 |
| General Lloyd Credit: ABC News |
This past week, President-elect Joe Biden selected retired four-star Gen. Lloyd Austin to serve as secretary of defense, raising questions about his fit for the role. Austin ran the U.S. Central Command under the Obama Administration, working closely with Biden, and was the first Black general to command an Army division in combat. If confirmed, Loyd would be the first black leader of the Pentagon, a major step for diversity in a time of racial tensions. However, his confirmation would obstruct the long-standing principle of civilian leadership at the Pentagon, setting a precedent reinforced by General Mattis’ appointment in 2016.
In response to controversy over his pick, Biden released a statement saying, “I fully understand and respect [the law requiring service members to be retired for at least seven years before heading the Defense Department],” but Lloyed “was uniquely qualified and deserved the once-in-a-generation exception.” In order to bypass this law, Lloyd would have to be granted a special waiver by both houses of Congress before even being considered for confirmation. As we learned in Chapter 11, according to Article 2 of the Constitution, while the President has the power of appointment, the Senate has the power to approve these appointments. Such a waiver, however, was granted merely four years ago--a far cry from an entire generation. Democrats who opposed granting a waiver for General Mattis may have a difficult time approving a waiver for Lloyd. Some that signed off on the waiver four years ago promised not to do so again. If they reverse their position, they may be perceived as flip-floppers by their constituents, which would be unfavorable for their re-election campaigns.
A select number of Democratic Senators that opposed installing a non-civilian leader at the Pentagon, like Sen. Tammy Ducksworth (D-Ill.), will vote against the waiver but vote for his actual confirmation if the waiver passes. Other Democratic officials speculated that Republicans would approve the waiver but oppose Lloyd’s confirmation in the event that the waiver is granted.
Another potential roadblock to Lloyd’s confirmation is his involvement with the defense company Raytheon. Some Senators may see his position as board member as a conflict of interest. It is important to note, though, that General Mattis served as a board member of the defense giant General Dynamics before joining the Trump Administration.
11 comments:
I think the appointment of a general as secretary of defense is a good idea, especially with knowledge that Congress had approved of him four years ago. Shifting from the focus of who is in the seat, I would like to acknowledge the fact that President-elect Biden is planning on who will be leading different parts of the Federal government without President Trump officially stating that he has lost the election. Personally, I think what Trump is saying regarding the election being rigged is completely unjustified, especially after the recounts, and is merely a final resort to remain in power, or possibly to remain in power within the minds of his constituents. The safety of our country is always the top priority of the President, so I think it is crucial that Biden is appointing who will be in charge of defending our nation once he takes power. Regarding an unusual appointment of a retired general going into office of the secretary of defense, I think it is fine as long as the members of Congress have approved of it, as I think their military expertise will be of aid as they take their role in office.
I agree that the most qualified leaders should serve, but as the New York Times put it, "Healthy democracies require a division of labor between military leaders, who are trained to follow orders and win battles, and civilian ones, who are tasked with asking hard questions about why those battles are being fought in the first place.
That’s why mature democracies around the world have civilians serving in that role." I personally believe that the increase of military leadership in the Pentagon may insulate our defense branch from the public opinion of the people.
I think that this appointment of a retired General is a really good idea for our secretary of defense and especially since Congress has already approved him years ago he is a great candidate. As a retired General, he has seen things, he knows how things go and what to do in certain situations so I think it's a great thing that our Secretary of Defence can be so knowledgeable and so prepared for this job. I think he will make us stronger and will be more straigtic about what his plans are, mainly because he knows what works and what doesn't and he has the people in mind, he's thinking about more than just finances and power, he's thinking about the greater good of the people and I think that that is a very beneficial thing for the US as a whole.
It's interesting to see that while Trump is whining about losing the election, Biden is moving forward and making responsible decisions for selecting people for various valuable positions. I think his pick is a great choice, considering the preapproval from Congress and the vast knowledge he will have from previous experience. It's refreshing to see decisions being made that will benefit not only the federal government of the president but for the people.
As other articles covering the positive steps, President-Elect Biden has been taking in selecting his picks for different positions we need to make sure this trend continues and sets a precedent for the future.
I'm of two minds on Biden's pick for Defense Secretary. On the one hand, I would like to believe that he would pick the best person for the job, and I don't doubt that General Austin is qualified to take on this role. I also appreciate the "firsts" he would be achieving should he be confirmed. However, I notice that Biden has a pattern of bringing back familiar faces from the Obama administration (admittedly for different roles), and I worry that this is a calculated and comfortable move for Biden rather than the most beneficial one. Of course, having a pre-existing good relationship with the people in your cabinet is a definite plus, but if that precedes everything else in the decision-making process then I would consider it an issue.
I recently read a New York Times article about Michèle Flournoy, who was considered for the job (multiple times!) but ultimately not selected. She is an example of someone who appears equally qualified, and who would not have bucked the precedent that Austin will. She also fits a similar unspoken "diversity requirement," though I don't necessarily agree with the idea of diversity for only diversity's sake. Perhaps precedents are made to be constantly rewritten. I look forward to seeing how this plays out in the coming months.
I hope that Biden's pick for Defense Secretary was one made based off of Gen. Lloyd Austin's qualifications for the job over the strategic desire for public appeal, like Simone points out above. Additionally, to make such an exception to 10 U.S. Code § 113, which requires service members to be retired for at least seven years before heading the Defense Department, it only seems fitting that there are obvious and provable arguments for the appointment of Gen. Lloyd Austin, with his qualifications far exceeding any other candidates for the position. As of now, it seems rather unlikely that his appointment would be approved in the Senate with the binding waiver from General Mattis' denial by Democrats. While his past in Raytheon and as the U.S. Central Commander under the Obama administration may be beneficial towards his proven work experience in the government, it may also raise concerns as to the possible interferences or conflicts with the multiple roles.
I had similar concerns as Simone and Rosella when regarding Biden's pick for Secretary of Defense. I'm extremely proud and excited about his other picks so far, especially with his all-female communications team, but I sincerely hope he is picking everyone for the right reason. That being said, from what I've heard and read about General Austin, he seems extremely qualified for the position and I hope he gets the position despite the several factors working against him. I think that bringing back people from the Obama administration isn't necessarily a weak idea, as the people are tried and true, but it's not really an out of the box one either. This could be slightly negative as with no out of the box people, it's unlikely we'll see anything truly new and astonishing, but I think, more than likely, the experience and safeness of the people in question is exactly what America needs right now. We've gone through a rough last four years and an even rougher last 9 months and we need people that we know have worked well in the past and are equipped to lead.
I think an issue to bring up is a division of labor, between those who are making decisions and deciding which battles to fight (citizens) and those training to fight and win battles (military). Between the 1960s and the 2000s, active-duty or retired military officers led the defense ministries of democratic countries in only about 10% of cases, according to Peter White, an assistant professor in the department of political science at Auburn University (as reported by the NYT). Polarization has gotten to a place where flip-flopping and hypocrisy are normal, and don’t really effect reelection (see: Lindsey Graham/Mitch McConnell and Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination). Nevertheless, I don’t think it should be done for party commitment, and more on a case-by-case basis depending on one’s qualifications for a position. As many others noted, General Austin is qualified for the position, but so are many other civilians, who could bring a different perspective to the Pentagon. In general, though, our nation needs more people of color in leadership positions in the military. While nearly 16% of the military is Black, majority of the leaders are white, and some have reported white nationalism among troops. Overall, I think our nation would be fit with Austin as secretary of defense, but it may not be at its best.
If Biden wants to appeal to the general provision to make him the secretary of defense, then Biden must really like him. This type of job seems one that would have many qualified candidates. I don't think there really is one best candidate, so if the president can put his trust into this man to run the military, then it sounds like the right decision. Chemistry is also very important in government. This makes Lloyd an even stronger candidate because chemistry will help both of them do their job easier and get along better, which is important when you are running the biggest military in the world. I certainly hope he is able to get that congressional waiver passed so he can take the job.
I suppose this is just another example of political hardball, and the president and congress checking each other's powers. If the democrats did make the exception for Lloyd when they didn't for Mattis--yes, it would come off as hypocritical--but it's not much different than what the republicans did when they confirmed Amy Coney Barrett after denying Obama's judicial appointees. But what does seem odd to me, ironic even, is how the democrats will vote no on the waiver but vote yes on the confirmation, and then the republicans will vote yes on the waiver but vote no on the confirmation. I don't think I would call it dishonesty, but it goes to show how strange our political system has become.
Personally, I am conflicted on whether or not Gen. Lloyd Austin is a good pick. On the one hand, I am sure he is competent enough for job. His past achievements and Obama-era experience will surely appeal to Democrats. However, I do think the precedent for civilian leadership of the Department of Defense was set for a reason. Additionally, I agree with the assessment that Gen. Austin could potentially have conflicts of interest as a board member of Raytheon. Overall, I don’t buy Biden’s rationale for the appointment. I don’t see how Gen. Austin is “uniquely qualified” unless it is a reference to the fact that he is African American, to which my response is that I don’t believe appointing people to positions of power in the federal government purely for the sake of diversity or racial progress is a good idea. I also don’t think the Democrats’ argument of “Trump did it with Mattis, so it’s okay” is appropriate justification, both for the appointment itself and the potential conflict of interest. Finally, since this appointment is somewhat controversial, Biden will need to use up some of his political capital to push it through. With a divided Congress and daunting tasks like ending the COVID-19 pandemic looming before him, I can’t help but wonder if there might be a better use of his political capital.
Post a Comment