New Sec Def has zero military experience

Disturbing, but not surprising.
He is replacing the Pentagon Spokesman, Rear Admiral Kirby, with a civilian.
These next two years are just ramping up.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...on-john-kirby/

Quote:

---

Carter is an academic policy wonk of the same mindset and world view as Samantha Power (now UN Ambassador and wife of former Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein). That comparative will become more evident as the next two years progress. There is nothing about Aston Carter, nor his individual opinion of the military, which would lend a person to believe there is any inherent qualification which would benefit the Defense Department.

To the contrary, Carter should be fully anticipated to weaken the Military, through policy, in the same way that Samantha Power has influenced foreign policy to diminish U.S. influence globally. He begins the process immediately with a decision to have a civilian, non-military, spokesperson represent the public face of the Pentagon.

---

We have a CIC with no prior leadership experience either. Why ruin this administration's track record now.

And a Surgeon General that considers guns a health epidemic.

I was actually pleasantly surprised by the nomination of Carter. If you look at his background, Carter has been working rather huge issues inside DoD for a number of years and he's well aware of the need to recapitalize equipment after the years of abuse they've been taking. Kirby has been stuck between a rock and a hard place but he's been defending the policies of the number one asswipe ever involved in US government for the past year so I'm not crying in my beer over his replacement.

I've never held with the view that the C-in-C HAS to have experience in uniform or that experience in uniform was anything magical at the top level. Just look at Lincoln versus McClellan during the early stages of the Civil War. Lincoln had no experience and "Little Mac" was the broadly acclaimed Little Napoleon. Just one problem: Lincoln actually wanted to win and end the war while McClellan kept losing or retreating and getting men killed slowly.

EDIT: Mistakenly referred to Kirby when I meant Carter in the second sentence.

^^ Agreed. I can live with a president with or without military experience. I don't think it matters. If you don't believe that consider John Kerry, John McCain, Jimmy Carter...all had military experience and would make (or were) terrible presidents. Military experience isn't a cure-all for stupid.

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.

You really didn't read our points did you? Jimmy Carter was in the Navy. He had no damn idea how to use the assets available to him. At that level, you can and will get briefings on how the current professionals recommend using the assets if you have the will to use them but no amount of assets or training is going to help if you lack a spine like Kerry and Carter. Dick Cheney was a pretty damned good SecDef with no time in uniform. James Schlesinger -- also no time in uniform -- wasn't too bad. Robert Gates was in SAC and I think he sucked as SecDef as well as DCI (but the Washington ComPost likes him).

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.

---

If you want to go down that road, then what else should the president have experience doing? Senator, Rep? Maybe a judge, lawyer? A few years in law enforcement?

Please don't take this as underrating the military, because I'd never do such a thing, but the military is just a piece of the whole picture. If you think a viable candidate should have served, then his resume better include all pieces of the goings on below him. My .2 cents

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.

It would be reassuring if the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense had at least a smidgen of experience within the ranks they are "leading."

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.