Austin takes on the civ-mil issues up front. Emphasizes that USD(P) (@ColinKahl) will be included in high-level decision-making.
Austin pledges to "stamp our sexual assault" and "to rid our ranks of racists and extremists."
"While I did not seek this job, I consider it an honor," Austin says. "I will uphold the principle of civilian control of the military as intended."
Austin ends his remarks; Inhofe immediately calls him "General Austin."🤦🏽♂️
Inhofe now asking Austin about the necessity of the nuclear triad, describing nuclear deterrence as DoD's most important responsibility. "I personally support the triad," says Austin.
Inhofe pop quizzes Austin on Western Saharan self-determination. (?) Not sure I grok the sequencing of these questions.
Tom Cotton says he opposes a waiver for Austin, adding that he regrets supporting a waiver for Mattis (and that George Marshall shouldn't have gotten a waiver either).
Not often I say this, but I don't think I disagreed with a single part of Cotton's justification for opposing a waiver.
Coda: Do I expect Cotton to maintain his principled opposition the next time a GOP president puts forward a retired general for a waiver? Not quite.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This doesn't get said enough. Everything can't matter equally and we should be creating incentives for local partners to step up; don't ignore the IOR, but recognize that it's not the fulcrum for US interests in Asia.
This was gnawing at me during the whole First Fleet trial balloon. Resources are already thin and overstretched; over-emphasizing the IOR is a setup for failure. India and Australia should be taking the lead.
Along these lines, I've admired the clarity in some Indian strategic documents (like the Maritime Security Strategy), which notes clear "primary" and "secondary" areas of interest for New Delhi in Indo-Pacific. It's okay to say certain things matter less than others.
The document notes that "North Korea debuted the Hwasong-14 ICBM in an October 2015 parade." (USIC calls the October 2015 ICBM mockups the KN14, but this designator system is not used in the NASIC report.)
Page 28 of the NASIC report then includes this photograph, from North Korea's July 4, 2017, launch of an *actual* Hwasong-14 ICBM (KN20). The caption notes it's a "modified Hwasong-14."
If DF-41 is no longer CSS-X-20 (the 'X' implying developmental) then this sentence doesn't really make sense. Is the DF-41 past the development phase or not?
Yes. And note that it comes on the same day Pompeo swipes at "multiculturalism." Hard for me to take the concerns of people who wouldn't want a practicing Muslim Uyghur family for neighbors seriously.