Thread by @lindsaypcohn

Argh.
No.
Stop appointing recently retired GOFOs as SecDef. OSD is not a military shop, it’s supposed to be the main locus of defense POLICY-making. The person in charge will have PLENTY of military advisors around; what we need in that role is a POLICY-maker.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1336096364074311682

And no, the national security council staff cannot possibly do all of the defense policy-making on its own.

https://twitter.com/korischake/status/1336101407963766784

Look, I get that ppl think it makes sense to put someone in at SecDef who has military experience. And in many ways, SOME military experience would be good (though NOT necessary) ...

But taking s/o who has spent 30-40 yrs as an officer and then almost immediately putting them in charge of the Dept is too much like saying this is just a higher military job; implies too much continuity b/t what they were just doing and what they will be doing now.

Here it is (h/t @AlexHSullivan )

https://twitter.com/alexhsullivan/status/1336103586753875969

If this is an attempt to “de-politicize” things, it’s misguided. This seems designed to imply that the pick isn’t partisan/political. But what we NEED is to restore a sense that, while these are partisan appointed positions, their purpose is always to serve the *public interest*

If this is an attempt to show that it’s not a “political” pick, it does Mr. Austin and the rest of the military a disservice, by continuing to use them as a shield to hide behind, to give false legitimacy, when the public deserves to have the president’s case put to them directly

(To clarify: I have no special knowledge of why Biden has gone with this choice; I’m speculating)

Ok. There are pros and cons to any pick. Pros to Austin are that Biden clearly feels they’d have a good working relationship, he’s got relevant experience, and it is another barrier broken for black ppl in this country.

Cons (inter al.) are that it further weakens an impt norm and strengthens the popular but problematic belief that running the military is a military job.

I personally think this isn’t the best pro-con balance available, and wish we weren’t here, but it’s prbly also not the worst

I’m adding these points to the thread bc most of us in this debate are guilty (✋) of just pointing to a pro or a con and saying “see? This is good/bad”, when the reality is always about finding the best pro-con balance we can. This isn’t my fave, but not the end of the world.

I don’t retract any of my criticism and I still think this is very bad for the project of restoring really important weakened civil norms - particularly surrounding excessive deference to the military. I’m just acknowledging that those aren’t the only things that matter.