New Sec Def has zero military experience

Of all the truly evil people (and enemies of America) that this jackhole has chosen for high level positions within our government, this one is actually one of the less egregious.

January 2017 can't get here soon enough for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

You don't have to be the smartest guy in the room to be a good executive, but you need to surround yourself with smart, capable people. Aston Carter doesn't appear to fit that mold.

---

Just out of curiosity, what do you base that assessment on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

Just out of curiosity, what do you base that assessment on?

---

Well, Oblowme nominated him in the first place...[ROFL1]

Seriously, though, his experience is in theoretical physics, not military operations and tactics. He may be a sharp mind in the former, but his lack of experience in the latter makes him a questionable choice for SecDef. Much like Obama's "Ebola Czar", who is supposed to coordinate a response to an infectious disease, but has no experience in epidemiology, healthcare management, or emergency management. He has in fact no relevant experience to the requirements of the position.

Ashton Carter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Carter

ETA: He was Deputy SecDef under Clinton, so he has some experience. But given the fustercluck that the military became under Clinton, I have my doubts...

His academic experience is in theoretical physics. He has been working on systems acquisition for the DoD for the last several years including understanding the operational utility and prioritization for investments (i.e., spending). He has surrounded himself in the past several years at OSD/AT&L with some of the top minds in the business which is why I was wondering about the basis for your assessment that he had not "surround[ed] [him]self with smart, capable people".

I've never met the man but people I know and respect have and they liked him in his previous jobs. From what I've seen, he's a reasonable straight shooter who works from facts and logical rationales. That's why I was pleasantly surprised at his nomination, he's the furthest I can think of from the typical Obama appointee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantar18c

I disagree... the POTUS (and SecDef) should absolutely have military experience.
It's like the equivalent of your new LT being some cherry fuck out of ROTC/OCS that has zero experience in anything, and getting a guy that spent 6 years enlisted and went green-to-gold.
The latter guy will have a much better idea of how to utilize the assets available to him in a more efficient way to achieve a better outcome, because he actually understands their capabilities and value.

---

It's absolutely not like that at all. A new LT doesn't have the resources in terms of people power to fall back on for advice that a president will. A smart new butter bar will look to senior NCOs for advice and experience just like a smart president will look towards his advisors and confidants and senior people in the military, with military experience, to handle problems requiring the use of the military.

So I guy spends a couple of years in the military as an admin clerk and that's somehow prepping him for when he's eventually elected president? I don't think so.

And if that isn't good enough, then there's no Constitutional requirement that a president must have military experience. That seems to be the black/white answer to so many other things, it should work for this issue, too.

I used to think I wanted a president that was a successful business man (Romney for example), but now I'm kind of thinking that I don't necessarily want someone who tends to think of ways to make the government more money, since for the most part the tax payer is footing the bill.