Tag: Secretary of Defense

Text Read Around The World

The big deal in the news for the past few days has been the screw up in a NatSec meeting…..was it a breach or not?

Here is the story as of today….

Much of the discussion around the bizarre national security texting breach has been focused on how it happened and what, if any, punishments are warranted. But some outlets also are assessing the text conversation itself among high-ranking White House officials discussing a pending military strike. Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic journalist accidentally looped into the chat, published some of the back and forth, though no details about the strike itself. Some of the takeaways:

  • Vance disagrees: An editorial in the Wall Street Journal points out that Vice President JD Vance disagreed with President Trump’s decision to attack Houthi rebels in Yemen. “I think we are making a mistake,” he wrote, suggesting that it was more in Europe’s interest. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” he said. “There’s a further risk that we see moderate to severe spike in oil prices.” Others disagreed, and planning went forward, but “Trump now knows which of his deputies tried to block it and which tried to carry it out,” notes the editorial. A piece at New York magazine on this is headlined, “Maybe J.D. Vance Isn’t Trump’s Puppet.”

  • Hegseth slams Europe: At one point in his back-and-forth with Vance, defense chief Pete Hegseth slammed European allies, reports the BBC. “If you think we should do it let’s go,” Vance texted to Hegseth. “I just hate bailing Europe out again.” To which Hegseth replied: “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”
  • Blaming Biden: Axios notes that, at least in this conversation, the debate was not so much about military strategy as about how to convey the message to the public that it’s necessary. Hegseth: “I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what—nobody knows who the Houthis are—which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.”
  • Stephen Miller? Goldberg noted that one participant was “SM,” whom he assumed was Stephen Miller. This person was fully on board with the president and also wanted accountability from Europe. “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light” to strike the Houthis, SM wrote during the discussion on whether to move forward. In terms of Europe: He said the US must make clear “what we expect in return,” adding that the real question was, “If Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? … If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”

My favorite part of this story is the blaming of Biden….

Free-loading Europe?  These guys are idiots.

The Atlantic has released the transcripts of this now ‘infamous’ exchange…..

Two days after revealing that its editor-in-chief was included in a group chat where high-ranking members of the Trump administration discussed plans for strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen, the Atlantic has published those attack plans. As Jeffrey Goldberg, said editor-in-chief, and staff writer Shane Harris write, in the first story on the Signal chat, the Atlantic held off on publishing specific details of the attacks that were contained in the text in keeping with a policy of not publishing information related to military operations if it could potentially lead to harm to US personnel. The calculus changed Tuesday, they write.

Throughout Tuesday, they explain, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and President Trump all insisted there was not classified information in the messages. “These statements presented us with a dilemma,” Goldberg and Harris write. The crux of their decision:

  • “The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.”
  • Those messages held details on the attacks two hours before the bombing of Houthi positions was due to begin, including “the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen.” In the wrong hands, that info could have been used against American pilots and other US personnel, they write. Based on administration officials’ insistence that the information was not classified, the Atlantic on Tuesday asked the White House if it objected to the messages being published; in the evening, it got a response from Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who reiterated there was nothing classified within but said the White House objected as it was intended to be a “private deliberation” of “sensitive information.” It went ahead, with one detail redacted: the name of Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which appeared in the messages, as CIA intelligence officers are typically not publicly identified.

Let the dance begin.  Who will take the hit for this screw up?

Well the answer is NatSec Adviser Waltz….

National security adviser Mike Waltz, who inadvertently added Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a group chat discussing plans for strikes on Yemen, says he takes “full responsibility” for the Signal breach, but he’s not sure exactly how it happened. “It’s embarrassing. We’re going to get to the bottom of it,” he told Laura Ingraham on Fox News‘ The Ingraham Angle in an interview Tuesday.

  • Waltz went on to attack Goldberg, calling him “the bottom scum of journalists” and implying that he was somehow to blame for the breach. “I know him in the sense that he hates the president, but I don’t text him,” Waltz said. “He wasn’t on my phone. And we’re going to figure out how this happened.” Waltz said he’s not a conspiracy theorist, “but of all the people out there, somehow this guy who has lied about the president … he’s the one that somehow gets on somebody’s contact and then gets sucked into this group.”

  • President Trump blamed a Waltz staffer for the breach Tuesday, but Waltz told Ingraham that it wasn’t a staffer’s fault, the Washington Post reports. He said he meant to add somebody else to the group—he didn’t disclose who—but the number for the contact was Goldberg’s. “You got somebody else’s number on someone else’s contact. So, of course, I didn’t see this loser in the group. It looks like someone else,” Waltz said. “Whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical mean is what we are trying to figure out.”

Waltz said he was consulting with Elon Musk, the Guardian reports. “We’ve got the best technical minds looking at how this happened,” he said.

Democrats have called for Waltz to be fired, but Trump said Tuesday that Waltz won’t lose his job over the breach. He described Waltz as a “good man” who has “learned a lesson.”

In an interview the Atlantic published Monday, Goldberg said the episode is “very relatable,” because everybody has sent a text or email to an unintended recipient, and it shows why government officials discussing sensitive issues shouldn’t use Signal. “Until almost the very last minute, I could not believe that this was actually happening, that there could be a Mack-truck-size breach, that somehow, the editor in chief of the Atlantic was invited into a conversation with the intelligence agencies, secretaries, the national security adviser,” he said. “Like most reporters, I’ve been a recipient of leaks. A leak is a totally different thing. That’s a whistleblower trying to make complaints. This is just reckless.”

There is the story so far….I am sure there is more to come.

Watch This Blog

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The “Elmer Fudd” Hearing

I am a staunch critic of the War Department and I think that the person who leads it should be overqualified because they must oversee the use of the military and deal with a budget that would choke a horse.

Trump’s choice is not qualified and I watched the hearing to see what, if anything, would be brought out…..and as I thought it was a nothing more than a sideshow….

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, was grilled by members of the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday about issues including his views on women in combat. Some takeaways from the often testy confirmation hearing:

  • He probably has enough votes. “None of his answers seemed to disturb the Republicans who control the committee,” meaning he will likely have enough votes to move on, the New York Times reports. GOP Sen. Joni Ernst, considered a key vote, had earlier expressed concerns about the former Fox host’s nomination but she went easy on Hegseth on Tuesday. She told an Iowa radio host Tuesday evening that she will be supporting Hegseth, CNN reports.
  • A memorable exchange. The “most memorable part of the hearing,” according to the Washington Post, was a long exchange between Hegseth and Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine over Hegseth’s past, including infidelity and sexual assault allegations. “You have admitted that you had sex while you were married to wife two, after you just had fathered a child by wife three,” Kaine said, per Politico, questioning Hegseth’s judgment. Hegseth dismissed the assault allegations as “anonymous smears.”
  • Republicans defended Hegseth on character issues. Republican senators praised Hegseth’s communication skills, dismissed concerns about his lack of experience, and fired back against Kaine and other critics. “How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night? Have any of you guys asked them to step down and resign?” asked GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin, per NBC News. “How many senators do you know have got a divorce before cheating on their wives? Did you ask them to step down?”
  • Major issues were sidelined. Apart from brief mentions of China and the war in Ukraine, there was little mention of potential conflicts or other geopolitical issues. “What’s astonishing about the hearing is just how little focus there has been on the bread and butter of what the secretary of defence has to do, which is protect the nation, and ensure you have a military capable of winning conflicts,” Mara Karlin, former assistant secretary of defense, tells the BBC.

His qualifications are that he served in the military…..by that metric I should be considered as well.

This person will oversee the distribution of billions of dollars, actually real close to a trillion, and I do not think this guy is capable of thinking in those complex terms.

This is sad for the War Department but he has said that he will clean it up….but what does that actually mean?

When I think of this guy all I see is Elmer Fudd being bested by Bugs Bunny.

Any thoughts on this turkey?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

 

Mother Knows Best

This drama is playing out like some random episode of reality TV….

I appears the Trump’s choice for Sec of War had a mommy problem in the past…..it seems his mother took exception to some of his past activities.

“The family dynamics of Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense, have burst out into the open,” reports the Guardian, after a six-year-old email to him from his own mother was leaked to the media. The New York Times got its hands on the 2018 letter penned by Penelope Hegseth during her son’s second divorce, which the paper says it obtained from a person “with ties to the Hegseth family.” The letter most notably scolds the former Fox News host for his treatment of women, though Penelope Hegseth is now trying to walk back the harshest elements of it. Hegseth was already under the microscope for a 2017 sexual assault allegation. More:

  • Quote 1: “On behalf of all the women (and I know it’s many) you have abused in some way, I say … get some help and take an honest look at yourself,” Penelope Hegseth wrote. “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”
  • Quote 2: “Son, I have tried to keep quiet about your character and behavior, but after listening to the way you made Samantha feel today, I cannot stay silent. … She did not ask for or deserve any of what has come to her by your hand. Neither did Meredith.” Samantha is Pete Hegseth’s second wife, who “filed for divorce after her husband impregnated a co-worker, part of a pattern of adultery that dated back to his first marriage,” per the Times. Meredith was his first wife, who cited infidelity on his part during their 2009 divorce. He’s currently married to his third wife, Jennifer.
  • Quote 3: “It’s time for someone (I wish it was a strong man) to stand up to your abusive behavior and call it out, especially against women,” Penelope Hegseth wrote. “We still love you, but we are broken by your behavior and lack of character.”
  • Penelope Hegseth today: She now says she sent her son an apologetic follow-up email immediately after sending the initial email, which she said she’d written “in anger, with emotion.” She said it was “disgusting” that the Times had published the email and insisted that the slams she’d made against her son weren’t true: “It has never been true. … I know my son. He is a good father, husband.”
  • Trump camp’s reaction: Trump spokesman Steven Cheung told the Times that printing the email was “despicable,” and that it was an “out-of-context snippet.”
  • Other reaction: “If Pete Hegseth were a decorated general or proven administrator maybe the Senate could look past the fact that he would be the messiest character on a Real Housewives season … but he is a weekend talk show host,” the Bulwark’s Tim Miller wrote on X.

Despicable?  What would Trump do if the shoe was on the other foot…..he would lambast with vigor and vitriol.

Wonder what that change of heart cost the Trump organization?

But wait!  There is more on this slug….

The controversy around Pete Hegseth is growing. Sources tell CBS News that back in 2016, allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual misconduct, a toxic workplace environment, and alcohol problems including public intoxication led to a group of Republicans pushing to remove Hegseth as head of a charity for veterans. Hegseth started leading Concerned Veterans of America in 2011 and stepped down as executive director in 2016, and sources say that among the leaders of the push to oust him from the post was Jessie Jane Duff, one of the executive directors of President-elect Trump’s 2024 campaign—and they say she privately criticized Hegseth until Trump named him as his defense secretary pick, and she’s now publicly backing him.

This guy is unqualified to run the largest budget in our government….he was in the military….by that metric I could be the Sec of War….something no one wants.

This is going to be interesting to see how his nomination and confirmation will play out.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

I Have A New Label!

Just a mere few weeks ago I was told by the Secretary of War that if I did not support unlimited aid for these many many wars that I was an non-interventionist.

In case you missed my label from a few weeks ago…..

Non-Interventionists Are Bad!

I explained in my post why I thought the Sec of War was speaking out his rectum.

Now Congress weighs in on people that criticize Israel…..now thanx to the House I am a anti-Semite….

This should explain it….

The House on Tuesday passed a resolution that says “anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” the chamber’s latest piece of legislation conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

The resolution, which is presented as a resolution condemning antisemitism, passed in a vote of 314-14-92. Only thirteen Democrats and one Republican voted against the legislation, while 92 Democrats voted “present” in protest of a line buried in the bill that explicitly claims anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

The Republican-drafted resolution declares that the House of Representatives “clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the most senior Jewish member of the House, criticized the language of the bill ahead of the vote. “The resolution suggests that ALL anti-Zionism is antisemitism. That is either intellectually disingenuous or just factually wrong. And it unfairly implicates many of my orthodox former constituents in Brooklyn, many of whose families rose from the ashes of the Holocaust,” he said.

Nadler claimed that “most anti-Zionism is antisemitism” but added that if authors of the bill “were at all familiar with Jewish history and culture, should know about Jewish anti-Zionism that was, and is, expressly NOT antisemitic.”

“This resolution ignores the fact that even today, certain orthodox Hasidic Jewish communities—the Satmars in New York and others—as well as adherents of the pre-state Jewish labor movement have held views that are at odds with the modern Zionist conception,” he said.

While coming out strongly against the language, Nadler voted “present” instead of “no.” The thirteen Democrats who voted against the bill include Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Cori Bush (D-MO), Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA), Jesús García (D-IL), Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Summer Lee (D-PA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Delia Ramirez (D-IL), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the only Republican to vote against the bill. Last week, he was the lone member of Congress to vote against a resolution that claimed “denying Israel’s right to exist is a form of antisemitism.” Explaining his opposition, Massie said the resolution also equated anti-Zionism with antisemitism, although not as explicitly as the bill passed on Tuesday.

(antiwar.com)

First these well paid toadies of AIPAC wanted  to make it illegal to boycott Israel and its products….now if anyone criticizes Israel they are anti-Semitic….

What CRAP!

When it comes to religion I could care less what they believe or care to worship that is between them and the Great Spirit.

My criticism has nothing to do with religion but rather how a country that pretends to be a world citizen can act in such barbaric ways.

The Congress can kiss my ass….I will not buy any product or service that originates in Israel…..and I shall continue to criticize Israel when I think they are wrong.

So Congress take your best shots.

Has anyone asked why the Congress is so gung-ho for Israel?

The simple answer is….MONEY!

I know you think I am making this shit up….well I am not….

One of every three members of Congress boarding a jetliner on a privately-funded all-expense paid trip overseas has Israel as their final destination. Only one out of a hundred ever visits Palestinian territories as a final destination.

Analysis of Gift Travel Filings made to the US House of Representatives Office of the Clerk over the past half-decade reveals Israel is far and away their top foreign destination. House of Representatives members made nearly 1,400 trips to Israel, while total subsidized visits to foreign countries other than Israel were 2,500.

The vast majority of Israel trips are funded by the American Israel Education Foundation which raises tax-exempt contributions from pro-Israel donors and Jewish federations. They typically last eight days and cost $10,000. AEIF is a corporation created in 1988 by the domestically-registered lobbying group AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2009 66% of AEIF’s board was comprised of AIPAC directors. Since AIEF is merely a lobbying funding conduit with no employees, whenever members of Congress travel to Israel, they are accompanied instead by staffers from AIPAC. In 2017 AIEF reported raising $60 million in revenue and expending $57 million. Another sole-purpose entity set up by AIPAC in 1984 is the Washington Institute for Near East Policy which works to portray policies favored by the Israeli government as being in the American interest.

https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2019/02/28/do-members-of-congress-take-too-many-private-trips-to-israel-with-aipac/

Like I said….MONEY!

I raise my finger to Congress and I do not think they are number one.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Non-Interventionists Are Bad!

I believe I have been chastised.

I guess to some my thoughts would make me a non-interventionists…..to others I am something worse….

I think there might be a slight deference in opinion and a ‘modern’ definition of the term that goes lacking.

To me it appears that to some if you have an opinion that is different than theirs then I must be labeled or insulted which is okay I have been insulted by many and even worse than the crap spread by some.

I bring this up because I have been labeled (well people like me so that means me) by the Secretary of War, Lloyd Austin, in his speech to Congress to scam more funds for war out of them.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has hit out at Americans who prefer a less interventionist foreign policy, smearing them as isolationists who want to see the US “retreat from responsibility.”

Austin, a former Raytheon board member, made the comments in a speech at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California on Saturday.

“You know, in every generation, some Americans prefer isolation to engagement—and they try to pull up the drawbridge. They try to kick loose the cornerstone of American leadership,” Austin said.

The Pentagon chief accused less interventionist Americans of trying to “undermine the security architecture that has produced decades of prosperity without great-power war.” However, most opponents of the US involvement in Ukraine are against the policy because it risks a direct clash with Russia.

In his rhetoric, Austin appeared to be targeting Republicans in Congress who have opposed additional funding for Ukraine, although the vast majority of GOP members against the proxy war with Russia favor funding Israel’s onslaught in Gaza and the military buildup in the Asia Pacific that risks war with China.

“And you’ll hear some people try to brand an American retreat from responsibility as bold new leadership. So when you hear that, make no mistake: It is not bold. It is not new. And it is not leadership,” Austin said.

Austin went on to urge Congress to pass a full-year appropriations bill and to approve President Biden’s behemoth $106 billion spending request that includes military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.

“You know, our competitors don’t have to operate under continuing resolutions. And so, doing so erodes both our security and our ability to compete,” he said. “And I also urge you to pass our urgent supplemental budget request to help fund our national-security needs, to stand by our partners in danger, and to invest in our defense industrial base.”

(antiwar.com)

First, Let’s look at the world today……

a report published Wednesday by the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs shows that since 2021, the U.S. military has conducted counterterrorism operations—including training and assistance, military exercises, combat and detention, and air and drone strikes—in at least 78 countries.

The publication also identifies 30 countries where the United States “conducted formal, named military exercises to project
force locally and rehearse scenarios of combating ‘terrorists’ or ‘violent extremist organizations,” and 73 nations where the U.S. government “trained and/or assisted military, police, and/or border patrol forces.”

(commondreams.org)

Some Congressman, name eludes me, has stated for the record in a hearing the “We are not at war”….I think the reality will contradict his ignorant statement..

So more on my thoughts….

I have never said we should withdraw from international relations….just that too much cash is being poured into war when it should be poured into programs that benefit the American people….not some dilettante halfway around the world.

I know some will disagree by saying that any dip in our monetary support will benefit our foes….and that is the same manure they have been spreading since 1945….I think they are mistaken.

For god’s sake get a new playbook.

I feel that if there is a situation in whatever region of the globe then the regional residents should tackle the situation not wait for the US to fund their operations.

I am not saying withdraw from the world just use other methods other than enriching an already profit heavy industry.

Am I a non-interventionist…..then NO!  Lloyd should spend more time on his grammar than being up the M-IC’s ass trying to cut a deal when he gets out of office.

So Mr. Lloyd when you come up with a better insult please let me know for I am on pins and needles waiting for the next barrage of ignorance.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Why Do You Dislike The SecDef Nominee So Much?

President-elect Joe Biden has designated Michele Flournoy as the new Secretary of Defense…..and I have not agree with his choice….my earlier thoughts…..https://lobotero.com/2020/11/19/will-michele-be-the-new-secdef/

I am a what use to be called a pecae-nik….I abhor war in all its forms…and Flournoy is the very best example of a warmonger….

“Flournoy was wrong about Iraq, as Biden has acknowledged he was. But she was then also wrong about Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Libya,” Ellsberg said in a statement released by RootsAction.org, part of a coalition of progressive advocacy groups pressuring the former vice president to pick a defense secretary committed to peace and without ties to the military-industrial complex.

“She is wrong right now in opposing the congressional ban on all arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and in planning to maintain Minuteman-type land-based ICBMs, the hair-trigger to the Doomsday Machine,” Ellsberg continued. “Her unquestioned intelligence and competence have long been in service to her serious interventionist misjudgments and to her own involvement in a revolving-door military-industrial complex.”

To the chagrin of progressives leading the charge against Flournoy, the former Pentagon official has gained the support of some prominent organizations, including the Ploughshares Fund and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Other anti-war groups have yet to speak out publicly about Flournoy, who is still considered the Biden team’s frontrunner for defense secretary.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/04/because-she-was-wrong-about-iraq-afghanistan-syria-yemen-and-libya-daniel-ellsberg

I guess if you have been interested enough to pay attention to the past then Flournoy is perfect fit with Biden….for he was for all our wars before he was against them.

If confirmed then we will continue our endless wars….putting our people in danger and wasting valuable time and money on unwinnable bullshit.

Flournoy like Biden decisions are made from politics not conviction….and that is what gets Americans killed for no damn reason other than to keep profits coming in.

Does that help explain why I dislike his choice for SecDef?

If not then you are thick!

Sadly all my work to show why she would not be the best choice was for naught…..Biden nominated another M-IC hardliner as SecDef…..

President-elect Joe Biden will nominate retired four-star Army general Lloyd J. Austin to be secretary of defense, according to four people familiar with the decision who spoke to the AP. If confirmed by the Senate, Austin would be the first Black leader of the Pentagon. Biden selected Austin over the longtime front-runner candidate, Michele Flournoy, a former senior Pentagon official and Biden supporter who would have been the first woman to serve as defense secretary. Biden also had considered Jeh Johnson, a former Pentagon general counsel and former secretary of homeland defense. Biden offered and Austin accepted the post on Sunday, according to a person familiar with the process. Three sources who spoke to Politico say a formal announcement could come as soon as Tuesday. Austin’s nomination, however, is already proving controversial.

As a career military officer, the 67-year-old Austin is likely to face opposition from some in Congress and in the defense establishment who believe in drawing a clear line between civilian and military leadership of the Pentagon. Although many previous defense secretaries have served briefly in the military, only two—George C. Marshall and James Mattis—have been career officers. Marshall also served as secretary of state. Like Mattis, Austin would need to obtain a congressional waiver to serve as defense secretary since he has not been retired for the necessary seven years. Congress intended civilian control of the military when it created the position of secretary of defense in 1947 and prohibited a recently retired military officer from holding the position. Austin is a 1975 graduate of the US Military Academy at West Point and served 41 years in uniform. He retired from the Army in 2016.

If you cannot get a bureaucratic warmonger then you go to the M-IC and the revolving door of retired generals for your pick.

No change here…..just do the favor for your high dollar donors.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Will Michele Be The New SecDef?

SecDef?

That is government-speak for Secretary of Defense.

I have been spending some time trying to help my readers get a grip on the people that Biden will choose for his cabinet and in turn will be leading our many policies…….,many of those policies have been failures but few will admit.

The front-runner for SecDef is one Michele Flournoy.

I remember her back during the Obama days when he was searching for a SecDef and Chuck Hagel was the leading contender….the year was 2012…..

With opponents of a potential nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R – NE) as Secretary of Defense now centering on the idea that nominating a “white man” would reflect badly on the administration, former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy has emerged as a seeming consensus candidate for advocates who see her as less likely to make any real policy changes.

A former appointee under President Clinton, Flournoy founded the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) to advocate a more “pragmatic” national security policy. In practice this has meant a policy that never questions the notion that military action abroad is a “force for good,” while arguing distinctions without a difference, as when Flournoy endorsed “withdrawing’ from Iraq by leaving 60,000 troops there more or less indefinitely.

Appointed the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy by President Obama in 2008, Flournoy rarely made waves, backing the administration’s policy without exception. A lone noteworthy spot in this term was in 2010, when the Pentagon publicly repudiated her for saying it was unlikely that the US would attack Iran in “the near term.”

(antiwar.com)

I find Biden uninteresting and she will be the perfect fit in his cabinet…..Flournoy’s general uninterestingness makes her a model choice for lobbyists hoping to keep policy unchanged and the gravy train flowing.

Like I said she is the hands on favorite to lead the Pentagon…..but unlike a loyal readers of IST, https://libertasandlatte.wordpress.com/  I do not think she is what this country needs…..at this time.

She is tied tooth and nail to the defense industry and their desires may well come before the needs of the troops.

Even her thoughts are scary…..

The next Pentagon chief could cement the US’ already hard defence line on China, with one contender suggesting that American forces could bolster deterrence with the ability to “sink all” Chinese vessels “within 72 hours” in the South China Sea.

“For example, if the US military had the capability to credibly threaten to sink all of China’s military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the South China Sea within 72 hours, Chinese leaders might think twice before, say, launching a blockade or invasion of Taiwan; they would have to wonder whether it was worth putting their entire fleet at risk,” Flournoy said.

Defence and diplomatic observers said that realising that idea would come at huge cost but appointing its advocate would signal that the US would keep piling military pressure on China.

https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/11/15/20/a-harder-us-line-potential-pentagon-chief-floated-idea-to-sink-china-fleet-in-72-hours

These things said need to be scrutinized……and scrutinized hard!

But she is still the duck in the barrel for Defense…..Defense News takes a look at her…..

The next U.S. defense secretary must be prepared to invest heavily in game-changing technology, even if it comes at the cost of existing capabilities, in order to maintain a credible deterrent for China and Russia, according to former Pentagon official Michèle Flournoy.

“Our ability to deter is — it’s not gone, but it’s an eroding asset,” Flournoy, who is seen as a top contender for the job of defense secretary should former Vice President Joe Biden win the November presidential election, said at the Aspen Security Forum on Aug. 6. “And we’ve got to pay attention now to making sure that we attend to that and invest in” needed capabilities.

“I think there’s, sort of, two parallel efforts that have to happen. One is investments that may take a decade to be fully realized and integrated into the force. Another is the question of, what can we do in the next five years with what we have, but use it differently,” she explained.

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/08/10/flournoy-next-defense-secretary-needs-big-bets-to-boost-eroding-deterrence/

These endless wars will remain endless….and corporate profits will increase and the troops will be second thought….not much changes.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–28Jan20

A Serious Lack Of Imagination!

By now most will be aware that we have a new a separate military branch, the Space Force…..and just last week the new “logo” was released…..

Notice anything?

The Pentagon’s new US Space Force is not Star Trek’s Starfleet Command, but their logos bear a striking similarity, the AP reports. President Trump unveiled the Space Force logo Friday, writing on Twitter that he had consulted with military leaders and designers before presenting the blue-and-white symbol, which features an arrowhead shape centered on a planetary background and encircled by the words, “United States Space Force” and “Department of the Air Force.” The logo, which bears the date 2019 in Roman numerals, also is similar in design to that of Air Force Space Command, from which Space Force was created by legislation that Trump signed in last month. (See a comparison of the Space Force logo and the Starfleet Command logo here.)

Space Force explained the logo in a statement late Friday: “The delta symbol, the central design element in the seal, was first used as early as 1942 by the US Army Air Forces; and was used in early Air Force space organization emblems dating back to 1961. Since then, the delta symbol has been a prominent feature in military space community emblems.” Space Force is the first new military service since the Air Force was created in 1947. It is meant mainly to improve protection of US satellites and other space assets, rather than to put warriors in orbit to conduct combat in outer space. “After consultation with our Great Military Leaders, designers, and others, I am pleased to present the new logo for the United States Space Force, the Sixth Branch of our Magnificent Military!” Trump wrote. George Takei, who played Mr. Sulu in the original Star Trek TV series and films, tweeted in response, “Ahem. We are expecting some royalties from this.”

First the logo illustrates a serious lack of imagination then secondly…if it is a separate military force why is it labelled with United States Air Force as well?

Well the Trump administration will never be known for its imagination…..anyway.

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–16Jan20

I read a post by a fellow blogger and friend John about the troops in West Africa and thought I would expand on his thought.  https://linesbyliming.com/2020/01/15/islamist-militants-threaten-africa/

After several deaths of US troops in West Africa and the scandals of Americans killing Americans in drunken stupors the Pentagon is considering pulling US troops from West Africa…..

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper is interested in seeing a substantial reduction in troops and operations ongoing in Western Africa, with the troops being redeployed to areas closer to Russia and China.

This comes, ironically, amid speculation about the Islamist factions in the Sahel, and suggestions this might be a growing priority for the US. Esper, however, has made much of wanting to have more troops directly lined up against Russia and China for “Great Power” competitions.

Among the pullouts in West Africa would be ending US operations in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso. The end of US involvement in Niger would include abandoning the $110 million drone base that the US just got finished building and bringing into operation.

After West Africa, the plan is that the US will also draw down forces in Latin America, and subsequently then cut troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, all as part of a new pivot to Eastern Europe and the Pacific.

Exactly how many troops are going to be involved isn’t clear, and indeed how many troops are in some of these areas is not publicly known any longer, given the Pentagon’s recent opacity on such figures.

The eagerness to make such moves at all represents Esper having only recently taken over the Defense Secretary post, and wanting to put his stamp on it.

(antiwar.com)

I thought this was just wishful thinking but now a top general is calling for the same thing…..

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told reporters on Monday that the US intends to reduce its military presence within Africa, saying its possible the troops could either return to the continental US or be shifted to the Pacific.

Shifting troops to the Pacific is a long-standing goal of the US military, but has tended to get derailed as plans to draw down forces elsewhere fall apart. It’s not clear exactly how many troops the US have in Africa, but Milley is just the latest to say they could end up in the Pacific.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper talked about drawdowns in Africa, Afghanistan, and Iraq to get troops to send to the areas near China and Russia. The US, however, is resisting the Iraq pullout now, since Iraq wants it.

France is opposed to the US drawdown, since they are increasingly committed militarily to the Sahel, and are keen to have the US participate in those open-ended operations.

(antiwar.com)

I would like to see these troops come home but for the reasons I have mentioned many times before…..but just a passing thought to gain some attention is not the way to position one self as a person of power and knowledge.

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Strategy Lessons for a New Secretary of Defense

We have a brand new SecDef, less than a month in place, and there is worries that he is a bit too military for an accuracy needed in the position.  Others think that he will be a yes man to his boss….he will design policy to fit rhetoric.

Personally, I think that he might be a good choice…..but as usual the government went to the M-IC for the new leader……that would make him a neo-liberal in his world vision and that is disastrous for the military and the people it serves.

The RAND Corp has written some suggestion for the new guy in the Pentagon….while I am not a neo-liberal by any stretch these are good suggestions and could improve the new SecDef position……

Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump promised “a great rebuilding” of the United States military. This tall order will fall predominantly on his new Secretary of Defense, retired Marine General James Mattis. Over the next several months, Mattis will need to begin laying the intellectual groundwork to accomplish this objective. His team will craft a new Defense Strategic Review (formerly known as the Quadrennial Defense Review) and unveil a host of other issue and service-specific documents. If history is any precedent, most of these documents will be flashes in the pan, discussed by Washington policy wonks for a month or two before fading into relative obscurity. Yet, history also suggests that some strategy documents can have a more lasting impact and that the difference is often the result of how the strategies were developed as much as what they say. And so, setting aside the question of what policies the new administration’s strategy documents should contain, there is a question of how to structure the strategy-making process to maximize their impact.

Source: Five Simple Strategy Lessons for a New Secretary of Defense | RealClearDefense

I realize that generals can be hard-headed but in this case he should take the advice and work for a better world…..not just ways to destroy parts of it……