Loading...

"Lloyd Austin retired from military service more than four years ago. The law states that an officer must have left the service at least seven years..." - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title "Lloyd Austin retired from military service more than four years ago. The law states that an officer must have left the service at least seven years...", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "Lloyd Austin retired from military service more than four years ago. The law states that an officer must have left the service at least seven years..."
link : "Lloyd Austin retired from military service more than four years ago. The law states that an officer must have left the service at least seven years..."

"Lloyd Austin retired from military service more than four years ago. The law states that an officer must have left the service at least seven years..."

"... before becoming secretary of defense. But I hope that Congress will grant a waiver to Secretary-designate Austin, just as Congress did for Secretary Jim Mattis.... I respect and believe in the importance of civilian control of our military and in the importance of a strong civil-military working relationship at DoD—as does Austin. We need empowered civilians working with military leaders to shape DoD’s policies and ensure that our defense policies are accountable to the American people."

From "Why I Chose Lloyd Austin as Secretary of Defense/We need a leader who is tested, and matched to the challenges we face in this moment" by Joe Biden (in The Atlantic).

For those who opposed the waiver for Mattis, it is easy — almost mandatory — to oppose the waiver for Austin. Senator Elizabeth Warren said yesterday: "I have great respect for Gen. Austin. His career has been exemplary, and I look forward to meeting him and talking to him more, but I opposed a waiver for Gen. [James] Mattis, and I will oppose a waiver for Gen. Austin."

It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin. It will seem as though reciprocity is required and to deny it will open them up to accusations of racism. (Austin is African American.) Their only defense would entail disparaging Trump — he somehow needed special help and lacked options. 

Here's a Wall Street Journal article that I was able to read without a subscription, "Biden’s Pick for Defense Chief Rekindles a Civilian-Military Debate/Gen. Austin will need a congressional waiver, as did Gen. Mattis, posing a test for Democrats." Excerpt:

Some defense experts questioned why Gen. Austin should receive a waiver, given that his expertise is the Middle East and the incoming administration says that China is emerging as the main threat to U.S. interests. Mr. Biden didn’t mention China in his Atlantic article defending his decision to pick Gen. Austin.

That is, what is the special reason that Austin is needed? Is it race? If so, what about gender? I see: "Michèle Flournoy Again Finds Her Shot at the Top Pentagon Job Elusive/President-elect Joe Biden’s decision to instead nominate retired Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III enraged many of the women Ms. Flournoy elevated from the trenches of national security policy" (NYT):

“An entire generation of national security women used her as their role model in how to navigate a male-dominated job,” said Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, who also worked for Ms. Flournoy. “The lesson she provided for women is that you have to always be the best prepared in the room. I literally learned that from her, and I now pass that down to the young women who work for me.”... 

But even her supporters acknowledge that Ms. Flournoy’s WestExec consulting role, and her position as an adviser to the investment fund Pine Island Capital Partners, put her in the cross hairs of many liberal critics, something her business partner in those roles, Antony J. Blinken, seemed to escape when Mr. Biden announced him as the nominee for secretary of state....

Loading...

"... before becoming secretary of defense. But I hope that Congress will grant a waiver to Secretary-designate Austin, just as Congress did for Secretary Jim Mattis.... I respect and believe in the importance of civilian control of our military and in the importance of a strong civil-military working relationship at DoD—as does Austin. We need empowered civilians working with military leaders to shape DoD’s policies and ensure that our defense policies are accountable to the American people."

From "Why I Chose Lloyd Austin as Secretary of Defense/We need a leader who is tested, and matched to the challenges we face in this moment" by Joe Biden (in The Atlantic).

For those who opposed the waiver for Mattis, it is easy — almost mandatory — to oppose the waiver for Austin. Senator Elizabeth Warren said yesterday: "I have great respect for Gen. Austin. His career has been exemplary, and I look forward to meeting him and talking to him more, but I opposed a waiver for Gen. [James] Mattis, and I will oppose a waiver for Gen. Austin."

It's hard to see how Republicans who voted for the waiver for Mattis can deny a waiver for Austin. It will seem as though reciprocity is required and to deny it will open them up to accusations of racism. (Austin is African American.) Their only defense would entail disparaging Trump — he somehow needed special help and lacked options. 

Here's a Wall Street Journal article that I was able to read without a subscription, "Biden’s Pick for Defense Chief Rekindles a Civilian-Military Debate/Gen. Austin will need a congressional waiver, as did Gen. Mattis, posing a test for Democrats." Excerpt:

Some defense experts questioned why Gen. Austin should receive a waiver, given that his expertise is the Middle East and the incoming administration says that China is emerging as the main threat to U.S. interests. Mr. Biden didn’t mention China in his Atlantic article defending his decision to pick Gen. Austin.

That is, what is the special reason that Austin is needed? Is it race? If so, what about gender? I see: "Michèle Flournoy Again Finds Her Shot at the Top Pentagon Job Elusive/President-elect Joe Biden’s decision to instead nominate retired Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III enraged many of the women Ms. Flournoy elevated from the trenches of national security policy" (NYT):

“An entire generation of national security women used her as their role model in how to navigate a male-dominated job,” said Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, who also worked for Ms. Flournoy. “The lesson she provided for women is that you have to always be the best prepared in the room. I literally learned that from her, and I now pass that down to the young women who work for me.”... 

But even her supporters acknowledge that Ms. Flournoy’s WestExec consulting role, and her position as an adviser to the investment fund Pine Island Capital Partners, put her in the cross hairs of many liberal critics, something her business partner in those roles, Antony J. Blinken, seemed to escape when Mr. Biden announced him as the nominee for secretary of state....

Thus articles "Lloyd Austin retired from military service more than four years ago. The law states that an officer must have left the service at least seven years..."

that is all articles "Lloyd Austin retired from military service more than four years ago. The law states that an officer must have left the service at least seven years..." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "Lloyd Austin retired from military service more than four years ago. The law states that an officer must have left the service at least seven years..." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2020/12/lloyd-austin-retired-from-military.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: