Posted on Sep 23, 2015
Why Can’t the Next Secretary of the Army be a Veteran?
8.46K
142
50
34
34
0
Why Can’t the Next Secretary of the Army be a Veteran?
Why Can’t the Next Secretary of the Army be a Veteran?
RP Members there have been a few posts about the new Secretary of the Army, but why can't he be a veteran?
If it weren’t for the large sample size, you would think that the results of the Military Times survey of troop morale couldn’t possibly have been accurate. Released last December, the numbers were brutal. In response to the statement, “The senior military leadership has my best interests at heart,” only 27% agreed, down from 53% in a previous survey conducted in 2009. As for, “Overall officers in the military are good or excellent,” only 49% agreed, down from 78% in the 2009 survey. Agreement with, “Overall my quality of life is good or excellent,” dropped from 91% agreement in 2009 to 56% in 2014, and President Obama’s personal approval rating was an eye-catching 15%.
By anyone’s standard, these numbers should have constituted an alarm for senior defense policymakers, suggesting that whatever they were doing, they should probably try the opposite. So it is disheartening, and even a little stunning, to see the news confirmed in recent days that the president is nominating Eric Fanning, a Washington insider and defense bureaucrat who has never spent a single day in uniform, to be the next secretary of the Army.
The military is of course led by civilians, and there is no statutory requirement that the service secretaries or other senior officials be veterans—and that’s fine. Indeed, Fanning replaces John McHugh in the office, another non-veteran and a career politician among whose signature accomplishments as a congressman was being named one of Capitol Hill’s “50 Most Beautiful People” in 2006. The survey provided some indication of the troops’ opinions of his work. Indeed, since Ash Carter’s appointment as secretary of Defense in February, members of the United States Army have had a civilian chain of command, from McHugh through the president, composed entirely of men who have never put on a uniform for their country. Hagel, Panetta, and Gates had all served.
Why Can’t the Next Secretary of the Army be a Veteran?
RP Members there have been a few posts about the new Secretary of the Army, but why can't he be a veteran?
If it weren’t for the large sample size, you would think that the results of the Military Times survey of troop morale couldn’t possibly have been accurate. Released last December, the numbers were brutal. In response to the statement, “The senior military leadership has my best interests at heart,” only 27% agreed, down from 53% in a previous survey conducted in 2009. As for, “Overall officers in the military are good or excellent,” only 49% agreed, down from 78% in the 2009 survey. Agreement with, “Overall my quality of life is good or excellent,” dropped from 91% agreement in 2009 to 56% in 2014, and President Obama’s personal approval rating was an eye-catching 15%.
By anyone’s standard, these numbers should have constituted an alarm for senior defense policymakers, suggesting that whatever they were doing, they should probably try the opposite. So it is disheartening, and even a little stunning, to see the news confirmed in recent days that the president is nominating Eric Fanning, a Washington insider and defense bureaucrat who has never spent a single day in uniform, to be the next secretary of the Army.
The military is of course led by civilians, and there is no statutory requirement that the service secretaries or other senior officials be veterans—and that’s fine. Indeed, Fanning replaces John McHugh in the office, another non-veteran and a career politician among whose signature accomplishments as a congressman was being named one of Capitol Hill’s “50 Most Beautiful People” in 2006. The survey provided some indication of the troops’ opinions of his work. Indeed, since Ash Carter’s appointment as secretary of Defense in February, members of the United States Army have had a civilian chain of command, from McHugh through the president, composed entirely of men who have never put on a uniform for their country. Hagel, Panetta, and Gates had all served.
Why Can’t the Next Secretary of the Army be a Veteran?
Posted from freebeacon.com
Politics
Office of the President (POTUS)
Soldiers
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 35
1
1
0
Question?
Could Trump later place a Veteran to the office or is it a one time pick?
If so his time in office might give him time to change it later.
Could Trump later place a Veteran to the office or is it a one time pick?
If so his time in office might give him time to change it later.
(1)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
PO3 (Join to see) I believe with Trump's pick for SecDef is the right direction! I believe it could be a start!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
All of these responses seem to think that the SECARMY has a place that needs to be informed by service. I agree, but that is what the service Chiefs are for. The SECs are supposed to be budget, politics, and business guys while the service chiefs advise them as needed. The intent of the SECs was not for them to be in the chain of command but civilian oversight. Rumsfeld screwed all of that up.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Just look at the survey again. If things are that screwed up (and they are) then do you really want them reaching into the ranks of the retired generals that got us to this point to find a SECARMY?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It's astounding to me. IMHO, all Secretary's of all Branches inc Secretary of Defense should all be Veterans. No one else could understand the complexity and ideals of the person in uniform. Morale would in my opinion increase exponentially if a Veteran was put in charge of each branch and the SecDef. Air Force General as AF Secretary, Army General as Army Secretary and so on. Who else understands the individual branches and missions then someone who has been there.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The position is a bridge One side Civilian and the other Military.Me personally.The position should be held by an Ambassador of sorts, who knows that the best Leaders win without War,someone proficient in both areas.That's not a sign of weakness but strength.Veteran or not she or he should be able to bridge gap between Civilian and Military.In my humble opinion Sir.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It would be nice, but the POTUS picks who he thinks is best for job, whether we like it or not. Remember respect for the position, not the person.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Certainly nothing wrong with a vet as a service secretary or even higher. Doesn't necessarily mean success in the position in and of itself. We already had one veteran as DECDEF under POTUS. Recollect what happened to him when he proved, to be honest, and had was relieved for failure to get in step with the WH. Political appointees are mere pawns with no discretion except to implement administration policy.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Suspended Profile
COL Mikel J. Burroughs I agree that the civilian leadership in DOD (and the NCA) would be much more effective if they had served on Active Duty. However, our Constitution doesn't mandate this, and quite the opposite, deliberately calls for civilian oversight of DOD.
That being said, I don't care how long Ash Carter or this new gent have worked in DOD civilian positions; without having worn the uniform and deployed, they really don't get it...
That being said, I don't care how long Ash Carter or this new gent have worked in DOD civilian positions; without having worn the uniform and deployed, they really don't get it...
1
1
0
Consider the source of the nomination. Anyone who doesn't have the best interests of the military at heart wouldn't nominate someone worthy of that position. i agree with COL Jean (John) F. B. and I'll add that I believe it was disrespectful to the men and women who voluntarily serve.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google