Although I understand your anger, hurt and frustration, and overwhelming sadness, I do not trust that the upcoming administration will have the moral compass and experience to make nonpolitical decisions. Pete Hegseth has never been responsible for more than maybe a few dozen people at a time, has no national experience, but you would be okay with him as Secretary of Defense? Sure, he has vowed to "clean house" but what does that mean? He doesn't think women should be in combat roles and he has disdain for trans servicemen and women. He persuaded Trump to pardon armed service members who had been accused of war crimes. I think he is a bad choice.
Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence? Can she get a security clearance? Would our allies be comfortable sharing national secrets with her?
And Matt Gaetz... if the Republicans have any sense of decency or competency they will not confirm a man who has no experience as a prosecutor, and who is a reprehensible and repugnant individual.
I have great admiration for our armed forces and gratitude for the people who serve to protect the Constitution. They deserve better than those nominees. Any reorganization or clarification of roles and enforcement of personal responsibility has to be led by someone who does not intend to use a chainsaw.
You could add my former employer, the Department of State, to the list of national security agencies that have accountability problems. I think of one of my ambassadors, for example, who got a lot of people killed, but went on to absolutely top embassies and an under secretary slot. The problem in the current historical moment is whether the incoming Administration will be able to enforce accountability in the right way. I'm not heartened by a lot of the appointments that have been announced so far.
On another note, I see where Will is going with this. Imagine the next war and the next group of generals to lead that war. I see a press conference where the new head general says, "Today we are starting our campaign to free X. As the full might of our military takes control of X, I want to assure everyone that not one single life on either side will be lost." After which, the general invites the press and every random YouTuber and blogger to embed with the troops. That would not be a good start to a war.
For each of the four failures, nobody was held accountable. But the question is, were these the direct failures of those generals, or a failure of the system itself? It sounds like in the IC, the system itself is a major problem. Changes might be needed there. It just seems that generals have always needed to play politics though, and perhaps some of those political decisions interferred with the best strategic, on-the-ground ones? For my taste, I prefer a general who seeks American victory at the stated objective with the least amount of American lives lost while tending to the inevitable humanitarian concerns. It seems those concerns simply exist in warfare, but I mean that generals should not have to worry about the optics of that reality. Maybe the balance is off.
Morning. I’ve been waiting to learn your thoughts on this very topic. In a later piece might you name names of those you might suggest for future placement?
The problem with this is that the people being promoted are all going to be Christian nationalist, authoritarian leaning individuals. The right idea but the incorrect tool of implementation (next administration.)
Pete is a combat veteran. Agree with him or not but you should mention that.
Although I understand your anger, hurt and frustration, and overwhelming sadness, I do not trust that the upcoming administration will have the moral compass and experience to make nonpolitical decisions. Pete Hegseth has never been responsible for more than maybe a few dozen people at a time, has no national experience, but you would be okay with him as Secretary of Defense? Sure, he has vowed to "clean house" but what does that mean? He doesn't think women should be in combat roles and he has disdain for trans servicemen and women. He persuaded Trump to pardon armed service members who had been accused of war crimes. I think he is a bad choice.
Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence? Can she get a security clearance? Would our allies be comfortable sharing national secrets with her?
And Matt Gaetz... if the Republicans have any sense of decency or competency they will not confirm a man who has no experience as a prosecutor, and who is a reprehensible and repugnant individual.
I have great admiration for our armed forces and gratitude for the people who serve to protect the Constitution. They deserve better than those nominees. Any reorganization or clarification of roles and enforcement of personal responsibility has to be led by someone who does not intend to use a chainsaw.
You could add my former employer, the Department of State, to the list of national security agencies that have accountability problems. I think of one of my ambassadors, for example, who got a lot of people killed, but went on to absolutely top embassies and an under secretary slot. The problem in the current historical moment is whether the incoming Administration will be able to enforce accountability in the right way. I'm not heartened by a lot of the appointments that have been announced so far.
What comes next is the most important question.
Note to the notoriously fickle American Electorate: careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Excellent. I hope someone is willing to get advice from well read and well seasoned professionals like you.
On another note, I see where Will is going with this. Imagine the next war and the next group of generals to lead that war. I see a press conference where the new head general says, "Today we are starting our campaign to free X. As the full might of our military takes control of X, I want to assure everyone that not one single life on either side will be lost." After which, the general invites the press and every random YouTuber and blogger to embed with the troops. That would not be a good start to a war.
For each of the four failures, nobody was held accountable. But the question is, were these the direct failures of those generals, or a failure of the system itself? It sounds like in the IC, the system itself is a major problem. Changes might be needed there. It just seems that generals have always needed to play politics though, and perhaps some of those political decisions interferred with the best strategic, on-the-ground ones? For my taste, I prefer a general who seeks American victory at the stated objective with the least amount of American lives lost while tending to the inevitable humanitarian concerns. It seems those concerns simply exist in warfare, but I mean that generals should not have to worry about the optics of that reality. Maybe the balance is off.
Morning. I’ve been waiting to learn your thoughts on this very topic. In a later piece might you name names of those you might suggest for future placement?
Have you ever listened to the music of Steve Earl? I recommend!
The problem with this is that the people being promoted are all going to be Christian nationalist, authoritarian leaning individuals. The right idea but the incorrect tool of implementation (next administration.)