- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
On Mattis Appointment: Isn't the SecDef supposed to be a civilian?
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:29 pm
I'm not against Mattis. At all. And, I'm glad that he will help make the military more effective.
But ...
For those who care about the rule of law, doesn't the law stating that the SecDef is to be a civilian exist for a reason? We have civilian control of the military for a purpose. I know he's retired, but it was recent and I read that Congress would have to pass a law to allow him to serve that waives the 7 year requirement.
Is it a good idea to waive this requirement? Take Mattis out of the picture and just think about the purpose of the law.
What are your thoughts on this? Apart from Trump and Mattis. Just overall.
But ...
For those who care about the rule of law, doesn't the law stating that the SecDef is to be a civilian exist for a reason? We have civilian control of the military for a purpose. I know he's retired, but it was recent and I read that Congress would have to pass a law to allow him to serve that waives the 7 year requirement.
Is it a good idea to waive this requirement? Take Mattis out of the picture and just think about the purpose of the law.
What are your thoughts on this? Apart from Trump and Mattis. Just overall.
12
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:30 pm to AlaTiger
Secretary of Defense is typically a retired military officer, even going back to America's first cabinet.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:30 pm to AlaTiger
General Mattis IS a civilian. Now.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:31 pm to AlaTiger
Happened once in the '50s I think.
We need to have the best man for the job doing that job. If Trump thinks it is Mattis, he can make his case and see if a waiver can be granted.
We need to have the best man for the job doing that job. If Trump thinks it is Mattis, he can make his case and see if a waiver can be granted.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:36 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
waiver can be granted.
By both chambers of Congress. Shouldn't be a problem.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:47 pm to AlaTiger
Mattis is a civilian and the 7 year (formerly 10 year) rule is fairly recent, dating back more or less to when the Department of War became the Department of Defense. This is a statutory issue, not a Constitutional crisis.
Quite frankly, getting rid of the requirement wouldn't be the worst thing so freshly retired flags can serve. There may be some coziness but the cheesedicks on the Joint Chiefs won't be able to blind Mattis with bullshite or walk all over him.
Quite frankly, getting rid of the requirement wouldn't be the worst thing so freshly retired flags can serve. There may be some coziness but the cheesedicks on the Joint Chiefs won't be able to blind Mattis with bullshite or walk all over him.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:56 pm to AlaTiger
quote:
Is it a good idea to waive this requirement? Take Mattis out of the picture and just think about the purpose of the law.
Yes it is.
The law is in there for a reason to prevent military figures who don't have much respect for civilian leadership and can't be trusted.
Mattis qualfies as an exception to the law on his own merit and he has clearly demonstrated respect for civilian leadership.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:59 pm to Sentrius
I'm fine with it as long as it doesn't become customary. Someone who's a veteran and served in lower ranks before going on to something else--no problem at all. Recently retired generals should be the exception, though.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 6:05 pm to kingbob
quote:
Secretary of Defense is typically a retired military officer, even going back to America's first cabinet.
Because let's face it, people who heave never served in the military before don't know shite about running it at all and what works best for the men and women that serve it.
A combo like Obama and Ash Carter who have never served in the military before is a stupid fricking idea and a combo like that undermines the efficiency, cohesiveness and effectiveness of the military and we've already been seeing that over the last several years.
Obama's already been very distrusting of the military and that has been reflected considering the high rate of turnover at the pentagon with not just 4 defense secretaries but notable generals and commanders as well.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 6:29 pm to AlaTiger
General Marshall was SecState after WWII. He did a great job of course.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 6:37 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Most of the civilians who have been SecDef have been civilian hacks. Johnson, McNamara, Carlucci, Aspen. frick-frick Rumsfeld was the worst hack, practically a traitor although he was a Navy pilot.
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 7:42 pm to AlaTiger
I can't believe all the down votes on this.
What the heck?
I said I was for Mattis and thought he would do a good job, but had a question about the law.
That was it. Is it a good idea to waive the law in general - it wasn't about Mattis or Trump. At all.
For the record, I'd be fine with the law going away altogether and would rather have a military man - even one who retires to take the job - as SecDef than a complete civilian. Democrats put civilians in that role and then use the military as a social experiment lab. Ridiculous. Give us someone who will help the military kill people and break stuff - as it is supposed to do.
What the heck?
I said I was for Mattis and thought he would do a good job, but had a question about the law.
That was it. Is it a good idea to waive the law in general - it wasn't about Mattis or Trump. At all.
For the record, I'd be fine with the law going away altogether and would rather have a military man - even one who retires to take the job - as SecDef than a complete civilian. Democrats put civilians in that role and then use the military as a social experiment lab. Ridiculous. Give us someone who will help the military kill people and break stuff - as it is supposed to do.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 7:45 pm to Walking the Earth
don't confirm him.
no exceptions. the whole principle of civilian control is destroyed if you let Trump appoint someone who is not qualified just because you like his war record.
the term has not even begun. there is no rush. He should pick another person.
no exceptions. the whole principle of civilian control is destroyed if you let Trump appoint someone who is not qualified just because you like his war record.
the term has not even begun. there is no rush. He should pick another person.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 7:46 pm to AlaTiger
(no message)
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 7:48 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 7:52 pm to AlaTiger
It's a 1947 law, and there has been one exception to it (George Marshall).
Frankly, given the performance of the Pentagon since the passage of the law, perhaps it's not such a good idea to have people who generally don't know what the frick they're doing in charge of DoD. With one minor exception, we've been in nothing but shite, no-win military situations going back to the passage of the law.
Frankly, given the performance of the Pentagon since the passage of the law, perhaps it's not such a good idea to have people who generally don't know what the frick they're doing in charge of DoD. With one minor exception, we've been in nothing but shite, no-win military situations going back to the passage of the law.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 7:56 pm to CelticDog
quote:
don't confirm him.
no exceptions. the whole principle of civilian control is destroyed if you let Trump appoint someone who is not qualified just because you like his war record.
the term has not even begun. there is no rush. He should pick another person.
He's gonna be confirmed, and you're gonna cry, and I'm gonna laugh
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:06 pm to AlaTiger
He is retired from the military and is, therefore, back in civilian life.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:09 pm to AlaTiger
Also, a certain general who was the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII and who had never held a political position became President.
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 8:11 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:31 pm to CelticDog
quote:How is he not qualified?
someone who is not qualified
Posted on 12/1/16 at 9:20 pm to AlaTiger
quote:
I read that Congress would have to pass a law to allow him to serve that waives the 7 year requirement.
Is it a good idea to waive this requirement?
It has been done before. 1950 with Truman. In the case of Mattis, I support doing it 100%. The man is a red meat eating warrior, but he is also a very intellectual warrior. I do not think that he will be a war hawk, but by God, if we go to war I pity the bastards that are against Us.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News