Posted on Jan 10, 2024
Republican Lawmakers: We Aren't Letting This Austin Scandal Go
6.63K
94
17
16
16
0
The White House made it clear this week that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin will face no consequences for failing to notify President Joe Biden about an elective surgery, which landed him in the intensive care unit for days. While Austin was unable to do his job, a deputy on vacation was also unaware of his condition and the National Security Council was not immediately informed. Biden was also left in the dark. National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby told reporters onboard Air Force One Monday in an attempt to explain away the situation, “We’ll take a look at process and procedure here and try to learn from this experience. And if there’s some changes that need to be made, you know, in terms of process and procedure, we’ll do that.” Kirby then praised Austin’s “leadership” over the years, including the disastrous and catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan
Republican Lawmakers: We Aren't Letting This Austin Scandal Go
Posted from townhall.com
SECDEF
Chain of Command
Edited 2 y ago
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 4
9
9
0
From all of RP both sides of the aisle I have seen veterans agree that this was a serious breach in national security and he should either submit a resignation and let the White House chew on it or just outright remove him. Among many many other things he is the principal advisor to the President on the use of the nuclear football and for him to be out of commission and not notify anyone, that is not good. IMHO.
(9)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
PO2 R F. - PO2 Frost...I agree with most of what you stated, however, the Sec Def is unique in that he is legally and directly second in command of the Armed Forces. Therefore, by him not being available it was a breach of his command duties even as a civilian. He is THE principal advisor and is part of the procedure to use the football...his information and him physically without getting into it here are personally required unless he is incapable of carrying out his duties then he delegates, and it require a lot coord to recode some things for the next person in line. Should we have had to use the hot option (not saying we would have but Putin is unpredictable) it would have taken time to recode et al to get a retaliatory strike off...how long that takes and what it entails I don't know but I am sure it isn't a short process. By his not transferring his duties he could have put national security at risk...yes one man could have done that...now there are plenty of people that can step up and advise but there is only one that has command authority as a civilian and that is SecDef. Thanks for the commentary though...thought provoking.
(3)
(0)
SPC Michael Duricko, Ph.D
PO2 R F. Your remarks are well written and totally understandable as to how things are supposed to work, but when the next person in the chain of command admittedly was unaware of the situation and allegedly not even the President knew it certainly leaves an enormous gap in our perceived leadership qualities, for the people of our Country and the world.
(2)
(0)
SPC Michael Duricko, Ph.D
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth Very well said and certainly a great assessment of a "what if scenario". Thank you for some great clarity to what could have been a complexing and compelling situation for someone, somewhere to have to address.
(3)
(0)
PO2 R F.
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth - Hello, I similarly agree with most of what you stated from both of your postings in this feed. Perhaps we see it as “most” because we are possibly just quibbling about some similar ideas on the same issues. And before I continue to do so, I just want to say that I appreciate your thoughts, your ideas, as well as everything that you have previously said/written. Nothing that I had previously stated wasn’t so much as “disagreeing” with you in any way as me trying to elaborate on my thoughts for better clarity. I believe that we are relatively & mostly of the “same mind” and have a very similar conceptual level of understanding for this entire situation here regarding the extremely poor choices and actions taken by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
My first statement was primarily in regards to the naivety of another person’s post within your feed than anything that you, yourself had previously written.
I believe that it is the scope of the SOD’s overall role as being absolutely vital and essential in everything regarding the “football’s” use may be where we may find some of our potential differences to the general ideas here as well as where we may not “exactly” see everything “eye to eye”.
However slim those differences may well be, I would like to say that there are many redundancies built into the US’s chain of command structure that provides some kind of relatively adequate coverage's for any such similar “absences” of any such kind such as those directly related to the command and control of the “football”. Much as it so did for the SOD during his careless actions that forced his absence. In regards to the “football”, the SOD, and any of his potential “football” related responsibilities that the SOD may or may not have with the “football”, It is highly unlikely that the SOD has any direct responsibilities for the “football” or has any kind of direct control over the “football” other than those related to his advisory role for the President.
Besides, I wouldn’t want to waste everyone’s time here by continuing on with any further long winded explanations that are truly unnecessary & completely pointless in the long run.
My first statement was primarily in regards to the naivety of another person’s post within your feed than anything that you, yourself had previously written.
I believe that it is the scope of the SOD’s overall role as being absolutely vital and essential in everything regarding the “football’s” use may be where we may find some of our potential differences to the general ideas here as well as where we may not “exactly” see everything “eye to eye”.
However slim those differences may well be, I would like to say that there are many redundancies built into the US’s chain of command structure that provides some kind of relatively adequate coverage's for any such similar “absences” of any such kind such as those directly related to the command and control of the “football”. Much as it so did for the SOD during his careless actions that forced his absence. In regards to the “football”, the SOD, and any of his potential “football” related responsibilities that the SOD may or may not have with the “football”, It is highly unlikely that the SOD has any direct responsibilities for the “football” or has any kind of direct control over the “football” other than those related to his advisory role for the President.
Besides, I wouldn’t want to waste everyone’s time here by continuing on with any further long winded explanations that are truly unnecessary & completely pointless in the long run.
(2)
(0)
8
8
0
If anyone on RP had done this while in service, we'd have been rightly hammered. This is one unifying topic I have seen across this platform
(8)
(0)
Lt Col Charlie Brown
Exactly right. Deriliction of duty. He knew better...he was a General Officer. He would have hammered his own troops for this.
(6)
(0)
2
2
0
Everyone is approaching this as if RETIRED General Austin was still active duty. He is now a civilian.
As a civilian, his boss has no rights to his medical and health information. Even if he is the SecDef and his boss is the POTUS.
Yes, there was some problem with communication when he was out of the office unexpectedly while in hospital. And yes, that needs to be handled and fixed.
But Austin notified his aide and tasked the aide to make notifications. The aide failed to do so due to the flu. That is hardly an acceptable answer, because people with the flu - unless they are themselves hospitalized - can make four 5 minutes phone calls: 1 each to Austin's #2, POTUS, and Jake Sullivan notifying them; and one to their own #2 letting them know to cover down, monitor Austin's situation, and provide updates to responsible individuals, as necessary.
But most of the uproar I have seen has been that Austin didn't tell folks he had the surgery - which is none of their business (he was on leave at the time).
Yes, problems and transgressions. But these are slap on the wrist offenses. FIRM slaps on the wrist, that sting for an hour or two, yes. But not firing offenses.
Just my $0.02.
Lt Col Charlie Brown Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth SPC Michael Duricko, Ph.D CSM Chuck Stafford 1SG Russell Scott SSgt Richard Kensinger
As a civilian, his boss has no rights to his medical and health information. Even if he is the SecDef and his boss is the POTUS.
Yes, there was some problem with communication when he was out of the office unexpectedly while in hospital. And yes, that needs to be handled and fixed.
But Austin notified his aide and tasked the aide to make notifications. The aide failed to do so due to the flu. That is hardly an acceptable answer, because people with the flu - unless they are themselves hospitalized - can make four 5 minutes phone calls: 1 each to Austin's #2, POTUS, and Jake Sullivan notifying them; and one to their own #2 letting them know to cover down, monitor Austin's situation, and provide updates to responsible individuals, as necessary.
But most of the uproar I have seen has been that Austin didn't tell folks he had the surgery - which is none of their business (he was on leave at the time).
Yes, problems and transgressions. But these are slap on the wrist offenses. FIRM slaps on the wrist, that sting for an hour or two, yes. But not firing offenses.
Just my $0.02.
Lt Col Charlie Brown Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth SPC Michael Duricko, Ph.D CSM Chuck Stafford 1SG Russell Scott SSgt Richard Kensinger
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CSM Chuck Stafford I do not deny the problems that have arisen or come to fruition under his watch, including what you mentioned - and more!. I think he should be gone for any number of those.
But the current hoopla over *this* is, IMHO, a loss of honest perspective and a bit of a wander down the path toward the land of "the world we wish existed" and away from the world of reality.
But the current hoopla over *this* is, IMHO, a loss of honest perspective and a bit of a wander down the path toward the land of "the world we wish existed" and away from the world of reality.
(3)
(0)
CSM Chuck Stafford
SFC Casey O'Mally - Well IMHO, he dishonored his Soldiers with poor leadership regarding Afghanistan (a tough situation), he is dishonoring his commitment to the security of our nation with social branding and the recruiting of the next generation of Soldiers (the metrics bear this out), and now disrespect for the mundane task of keeping his boss in the loop. Being SecDef is no doubt a tough and challenging job, but if you can't do the simple tasks, you probably won't perform well with the difficult -- he has a very consistent track record -- just a viewpoint from my fighting position
(4)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
SFC Casey O'Mally I really don't care about anything he has done in his job. I am looking at this as a single incident and not out to get him fired...but this was a serious breach inthe Chainof Command. And looking at it that way, here are his responsibilities (excerpt from DTIC report at link below) "The position of Secretary of Defense is unique within the U.S. government it is one of two civilian positions within the military chain of command, although unlike the President, the Secretary of Defense is not elected. Section 113 of the United States Code states that the Secretary of Defense is to be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The section goes on to elaborate a key mechanism by which civilian control of the Armed Forces is maintained A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force."
Key words are he is second in the military chain of command...provides a key mechanism by which civilian control of the miltary is controlled. I am not out to see who shot john and shoot someone at dawn. I think there needs to be some kind of inquiry to make sure this does not happen again. He is THE PRINCIPAL ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT up to and including the use of the nuclear football. I know the President nor anyone else needs to know what surgery he had...none of their business...but having surgery requires anethesia et al where you cannot do what your are tasked to do and therefore you should notify the next in the Chain of Command which is the President...he nor his aide nor is deputy did that...they didn't even transfer responsibilty as far as I have read. That is a breach in his enormous responsibility to the national security of the US and its interests. Now, does he or his Three Star Director of Staff or Aide need to be fired, maybe maybe not but that is for POTUS to decide as he serves at the discretion of the President. BUT somewhere there needs to be at least an inquiry as to where the communication breakdown happened so it does not happen again. Just my opinion and two cents.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1147492
Lt Col Charlie Brown LTC Trent Klug CMSgt Marcus Falleaf Cpl Vic Burk MSgt James Parker SMSgt Lawrence McCarter CMSgt (Join to see) Sgt (Join to see) PO1 H Gene Lawrence LTC David Brown
Key words are he is second in the military chain of command...provides a key mechanism by which civilian control of the miltary is controlled. I am not out to see who shot john and shoot someone at dawn. I think there needs to be some kind of inquiry to make sure this does not happen again. He is THE PRINCIPAL ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT up to and including the use of the nuclear football. I know the President nor anyone else needs to know what surgery he had...none of their business...but having surgery requires anethesia et al where you cannot do what your are tasked to do and therefore you should notify the next in the Chain of Command which is the President...he nor his aide nor is deputy did that...they didn't even transfer responsibilty as far as I have read. That is a breach in his enormous responsibility to the national security of the US and its interests. Now, does he or his Three Star Director of Staff or Aide need to be fired, maybe maybe not but that is for POTUS to decide as he serves at the discretion of the President. BUT somewhere there needs to be at least an inquiry as to where the communication breakdown happened so it does not happen again. Just my opinion and two cents.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1147492
Lt Col Charlie Brown LTC Trent Klug CMSgt Marcus Falleaf Cpl Vic Burk MSgt James Parker SMSgt Lawrence McCarter CMSgt (Join to see) Sgt (Join to see) PO1 H Gene Lawrence LTC David Brown
The Position of Secretary of Defense: Statutory Restrictions and Civilian-Military Relations
The position of Secretary of Defense is unique within the U.S. government it is one of two civilian positions within the military chain of command, although unlike the President, the Secretary of Defense is not elected. Section 113 of the United States Code states that the Secretary of Defense is to be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The section goes on to elaborate a key...
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google