biden ISIS policy. Return to Normalcy=Bring Back ISIS?
Althouse blog = dumpster fire Satan and 2020 posed in front of.
Coolidge restricted immigration and used tariffs.
Those are economic interventions by the government, and they were useful ones.
it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.
I have several reasons to dislike it. One, Hillary was a firm supporter and so was her mentor Edelman. "It takes a village to raise a child" is not on my reading list. The black MSNBC talker explained to us that our children belong to the government.
I prefer individualism. You don't, apparently. What I have and what I am was accomplished with zero aid from family. My father took me aside when I was a high school senior and told me "I want you to get this idea of going to college out of your head." In addition to that, the National Merit Scholarship, in which I was a finalist, sent a financial disclosure form to the parents. Years after, my mother told me he had thrown it away.
I got a letter from the NMSC telling me that since I did not need financial aid, I was getting a letter congratulating me. It was years later, when my mother finally told me, that I understood that letter. I had my dorm room at CalTech but no money. I was too unsophisticated to write or call them to see if there was an alternative.
Finally, a group of Chicago alumni of USC called me and asked if I was interested in a scholarship. That was how I got to college.
Medical school was much the same. I was accepted early, in December of the year before I would attend. I had enough money for one semester's tuition ($600.00).
I started and my national guard unit was called up so I had to drop out. (1961) The school held a place for me in the 1962 class. I still had no money for the spring tuition. Somehow they decided to give me the place free. Maybe because I had all As in classes.
Eventually I finished, being first in my class all four years. Nobody helped.
That made me an individualist.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/84/text
Blogger mccullough said...
Coolidge restricted immigration and used tariffs.
Those are economic interventions by the government, and they were useful ones.
You may like them but they were Congress' doing. Coolidge wanted minimal intervention. If you want more, you could read my series of posts on Coolidge's life at Chicagoboyz.
The Democrats tried to get a farm subsidy bill past him the entire time he was in office. Hoover finally signed it.
"Lloyd Austin ran the failed Obama/Biden ISIS policy. Return to Normalcy=Bring Back ISIS?"
'There were also reports that Austin had disparaged the prospects for ISIS, which had prompted President Obama to call them “terrorism’s JV team.”'
How many times will idiot politicians keep promoting failed generals?
Joe Smith said... How many times will idiot politicians keep promoting failed generals?
Is that a serious question? They are two peas in a pod.
@alanc709:
"There's never been a government, American or otherwise, that isn't economically interventionist." In rebuttal: Coolidge.
High tariffs and internal improvements to protect American industry is the Hamiltonian plan that was dominant throughout the 19th century.
Only 36 House Ds voted for the necessary waiver required to confirm Gen Mattis as Trump's SoD. The Senate was 87-1, the confirmation vote was 98-1.
@Michael K:
Eventually I finished, being first in my class all four years. Nobody helped.
That made me an individualist.
Who sheltered you from the elements and put food in your mouth during your formative years? Who inculcated values and traditions? Who instilled and reinforced academic discipline? How can you say "a group of Chicago alumni of USC called me and asked if I was interested in a scholarship" and "they decided to give me the place free" but then turn declare "nobody helped." Sounds like you had lots of help. And it doesn't make you a bad or underserving person because you got such help.
High tariffs and internal improvements to protect American industry is the Hamiltonian plan that was dominant throughout the 19th century.
You get no argument from me on that. However, it ended with the Wilson Fascism. The internal improvements were often funded by European investment.
It should be someone from the civilian sector, but McNamara and Rumsfeld weren't career military and they were pretty awful. Cheney, Panetta: no princes either. Just hoping Austin doesn't go bughouse like Forrestal and if he does nobody's standing underneath the window.
A "nation of laws" is the biggest bullshit ever.
Back in 1973, when Althouse was still young, I recall senators and congress crItters ponderously intoning that “no one is above the law.” Then Bill Clinton said “Hey, Bubba, hold muh beer.” So now we have exceptions to the rule for both Clintons, Barack Obama, and, especially, Joe and Hunter Biden. And probably many more among the Dumbocrat senators and congress critters.
The Republicans' justification for voting against the waiver is that Mattis was a horrible mistake. He acted like he thought he was in charge instead of the president, and got his feelings hurt when he found he wasn't.
Sounds like you had lots of help. And it doesn't make you a bad or underserving person because you got such help.
I actually worked, even in medical school. I was married and my wife was supportive for several years, working as a school teacher. However, she wanted and had a child, my older son, and stopped teaching at the end of 1964. After that, it was me. I have stories in my book about what I did to earn money.
"Lots of Help" includes my father who bragged in later years about how expensive to put a son through medical school. I even gave him a copy of the school yearbook with the lest of my honors. When he died, a number of his friends accused me of being insufficiently grateful for all he had done for me. I did not object but I paid his delinquent taxes and sold his tavern.
Blogger J. Farmer said...There's never been a government, American or otherwise, that isn't economically interventionist.
I guess it depends on how you define "economically interventionalist". If you take an absolutist approach, the levying of a tax or tariff could be described as economically interventionalist. Heck, if a government merely maintains a standing army, police force, and allows trade, it's having an economic effect obviously. But I suspect the person who formulated that definition of "Ideological communitarianism" had more specific policies in mind when they chose to delineate "economically interventionalist". And I suspect that those policies could be fairly described somewhat collectivist in nature.
McNamara and Rumsfeld weren't career military and they were pretty awful.
I agree about McNamara who had an OCD about numbers. Hence "body count." A number of my military friends thought Rumsfeld was the best one since Marshall.
"It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin. It will seem as though reciprocity is required"
1: Mattis was a failure. There's no need to repeat the exercise
2: Trump didn't steal his victory, Biden did.
3: "Reciprocity" would require Trump having spied on the Biden campaign after lying to he FISA Court, while getting the CIA and FBI to fraudulently attack Biden.
4: "Reciprocity" also requires the GOP to vote against Biden appointees in a straight Party line manner, just like the Democrats in the Senate did to Trump's appointees.
IOW, fuck no. It is the job of the GOP to obstruct Biden in every way possible so long as he is in office. #Resist!
Big Mike said...
Back in 1973, when Althouse was still young, I recall senators and congress crItters ponderously intoning that “no one is above the law.”
no, No, NO, NO! it was: “no REPUBLICAN is above the law.”
Did LBJ have to Worry about little things like phone tapping, ballot stuffing, or undeclared War?
NO!
Did ANYONE suggest that JFK shouldn't be (literally!) in bed with the mafia, and their girlfriends?
NO!
Andy Jackson? NO!
Jeff Davis? NO!
FDR? NO!
Bull Connor? NO!
Name ONE (just ONE!) democrat, that was EVER not held to be above the law!
"Sounds like you had lots of help. And it doesn't make you a bad or underserving person because you got such help."
'You didn't build that.'
The biggest piece of shit quote ever uttered in the furtherance of socialism.
Note: deleted and reposted because of a typo...
@Nonapod:
I guess it depends on how you define "economically interventionalist". If you take an absolutist approach, the levying of a tax or tariff could be described as economically interventionalist. Heck, if a government merely maintains a standing army, police force, and allows trade, it's having an economic effect obviously.
How about high tariffs to keep out foreign competition and protect local industry, a national bank to promote investment and access to capital, and internal improvements like canals to foster commercial activity? No government has merely maintained a standing army and policy force and allowed trade, either.
If you don't want to take an "absolutist approach," how much economic intervention is permissible and where do you draw the line?
The system isn't a presidency, and a presidency can't change the system.
Wilson didn’t change “the system”? FDR didn’t? Absent industrial-level election fraud, Trump would have completed his revolution. It will take longer now, but the arc of history bends towards justice, you know.
Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924.
Coolidge also instituted tariffs himself based on Congress delegation to the president to set tariff rates.
Coolidge was a protectionist.
@Big Mike:
Wilson didn’t change “the system”? FDR didn’t?
No, they didn't. '
Absent industrial-level election fraud, Trump would have completed his revolution
What does "competed his revolution" even mean?
mccullough asked (snarkily, i think) ...
Why not require the Secretary of Defense to have actually served in combat, instead of just commanding combat soldiers?
I have NO PROBLEMS with a Sec Def not having served in combat.
My Problem is with an General Officer (who was in the service through AT LEAST 3 Wars), that never actually served in combat
Actually,
My Problem is with a General Officer that made a career of staff positions, not leadership
It’s easy to oppose the waiver if you supported it for Mattis: your position, like Obama’s on gay marriage evolved.
Or a real reason: Mattis was an insubordinate prick who disobeyed direct orders to remove troops from foreign shitholes.
We do not care to repeat the Mattis mistake. Vote no.
'You didn't build that.'
The biggest piece of shit quote ever uttered in the furtherance of socialism
So now even the Hamiltonianism of the 1790s is socialism. As I've said, that word has no meaning.
"I think the waiver requires approval by the House as well, right (haven't looked at the law, just based on commentary in other articles)? In which case the waiver requirement just turns it into a requirement for confirmation by both House and Senate, which doesn't seem all that unreasonable as a balance to the civilian-military concerns. Although frankly, the difference between 4 years and 7 years out doesn't seem huge to me, so I think a waiver would be fine if Congress wants to give it."
Yes, both houses must vote for the waiver, so that's difference from confirming an appointment, but I think the demonstrated readiness to give the waiver, if there is another one so soon after Mattis, will cause the rule to lose any serious meaning... at least not where there are a few years since retirement.
They'd already lowered time requirement to 7 years from 10 years.
how much economic intervention is permissible and where do you draw the line?
Without getting too specific and just speaking for me personally I generally consider a policy to be "economic interventalist" if it greatly impacts the market in under the aegis righting some percieved societal wrong. I'm thinking of the more extreme, heavy handed sort of economic interventions like absolving certian types of debt, the use of taxes and regulations to punish certain industries for various trangressions (real or imagined) while enriching others, policies of the sort that are heavily redistributive in nature.
Diversity and sexism are socially progressive beliefs.
I emailed my Democrat senators and congress critter to deny seating any China Joe votes from those swing states. I expect them to ignore my cry for fair elections.
The election officials in those states acted sneakily and dishonestly because they know their actions were illegal. They posted huge vote counts during the night when they were supposedly shutdown for the night. How do you count votes when you're not counting votes?
"As I've said, that word has no meaning."
Believe what you like, but left-leaning politicians (who would gleefully implement socialism into American life via healthcare, housing, jobs, etc.) are quick to denigrate the hard work of individuals.
Of course we live in a society with shared roads, a shared military, etc. But a person cannot be successful in business or any other endeavor sitting on the couch and waiting for the state to bestow that success.
They must get off their ass, and through force of will MAKE IT HAPPEN.
@Joe Smith:
They must get off their ass, and through force of will MAKE IT HAPPEN.
That's probably what Obama meant when three sentences later he said, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
"will cause the rule to lose any serious meaning"
Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules. It's "What can I get away with?" all the way down.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
That's sort of a bland, pointless statement.
A pure individualist can't exist any more than a pure collectivist due to us being, you know, human beings living in the real world.
The reductio ad absurdum of a perfect individualist is a fully self sufficient hermit living in complete isolation who was spontaneously materialized into this world as a fully functional being requiring no education or upbringing from others.
And the reductio ad absurdum for the perfect collectivist would be something akin to eusocial insects or The Borg, a group unified in one hive mind where there are literally no individual thought patterns.
...but also because we do things together."
And yet he qualified it. He just had to get in that one little word, 'together' that renders the sentiment as pure Obama bullshit.
I understand that John Bolton is available for the position. Highly qualified, trusted and extremely popular with everybody in DC.
Apparently.
Or was that only good for a couple of weeks there?
Ah, come on. The general is perfect - and once he comes out as transgender he will be even more perfect for the job. Just think of all the diversity boxes he/she/it/xi/whatever will tick off for the SloJoHeelsUp administration.
Good times, good times.
But he will most likely get a waiver. All of the democrats will vote for it and so will all of the institutional republicans. A few republicans will be allowed to vote no so it looks like there was actually some disagreement, when in fact there was none.
Thre uniparty wins and the country loses, but that seems to be where we are and I see nothing short of an alien invasion imterrupting the party.
What does "competed his revolution" even mean?
Turning America away from its own self destruction is how I interpret it.
"Ah, come on. The general is perfect - and once he comes out as transgender he will be even more perfect for the job. Just think of all the diversity boxes he/she/it/xi/whatever will tick off for the SloJoHeelsUp administration."
Over the past 400 years, Democrats have broken the will and spirit of African Americans.
They have no pride or self-esteem, and are now happy to gratefully accept jobs based solely on the color of their skin.
Ask Kamala how that works.
@Nonapod:
That's sort of a bland, pointless statement.
I agree. It's boilerplate.
@Joe Henry:
And yet he qualified it. He just had to get in that one little word, 'together' that renders the sentiment as pure Obama bullshit.
See Nonapod's response for why that qualification is a lot less meaningful than you think.
@donald:
Turning America away from its own self destruction is how I interpret it.
"I want people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally." -DJT, SOTU
Two sets of rules.
Just wait until Dementia Joe taps Fang Fang for SOS.
Pardon the pun
Indeed:
https://mobile.twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1336762838656937984
"Just wait until Dementia Joe taps Fang Fang for SOS."
Not sure that Joe would 'tap' her.
But he sure as hell would love sniffing that beautiful, lustrous, black ChiCom spy hair.
Even better if she had a young daughter...
Just to reiterate I wrote IF a retired General is appointed he should have commanded troops in combat. Which BTW disqualifies Austin. I stand by my position that the SecDef should be a civilian
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/12/michigan-lawmaker-threatens-trump-supporters/#more-336985
Just say Russia Russia Russia, stolen election and spit in their eye. I need to feel bad about it. Biden isn’t president.
Serious Question
WHY do people think that they should have been able to have any input in the fall election?
The fall election is JUST a formality to anoint the democrat nominee
IF people wanted input, they should have voted in the democrat primaries
THAT is where the decisions are made.
Just LOOK at ALL the states that Jo Biden won, hands down; against a raft of competitors
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado!
What's That? Biden didn't Actually win ANY State, until AFTER EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE dropped out?
That in the states Jo Biden won, THERE WAS NO OTHER CHOICE??
what's your point? That is HOW DEMOCRACY IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!!
"WHY do people think that they should have been able to have any input in the fall election?"
Input *is* allowed as long as it's been previously approved. Otherwise, there will be mostly peaceful protests (also previously approved), where only a few of the dissenters will be murdered.
@gilbar, you can stop shouting anytime.
This isn't the guy who told reporters they were "stuck on stupid" is he? Too bad. I liked that guy. A lot. Let Dementia Joe's handlers nominate whoever they want as SecDef. Breaking Things and Blowing Stuff Up will be decided upon by Dementia Joe's handlers, not the SecDef.
that was general honore, who has been acting odd strangely,
Big Mike said...
@gilbar, you can stop shouting anytime.
NO ONE WOULD HEAR ME IF I WAS QUIET!! i Know what you're going to say; No One LISTENS to me now
BUT! That Doesn't CHANGE the FACTS!!
;)
Floyd Austin was a miserable failure as CENTCOM commander, and presided over strategic and operational catastrophe in the region he was directly responsible for.
He took the helm of CENTCOM in 2013 through March of 2016, and watched as ISIS overran most of Syria and Iraq. Watched as ISIS raped and slaughtered Kurds, Yazidis and Shia Muslims who had helped us during the Iraq war.
Allowed a massive expansion of Iranian and Russian influence in the region.
He was Obama's military consigliere for the Middle East and oversaw a sudden and massive collapse in U.S. interests - centered in the very area he himself commanded shortly before while it was starting to go to shit under his command.
This guy's a weakie. If he were worth a damn, Obama would have fired him when he was the Task Force commander in Iraq for pushing back on Obama's dumb idea to withdraw prematurely so he could take credit for "ending two wars," as he put it.
And it's not like he's bringing a lot of civilian sector experience and know-how to the table, either.
This is a terrible nomination.
@gilbar, aw, I listen to you.
The Republicans should not hesitate in voting against this nominee. Why fear being called racist when the Dems will do that anyway for any reason.
Lou Dobb's show said the FBI have been investigating Hunter Biden's taxes and finances since 2018. They've had his laptop since Dec. 2019. WTF??? They know all this and more. And Joe runs for president? And "wins"? Whatta ShitShow this DOJ!
FWIW, Eisenhower never saw combat.
From what little I have read, this former general was one of those mediocre officers who saw the road to the top to be taking small, bureaucratically-safe steps so that his competence or lack of didn't come under close scrutiny. Being black helped a lot.
Althouse: They'd already lowered time requirement to 7 years from 10 years.
Question on style: The NYTimes, among other publications, puts the change in quantity in writings, as you did, listing the lower numerals first the the higher last. It would seem to me that when you are discussing a lowering of something, it should read "from 10 years to seven." Are you familiar with a Stylebook or any writer's guide that sets this "rule". Thanks in advance.
THEOLDMAN
presided over strategic and operational catastrophe in the region he was directly responsible for.
BO ordered him to do that. Why he didn't quit is another matter.
"I want people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally." -DJT, SOTU
Legal immigration is a big part of the American story and dream. I’m all about it. Damn Farmer, you’ve engaged me here and frankly, it’s been really disappointing.
"It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin."
Except for that thing, you know, President-Elect Trump won the election.
Speaking of China [not that anyone was], they have apparently successfully produced a huge nuclear fusion reactor. Meanwhile, Biden plans to install more windmills and solar panels...
@Roughcoat
Eisenhower was never SecDef either. After he was retired from the Army he was elected President by the people. No problem with that. Of course, Eisenhower won all the campaigns he commanded. I don't think Austin can make that claim, although he has certainly touched all the bases during his tour of duty.
I am generally of the opinion that the President should be able to choose whomever for cabinet positions and they should be unanimously approved barring something ridiculously disqualifying like overt corruption or obvious incompetence. The fact that they work for the other party or hold unpopular religious beliefs or are personally repellent should not even be a consideration in the voting. The President should be able to pick his or her own advisors.
The problem is the President should be duly elected. Assuming Biden (or Harris) is ever sworn in, neither is duly elected. I wouldn't approve anyone they nominate because they have no right to do so.
Should we have a law saying that a retired general/admiral can't become SecDef until he/she has been retired for at least 7 years? To me that seems like a reasonable law in order to preserve civilian control over the military. If you disagree, repeal the law. If you don't repeal the law, then follow it. The appointment of Mattis was not a huge success, and using Trump appointments as precedents is really stupid: Trump made many terrible appointments, or terrible firings, or both. Other than that Biden's nominee is Black, why should he be exempted from a general statute?
BTW, Eisenhower commanded troops in North Africa (not all that successfully, but it wasn't a desk job). If Truman had appointed him as SecDef in 1950, is there anyone here so idiotic to think he wouldn't have been qualified for thejob?
What about gender?
Biden achieved gender parity without Michèle Flournoy. The ratio so far for Biden;s Cabinet picks is 6-6. Now he doesn't need General Austin for minority Cabinet posts - the split so far is 8-4 in favor of minority background, but he needed one of the four top Cabinet posts (State, Defense, Treasury and Attorney General) to go to a minority.
And to name retired black general seemed to be the best way to do it.
This leaves him free to name Merrick Garland pr possibly Doug Jones to be Attorney General, unless it has to be Sally Yates for gender balance but gender balance is not necessarily needed in this subcategory.
This sounds like Tammany Hal, ticket balancing doesn;t it?
Anyone with stars on their shoulders has transitioned to politician, and the more stars the more political. Good or bad, that's the system we gots.
Even assuming professional military competence (I don't), our civilian leaders are generally so ignorant of history, culture, and military affairs that the service leaders get tasked with broad, ill-defined, and open-ended missions that the American people have no stomach or pocket for.
As long as our hindmost are stuck in paradigms that bear no relation to actuality--like liberating and democratizing Islamia from outside--American lives and American money will be sacrificed for what the much-hated-hereabouts Garrison Keillor said way back in Bush the Elder's crusade-- the vanity and ambition of politicians and generals.
Narr
When you're right, you're right
rehajm@11:42PM/
Thread WINNAH! for even finding the lol link alone, never mind its appropriateness or accuracy in depicting AA's blog..
If I understand this waiver correctly, it has to pass the House and Senate. If it can’t pass the Senate, then the person can’t be confirmed by the Senate, so the need for a waiver doesn’t really change anything there. But what if it can pass the Senate but not the House? Isn’t that giving the House a veto over a category of appointment? How is that Constituional?
Don't understand why there is such a shortage of qualified candidates that Biden must fill cabinet with members of Congress and ineligible military men. Not a good start. Like sessions wasn't a cautionary tale.
@donald:
Legal immigration is a big part of the American story and dream. I’m all about it. Damn Farmer, you’ve engaged me here and frankly, it’s been really disappointing.
Unfortunately, Donald, there isn't much use in engaging with someone who insists in talking and thinking in utter platitudes. We've had mass legal immigration for 50 years. How's that worked out for your your libertarian goals? Are there any important distinctions between the mass immigrations that occurred in late 19th century America versus the mass immigration of the late 20th century America? Something, perhaps, different about the immigrants and about the society they were immigrating to? Hint: the answers can't be easily summed up in a Hallmark card sentiment.
FWIW, I'm not an open-borders libertarian.
I'd feel differently if the huddled masses were like me, of course.
Narr
Or Farmer
Post a Comment