The Washington Post managed to get several military "leaders" to voice concerns about the whole business of this administration being in charge.
Military leaders have raised serious concerns about the Trump administration’s forthcoming defense strategy, exposing a divide between the Pentagon’s political and uniformed leadership as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth summons top brass to a highly unusual summit in Virginia on Tuesday, according to eight current and former officials.The critiques from multiple top officers, including Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, come as Hegseth reorders U.S. military priorities — centering the Pentagon on perceived threats to the homeland, narrowing U.S. competition with China, and downplaying America’s role in Europe and Africa.President Donald Trump will attend the abrupt gathering of generals and admirals at Marine Corps Base Quantico, where Hegseth is expected to deliver remarks on military standards and the “warrior ethos,” even as uniformed leaders fear mass firings or a drastic reorganization of the combatant command structure and the military hierarchy.
Before the Afghanistan withdrawal, may of us who have worked with the military would have defended it as a structure that is designed to produce leaders with both education in the military science and experience in practical command. After that example, it is hard to credit the idea that the process still identifies the best men and women and promotes them to the highest positions; nor the idea that valid criticisms from those closest to the front are heard or considered by top commanders, even if they must challenge political figures in order to protect the warfighters on the front lines.
One might have hoped that this session would be used less for "morale boosting" and more for cleaning house.
12 comments:
Certainly the combined length of both speeches kept the entire audience in one room (and presumably under obervation, and presumably out of communication) for quite a while.
I wonder whether any information collected as a consequence might play a role in firings down the line?
Interestingly, WaPo won't let me sign in to read the article, even though it'll let me sign in to do its crossword puzzle. I'm stuck with addressing the excerpt only, which I don't like to do, even as it's an excerpt I believe is not shorn, here in the Hall, of context.
The Washington Post managed to get several military "leaders" to voice concerns about the whole business of this administration being in charge.
There's no evidence of that in the excerpt, only carefully unnamed "leaders" speaking indistinguishably from the authors' childhood imaginary friends reified. The authors did name drop one leader, Caine, but they chose not to actually quote him.
If there were any who spoke to the news outlet's writers, I'm sorely tempted to want them identified, relieved of their current positions, and retired. Only sorely tempted, though, as Hegseth has offered an out that, I think in the long run to be better.
...offering leaders second chances. He said that the Department of War was well-aware that mistakes would be made with the new directives, and, as such, he also would be implementing changes to the retention of adverse information on personnel records. This means that leaders with "forgivable, earnest, or minor infractions" on their records will not spend the rest of their careers paying for those mistakes, allowing them to take control without fear.
Supporting woke claptrap in the military, by these flags and top dog NCOs, is a very serious error, but this one time, I would be inclined to give them a chance to shape up. He also offered them the opportunity to resign if they couldn't support his policies. After this one time, though, the Second Chance business should be confined to relatively not that serious errors, except in areas where major or expensive mistakes should be expected--weapons and tactics development, exercises, and the like.
Eric Hines
[sigh]
Messed up the "second chances" link. This is it, for reals:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hegseth-instates-highest-male-standard-only-combat-other-changes-declaring-dept-defense-is-over
Eric Hines
The New Neo has a good post up covering the fitness standards announced by Hegseth.
I also expect that Hegseth and his team were monitoring the comments and facial expressions during the meeting, and maybe drawing up some lists.
He also issued a bunch of orders, some of which are good and others maybe less so. I can appreciate his insistence on the highest male standard for a job category as the new gender-normed minimum standard. Having lesser standards for women has been bad for morale for a long time, and high standards for fighting forces are generally good.
We will see.
lesser standards for women
Not just bad for moral. They're dangerous for the women who "pass," and for the men who must serve alongside them.
Doing hot turns on fighter aircraft when the ordnance lifters have malfunctioned and the weapons/missiles must be lifted manually onto the racks or rails is no place for the merely politically fit.
Eric Hines
It does sound like he wants to reduce the size of the size of the general officer corps in a rather literal sort of way.
- Tom
It does sound like he wants to reduce the size of the size of the general officer corps in a rather literal sort of way.
When I was in the USAF, it was big on the then in vogue civilian theory that a manager's span of control shouldn't exceed seven. That was outlandish at the time, in my even then not very humble opinion, but it was an excuse to expand the number of supervisors, and then grow the staffs commensurately to justify adding more managers, adding layers onto layers.
And here we are today. with flags in charge of round handwriting and polishing door handles.
On the other hand, I wouldn't object to growing the numbers of soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and spacers--under the new training and fitness regimen--to fit the number of flags, if the current crop can themselves be retrained and refitted to lead a lethal force capable of fighting multiple wars simultaneously, and winning all of them decisively.
Eric Hines
The Washington Post is where DC regulars leak info they want to get out, and that includes the military
And the New York Times as Comey demonstrated.
Eric Hines
Yes, that's true. But I was playing on the "no fat generals" aspect of reduction. I.e., smaller rather than fewer.
- Tom
Post a Comment