36 Comments
User's avatar
MissLadyK's avatar

Let’s hope he leaves his TV personality behind and moves forward implementing Trump’s agenda. I’m sure he’ll have some input along with loyalty and love of Country. Doesn’t seem that difficult to cut the Woke programs, start replacing unqualified enlistments with qualified warriors and changing the military culture from one of political dominance to one of keeping our Country safe.

Expand full comment
Charles Wemyss, Jr.'s avatar

This post highlights the difficulty. Perhaps Robert McNamara? He had high intellect, had run Ford Motor Company (do we forgive the Edsel?) Then with all his acumen and all the Whiz Kids around him he continued on a course, a most costly course in the Republic Of Vietnam. He knew early on it wasn’t working and lied about it to the American people. His mea culpa rang on deaf ears for much of the country. Those of you who worked for Secretary’s Rumsfeld and Gates have your view, you were lucky to serve at that high level and see how things really work, or perhaps in reality how they don’t work. Not being there, and only having limited knowledge of the inner workings via reading (who knows how meaningful that is) what is the difference between McNamara and Rumsfeld and Gates? Frankly this writer sees none. They saw and must have known their efforts were not yielding results and carried on anyway. 10 years of Vietnam and 20 plus years of the GWOT and what have we got? Looks like a hotter pot than we started out with and like Vietnam, an outcome that more or less left each region in the same sad shape we found it in when we started out. The final question is who would want these jobs in the first place. If one landed in the middle of a rifle company as a supply officer now a company commander would the response be “I’m not qualified?” It has happened more than once, and people either rise to the occasion or they don’t. One thing all good companies and military units tend to have, is a Big Boss who knows what he doesn’t know and surrounds himself with talent, and in fact some whom are even smarter than he is, and he lets them run hard and fast. Guess we are going to find all this out if Mr. Hegseth is confirmed.

Expand full comment
Zippy86's avatar

My question is what you thought of Mark Esper as the Secdef? He is a USMA classmate of mine a good friend and a great leader. In your opinion, was he qualified to serve as the SecArmy then SecDef?

Expand full comment
Bryan McGrath's avatar

He was qualified to be SecArmy by virtue of his Army and Industry background, and he was qualified to be SecDef because he had been SecArmy.

Expand full comment
Y. Andropov's avatar

Why not just have the Pentagon nominate the Secretary of Defense? CIA also.

Expand full comment
Ryan Sheldon's avatar

Civilian control is important here. We have the authority to elect the President, who nominates the SecDef to be confirmed by Congress. An element of civilian control of the military would be lost if unelected officials within the Pentagon (or even worse flag officers) nominated SecDef.

Expand full comment
Y. Andropov's avatar

Substack is the Irony-Free Zone.

Expand full comment
Ryan Sheldon's avatar

What’s a shame is many people genuinely have that question haha

Expand full comment
Jim Furia's avatar

You are so right on this. I was taken back by his nomination. He simply doesn't have the experience or background for SecDef.

Expand full comment
Zippy86's avatar

What background does someone need to be the Secdef? We keep hearing that Hegseth doesn't have it, but no one say what experience a SecDef should have.

Expand full comment
Bryan McGrath's avatar

I think if you read my article some one says what experience a SecDef should have. Someone also points out two examples of resumes/records of well-qualified SecDefs. There is NO world in which Hegseth is qualified to be SecDef, except in a world in which the President wants to put a loyalist into a job to break dishes.

Expand full comment
Zippy86's avatar

I read your whole article twice and I think you are missing some things that made your two examples of Good Secdefs besides understanding the behemoth of DOD and the bureaucratic night mare that is government and DOD. Gates and Rumsfeld were both unafraid of making changes and questioning why it was done the way it is being done. Gates, for one, once asked why government officials needed to fly on an executive jet when a commercial jet was going the same way. He suggested that the Air Force get rid of the squadron that flew the exjets. He lost that battle, but was able to get others in the DOD to consider changes. I think discussing Macnamera and Marshall would add to the depth of your argument. I am concerned about Hegseth. However, Hegseth may not be a Gates, but he just might be the man for the times we are in. I think our senators will be able to figure this out.

Expand full comment
Michael Franken's avatar

A level of self-actualization is far more valuable than blind obedience to break glass and be an agent of change. Unhinged behavior/decision-making with no understanding of department-wide ramifications is akin to playing with a loaded Derringer while drunk. And placing the onus on 52% of the Senate's 'good judgment' while that Derringer is pointed at their heads is...misplaced faith.

Expand full comment
Bryan McGrath's avatar

They were unafraid of making changes and questioning why things were done that way because they had mastered those systems and their drawbacks. They knew those systems inside and out. I'm quite content with the depth of my argument. What do you have for Hegseth? "...but he just might be the man for the times we are in"? Whose argument lacks depth?

Expand full comment
Zippy86's avatar

Never said your argument lacked depth. It would have been nice to compare and contrast leadership and management styles among more than two successful men. I agree with you that Hegseth does not have the background that Gates or Rumsfeld had, but there is also an age difference that might be considered. The comment about a man for the times we are in is an attempt to open discussion. What characteristics does Hegseth have that might just help? What if he is successful? Like I said before, I believe our senate will do their job and help pick the right leader.

Expand full comment
Brent Mayes's avatar

Where can I find more regarding your thoughts of Don Rumsfeld? Your statement was a surprise to me.

Expand full comment
Brent Mayes's avatar

Ok, that helps me understand the column much better also.

Expand full comment
Bryan McGrath's avatar

You know, I'm not sure if I've articulated it to any degree before. He wasn't perfect (his decision to jam all desired upgrades into the first FORD carrier was a disaster), but the degree to which the Pentagon said "how high" when he said "jump" was notable. I was on the Joint Staff while he was Secretary, and I used to love his "snowflakes"--mostly because I think he already knew the answer to the inconvenient questions he was asking.

Expand full comment
Tom Murin's avatar

He's such a rube his office would even notify POTUS if he were hospitalized and incapacitated.

Expand full comment
Steve C's avatar

Well said.

One of the problems with the "we need outsiders to disrupt things" crowd is "disruption" requires an understanding of the current system and how to use it to make the things you want to do happen. Otherwise it's not disruption, it's just "breaking shit" and DoD is a very dangerous place to do that.

Expand full comment
Adina Halter's avatar

Excellently said!! I’d love to quote you.

Expand full comment
Steve C's avatar

Sure, quote away.

Given the events of the last week I'm pretty happy with the way this observation has held up, unfortunately.

Expand full comment
Paul Withington, II's avatar

As a result of the last election once again I have a Republican representative in the senate, Dave McCormick. Hours after he was sworn into office, I wrote him about both the SECDEF and the SECNAV nominees saying I questioned their fitness for those offices. I questioned their knowledge of the institutions they would lead and their understanding of the national security issues our nation faces. Additionally, given that Senator McCormick in nearly every one of his campaign advertisements emphasized his West Point education - duty, honor, country - I suggested he must give critical consideration to Mr. Hegseth’s personal qualities.

Now is not the time for anyone who is not fully ready to lead these departments.

I hope everyone who follows Bryan and his friend CDR Salamander will also write their Senate representatives.

Expand full comment
Dave lahr's avatar

Did you get a response?

Expand full comment
Andy's avatar

I get responses, but none ever as fast as the short interval between swearing them in and this instant. Write one and find out.

Expand full comment
Paul Withington, II's avatar

No, I think he’s still getting his office organized. His senate.gov site was very basic suggesting he’s still getting up to speed.

Expand full comment
Dave lahr's avatar

This is a great write up, focusing on your area of expertise. I think it is safe to extrapolate this to most of the other cabinet-level appointments.

Expand full comment
Will Aubrey's avatar

I once quipped to a CO of mine: "Sir, if lieutenants ran the Navy, things would be different!" The CO replied: "I think the lieutenants would probably be different."

This nomination strikes me as a case of the lieutenant getting his wish. We'll see who was right, me or the skipper, soon enough I suppose.

Expand full comment
Michael Franken's avatar

Hegseth says 'Yes' because he knows so little. Zilch. It is that simple.

Expand full comment
Bryan McGrath's avatar

Hey Mike---Brent Mayes below asked me about my esteem for Mr Rumsfeld. Do you have any desire to discuss him/his 2nd term as SECDEF from the position of someone who worked directly for him?

Expand full comment
Michael Franken's avatar

Bryan, Ever so happy to provide my experiences with the three Secretaries I either knew personally or directly toiled under their gaze.

To respond more broadly, the confounding and horizon-unlimited job as SecDef is best performed by someone who has--

1. Ran an int'l organization or business,

2. Worked in foreign policy circles for decades,

3. Is highly technical,

4. Has extensive political cred,

5. Served in multiple gov't departments,

6. Served in uniform as a senior officer,

7. Reads books and is highly disciplined.

The preference for a SecDef is to have ~3 of those qualifications. That alone does not guarantee a successful tour for a SD, but that person will be less reliant on subordinates and WH finagling.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

One mans opinion freely given an worth ALMOST that much.

Pete Hegseth does not have to run/control A Giant Leviathan of an organization. He just has to run/control 20(?) people.

Expand full comment
Andy's avatar

Yeah, that doesn't cut it. In y 23 years, the guy that righted the ship was the one who went and met every employee he could get his hands on. Not ongoing, but out the gate.

Expand full comment
Larry Case's avatar

Spot on. I am not sure national security should enter the arena of partisanship. Well I take that back, I AM sure that it should not. But that is the world we live in, and it may eventually be our undoing alongside an impotent Congress.

Expand full comment
Wharf Rat's avatar

My problem is that the left absolutely made it partisan. I won’t clear the R’s of this either, but the first thing the current SCDEF did was tell everyone that white supremacy was all over the military and creating a which hunt.

From a black man who became a 4 star in that same military.

Is Hegseth qualified? I’m not in a position to judge.

Am I pissed that the current bureaucrats have done a miserable job of developing new warships over the last 25 years?

You bet. Status quo got us Hegseth.

Expand full comment
Michael Franken's avatar

Wharf, Sec Austin's didn't say anything close to that. He did say that senior selection boards ought to have a range of choices that are a reflection of the force.

Do you dispute that?

Expand full comment