This is whom I think will be Obama pick as United States Secretary of Defense. What say you?
28 comments:
Anonymous
said...
For a humorous slant on cabinet posts, you might like this: link
In this case, I think most important thing is to get the pentagon and the president on the same page. The problem with Rumsfeld was that he wanted a fast and light army, and the Pentagon wanted a slower, more heavily armored army. We ended up with an army where the tools didn't match the tactics.
Sounds like a good choice. Obama has said he wants a diverse cabinet. Having a principled Republican (it's not always an oxymoron) like Hagel would be a positive step.
Hagel is a good man. I'm sure he would make a good defense secretary. Democrats, independents and some moderate Republicans would probably welcome his appointment as a move toward bipartisan power sharing.
However, "movement conservatives," Bush's hard-core neocon base, would greet the news with the same enthusiasm liberal Democrats would've had for McCain making Joe Lieberman his defense secretary, if McCain had won the election. Which is to say, anger and resentment.
thomaslb makes a good point about coming up with a coherent plan for our ground forces. I think what happened was more a case of a longterm change being under way when current needs called for something different.
My main concern is that we need a bigger active-duty Army, with much less reliance on Guard and Reserve units for lengthy engagements. Either that or we need to reinstitute the draft in some form. Guard and Reserve forces were never meant to be used and abused the way Bush has done.
I worked with Hagel when I was interning with Sen. Ben Nelson in DC and I think that he would do a good job of staying in the middle.
As for the topic regarding what kind of army is being used,,,, smaller does not really mean faster. While light units can be air assault and airborne lifted into theater, they really can't move very quickly after that because they don't have many trucks. The heavy units actually can move faster because all of their elements are mechanized.
Interestingly enough, Iraq has brought the two parts together. The light elements have moved up to humvees, while the heavy units have got out of their tracks and into humvees.
Very impressive Jay, interning with Sen. Ben Nelson. I know I am probably wrong about Hagel, but that is a good way for Obama to follow through with what he has stated during the campaign.
I would say that I am bias when it comes to a heavy mechanized unit, after all that is where I was introduced to warfare.
A smaller unit has the ability to attack a certain objective then move out. No prolong stay is involved, but the job is done.
I might tend to agree with Hagel on some of his foreign policy ideas. I don't know how much his political conservatism would (or could) play into his job duties as Secretary of Defense. His job would be all about the areas in which I tend to find agreement with him, so I probably wouldn't mind seeing him get that position.
I agree with S.W. about the misuse of the Guard and the Reserves. That is one of my major concerns about our military at this point.
I loathe the thought of a return to the draft, in part because I fear that if we get another Bush-Cheney type administration in office they would be encouraged to try and pull off more Iraq-style crap because there would be a far larger number of troops to misuse.
Fast and light might not be the answer, nor might the opposite extreme, but somewhere in the middle might be o.k. and might not require such a drastic increase in the number of troops. Let's not increase the number of troops to the point where it becomes too tempting for some warmongerer or Armageddonist to use them.
I think Hagel would recommend the use of our military in a judicious manner. The way he has spoken out about the wrongness of Iraq, I can't see him pushing for involvement in similar boondoggles. He would probably be fine in the job.
I have a lot of respect for Gates. He's the best appointment Bush ever made and I think he's done a good job. I'm fairly sure Bush appointed Gates at the strong suggestion of Bush 41.
We definitely need light infantry and mechanized units that can be deployed quickly and move rapidly. But having only those kinds of units is foolhardy. If we ever get into a major land war with a country like Russia or China, We also need large-unit ground forces of the kind that can execute and sustain invasions, and deal effectively with large-scale attacks by mass formations.
For as much as we spend on defense, we should have both kinds of units.
I agree S.W, Gates is one best thing that the Bush Administration has done.
Concerning both types of warfare, I agree to your comment as well. Fast in, fast out is the way to go in reference to short operations, but if China or Russia is involved with a conflict with the United States, than a much larger force is needed.
Senator Hagel would be a good pick. The only thing that is suspect is that he was part owner of the voting machines that "counted" the votes that resulted in his election. Still, he seemed to be a contra force against the Bush Regime from early on. If he did make this pick, it would about the only one I could agree with so far. Peace.
Well we all know now he picked Gates. I just hope the right thing gets done on the Air Force tanker deal and the production stays with a U.S. aviation company and not a European conglomerate. Gates isn't reliable on that - he plays politics and I don't like that in a Sec. Def.
The pace on leaving Iraq had better be done quick step, the manpower is needed in Afghanistan.
28 comments:
For a humorous slant on cabinet posts, you might like this: link
In this case, I think most important thing is to get the pentagon and the president on the same page. The problem with Rumsfeld was that he wanted a fast and light army, and the Pentagon wanted a slower, more heavily armored army. We ended up with an army where the tools didn't match the tactics.
Sounds like a good choice. Obama has said he wants a diverse cabinet. Having a principled Republican (it's not always an oxymoron) like Hagel would be a positive step.
Why not? He's certainly qualified. Even if I do disagree with him most of the time, there's no questioning his competence.
There's been so many mess ups in the present administration, I'm sure that Obama pick of Hagel wouldn't interrupt his move to share with both parties.
Nice link ThomasLB, I'll look more closely at the link later.
If Hagel is picked as Secretary of Defense, Obama would show that he's willing to work with the other party.
I concur Tom Harper, just think of all the Republicans that would be stunned.
Jolly, this is about as close as Obama has to showing how he will share in his administration.
Hagel is a good man. I'm sure he would make a good defense secretary. Democrats, independents and some moderate Republicans would probably welcome his appointment as a move toward bipartisan power sharing.
However, "movement conservatives," Bush's hard-core neocon base, would greet the news with the same enthusiasm liberal Democrats would've had for McCain making Joe Lieberman his defense secretary, if McCain had won the election. Which is to say, anger and resentment.
thomaslb makes a good point about coming up with a coherent plan for our ground forces. I think what happened was more a case of a longterm change being under way when current needs called for something different.
My main concern is that we need a bigger active-duty Army, with much less reliance on Guard and Reserve units for lengthy engagements. Either that or we need to reinstitute the draft in some form. Guard and Reserve forces were never meant to be used and abused the way Bush has done.
The war with Iraq has shown us that a faster, much smaller Military is not the answer for America.
We are better off with a larger time consuming force for our country.
I worked with Hagel when I was interning with Sen. Ben Nelson in DC and I think that he would do a good job of staying in the middle.
As for the topic regarding what kind of army is being used,,,, smaller does not really mean faster. While light units can be air assault and airborne lifted into theater, they really can't move very quickly after that because they don't have many trucks. The heavy units actually can move faster because all of their elements are mechanized.
Interestingly enough, Iraq has brought the two parts together. The light elements have moved up to humvees, while the heavy units have got out of their tracks and into humvees.
Very impressive Jay, interning with Sen. Ben Nelson. I know I am probably wrong about Hagel, but that is a good way for Obama to follow through with what he has stated during the campaign.
I would say that I am bias when it comes to a heavy mechanized unit, after all that is where I was introduced to warfare.
A smaller unit has the ability to attack a certain objective then move out. No prolong stay is involved, but the job is done.
I might tend to agree with Hagel on some of his foreign policy ideas. I don't know how much his political conservatism would (or could) play into his job duties as Secretary of Defense. His job would be all about the areas in which I tend to find agreement with him, so I probably wouldn't mind seeing him get that position.
I agree with S.W. about the misuse of the Guard and the Reserves. That is one of my major concerns about our military at this point.
I loathe the thought of a return to the draft, in part because I fear that if we get another Bush-Cheney type administration in office they would be encouraged to try and pull off more Iraq-style crap because there would be a far larger number of troops to misuse.
Fast and light might not be the answer, nor might the opposite extreme, but somewhere in the middle might be o.k. and might not require such a drastic increase in the number of troops. Let's not increase the number of troops to the point where it becomes too tempting for some warmongerer or Armageddonist to use them.
I think Hagel would recommend the use of our military in a judicious manner. The way he has spoken out about the wrongness of Iraq, I can't see him pushing for involvement in similar boondoggles. He would probably be fine in the job.
I know that it's just wishful thinking Snave, Obama will more than likely stick with Gates.
I have a lot of respect for Gates. He's the best appointment Bush ever made and I think he's done a good job. I'm fairly sure Bush appointed Gates at the strong suggestion of Bush 41.
We definitely need light infantry and mechanized units that can be deployed quickly and move rapidly. But having only those kinds of units is foolhardy. If we ever get into a major land war with a country like Russia or China, We also need large-unit ground forces of the kind that can execute and sustain invasions, and deal effectively with large-scale attacks by mass formations.
For as much as we spend on defense, we should have both kinds of units.
I agree S.W, Gates is one best thing that the Bush Administration has done.
Concerning both types of warfare, I agree to your comment as well. Fast in, fast out is the way to go in reference to short operations, but if China or Russia is involved with a conflict with the United States, than a much larger force is needed.
Senator Hagel would be a good pick. The only thing that is suspect is that he was part owner of the voting machines that "counted" the votes that resulted in his election. Still, he seemed to be a contra force against the Bush Regime from early on. If he did make this pick, it would about the only one I could agree with so far.
Peace.
Well we all know now he picked Gates.
I just hope the right thing gets done on the Air Force tanker deal and the production stays with a U.S. aviation company and not a European conglomerate.
Gates isn't reliable on that - he plays politics and I don't like that in a Sec. Def.
The pace on leaving Iraq had better be done quick step, the manpower is needed in Afghanistan.
LT, hope you had a great Christmas and that your 2009 is a good one!
Thanks for your valuable information.
It was really of use to me.
Happy New Year. I hope you'll be back blogging soon.
Looking for you to come back.
I'm sure you've got a lot to say.
Hi, LT! Guess who's back. :-)
You may well be right. He has the creds for it.
You've been gone a long time, but regardless... Feliz Año Nuevo, Larry!
Good fill someone in on and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you on your information.
I really like when people are expressing their opinion and thought. So I like the way you are writing
Here is an idea for a new third party in politics: http://thenewthirdparty.blogspot.com
I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it.
m2m
nice post and lots of infromation about the provided treatment thanks
Post a Comment