Fox’s TV commentary show, ‘Outnumbered’, had a discussion
about President-elect Trump’s cabinet picks and had a brief discussion about
the Secretary of Defense position and the type of person needed to fill the
role. Fox News contributor, Steve
Hilton, offered some very interesting perspective, saying,
Asked for more specifics about the type of person needed,
Mr. Hilton offered this:
Mr. Hilton could not be more correct. We have a badly broken defense department that appears to be irredeemably corrupt. The procurement process, in particular, stands out as an example of fraud, corruption, and incompetence. Hilton’s suggestion that a strong businessman is required, as opposed to a former military officer, is worth serious consideration.
Without offering an opinion one way or the other, the
suggestion that Elon Musk would make a good Secretary of Defense merits serious
contemplation not so much for the idea of Musk, personally, but for the idea of
a strong, successful businessman.
President-elect Trump has an opportunity to make a good
start at reforming the Defense Department.
No one can completely fix it in just four years but a good start could
be made by selecting the right SecDef and, if I might add a personal
suggestion, firing every flag officer and starting over with the uniformed
leadership. Trump had an opportunity to
do this his first term and failed by failing to recognize the depth of
corruption and taking ruthless action.
Hopefully, he’s learned lessons and will do better this time around.
Update:
As of this moment, it’s being reported that Trump has
selected Pete Hegseth as his nominee for Secretary of Defense. If so, and if confirmed, Mr. Hegseth would be
the polar opposite of the type of person described by Mr. Hilton. Hegseth is a former National Guard officer
who has served in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan while rising to the rank of
Major. He has been heavily involved in
politics and veteran’s affairs.
He has demonstrated a dedication to the welfare of veterans
and the good of the service. What he
lacks is any experience running a massive organization like the DoD. The key will be whether he recognizes this
and can surround himself with people who can run an organization. If so, his job will be to steer them in the
right direction.
I have to be honest, this is a disappointing pick although
the potential for success is certainly present.
Firing every flag officer would be a good start for him!
Note: This is a military leadership
discussion. I will not allow political
comments. Fair warning.
________________________________
… at the Defense Department, you need a really good manager there who will sort out the corrupt mess of our defense procurement. I think Elon Musk would be brilliant in that role, actually.[1]
Someone who knows how to run things. I mean, it’s no good putting in some General, right? That place is a absolute cesspit of corruption. You’ve got to have someone who can deal with that and get the modernization of our defense forces going. It’s a management role we need there.[1]
Mr. Hilton could not be more correct. We have a badly broken defense department that appears to be irredeemably corrupt. The procurement process, in particular, stands out as an example of fraud, corruption, and incompetence. Hilton’s suggestion that a strong businessman is required, as opposed to a former military officer, is worth serious consideration.
I think he will do very well or very bad. Not much in-between. As you pointed out it depends who he surrounds himself with. One thing is for certain, he is not a MIC plant. Too bad for the insiders that they did not support Trump the first time around, he learned.
ReplyDeleteI think that Sec Hegseth will do very well at addressing the 'warfighter' attitude deficit.
ReplyDeleteBut, as was said, the DoD is a real mess and he will need someone with sharp elbows that knows their way around to be his right hand.
The problem is that there are not likely many people that know their way around that are not also part of the problem.
The waste of resources at the DoD is phenomenal, with the amount of money that we spend on defense, we should excel at everything.
Firing every flag officer probably isn't practical, but it is also probably the quickest route to fixing the issues.
Lutefisk
"Firing every flag officer probably isn't practical, but it is also probably the quickest route to fixing the issues."
DeleteEvery individual who is part of the problem and is retained simply prolongs the problem. Fire 'em all and start clean. It's not like we'd lose any efficiency or capability, right?
'It's not like we'd lose any efficiency or capability, right?'
DeleteUnassailable logic.
Lutefisk
When FDR wanted to clean up Wall Street, he hired
Deletethe biggest stock crook of the time, Joseph P. Kennedy.
So who do we nominate for our new SecDef's right hand man ?
The word warfighter is part of the problem that got us in this mess. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors are also engineers, explorers, scientists and everything else that is actually goes into winning a war.
DeleteI didn't vote for Trump, but I totally agree that this feels like a once in a generation opportunity to clean house. Trying to stay out of politics, but it would have never happened under the Democrats. I hear a lot of chatter in conservative media about "same number of flag officers today as in WW2, but the military is 10% of the size as it was back then" and "at least half the flag officers need to go." This urgent need isn't even on the Democrats radar.
ReplyDeleteI would hope this would be done in conjunction with the Department of Gov Efficiency. I remember the buried consultant report that almost half the DoD office jobs could be removed and simplified with no impact (except lost jobs). And I read that the "warrior board" to review firings would include retired non-commissioned officers. As the son of retired Command Master Chief, this is a fantastic idea! They add a unique perspective from the rank and file on cutting out the BS and getting the mission done.
"but it would have never happened under the Democrats."
DeleteBoth sides of the isle have had opportunities to address the problem and both have only made it worse. That's all that needs to be said on the political aspect.
This show will be great. From Yahoo news today:
ReplyDeleteIn June, at a rally in Las Vegas, Trump encouraged his supporters to buy Hegseth’s book and said that if he won the presidency, "The woke stuff will be gone within a period of 24 hours. I can tell you.”
The 44-year-old Hegseth, a staunch conservative who embraces Trump's “America First” policies, has pushed for making the military more lethal. During an interview on “The Shawn Ryan Show” podcast, he said allowing women to serve in combat hurts that effort.
“Everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat, that means casualties are worse,” Hegseth said.
By opening combat slots to women, “we’ve changed the standards in putting them there, which means you’ve changed the capability of that unit,” Hegseth said in the podcast interview.
Can he indicate a conflict since the integration of women with a higher casualty rate than conflicts prior to their integration? hmmmmmm
Delete"higher casualty rate"
DeleteIf you have data, present it. Otherwise, refrain from unsupported statements. Thank you.
"1/3 of his pac money"
ReplyDeleteIf you'd like to repost this comment with the personal aspects and opinions left out and just focus on any military aspects, feel free.
Hegseth has attacked the corrupt military procurement and loss of warfighter mentality. Restoring that aggressive attitude and transparency in contracting will go far.
ReplyDeleteMost Majors have spent some time at Systems Commands, MEF / Corps and COCOM staff so he probably understands the process and problems without being part of the system.
I wonder if there will be an explanation why there are over 300 admirals- 1.2 admirals for every warship, even if LCS's are included. I also wonder if there will be mass sackings.
ReplyDeleteTrump did mention in his 2016 campaign that he wanted to stop admirals etc from going from the military directly to being board members of the MIC. Wonder if he will have a chance to follow up on this this time around.
Andrew
There is a equal number of SES civilians in the Dept of the Navy (equal to flag rank and most are former Admirals or Captains) who should be slashed. They can "retire" with almost 100% of military pay then take a DON civilian post that pays another high salary.
DeleteSounds like rumors but I do hope its true: Trump might establish a 'warriors board' retired generals, probably admirals too, by executive order who will review 3 & 4 star officers and if they should keep their jobs. Oh and has a list of ones to fire off the bat.
ReplyDeleteIf, as some suggest, we are in an echo of the pre World War II timeline, then a good place to start would be a close look at what George Marshall did with the senior officer corps prior to the war, this monograph: General George C. Marshall: Strategic Leadership and the Challenges of Reconstituting the Army, 1939-41 by COL John T. Nelson would be a good place to start studying the process.
ReplyDeletehttps://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=monographs
Key sentence:
"While so doing, he rapidly advanced a whole new leadership
generation into the general officer ranks, based on demonstrated skills, adherence to institutional values, and potential for increased responsibility. By and large, these young leaders covered themselves with distinction during the ensuing war years, and well beyond."
As COMNAVOPS so often states (Paraphrase) We've done all this before!
A lot of this stuff is obviously political: picking a Musk-type business guy, someone who maybe never served at all would "look bad" and lead to political attacks.
ReplyDeleteI do like Hegseth as a person, but he will need lots of guts to accomplish something substantial there, like any other candidate.
The business person should go the acquisition post, NOT the SecDef. Remember David Packard who introduced and fostered prototyping?
ReplyDeleteOne problem (I guess) is that some of the successful business magnates just don't seem very manly. Bezos? Zuke? Tim something at Apple?
ReplyDeleteThere's little point bringing in someone from the problem industries e.g. Boeing, or the businesses that needed taxpayer rescue a while ago e.g. GM, or businesses that are are stalwarts of DC corruption e.g. Pharma.
It makes me wonder whether whoever runs McDonald's might be the sort you need. Or someone who has run a big brewer?
I think the organizational structure needs to be thought through better. There are at least two totally tasks.
ReplyDelete1. War fighting itself - do we have the right military leaders in place, the right structure to advance the right leaders, the right definition of what they need in the way of stuff to fight, and what kind of fights might they be.
2. What and how are we buying and maintaining stuff. Does it match our expectations of war fighting?
Those seem like two very different roles to lead, and two very different kinds of leaders necessary to do each of those different tasks.
I can imagine if one person is excellent in #1, they might be a total failure at #2. So who should we have as Secretary? Someone who understands the different tasks necessary in a broad sense and able to select the right person for each task and have the leadership skills to hold their feet to the fire to accomplish those tasks well.
Second sentence - missing "different" before the last word.
ReplyDeleteThe current structure of DOD (versus the pre-Cold War structure of a War Dept. & a Dept. of the Navy) created a drastic change in the role of the civilian Secretary. Before that, the Secretaries were solely administrators. They administered finances, procurement, and their most important role: chose the Flag Officers to lead each service.
ReplyDeleteThe SecDef now has an additional role: He has OPERATIONAL control of the military, yet he is a civilian, and not a commissioned officer.
This structure might have made sense during the Cold War, but it is probably time to return to the structure we had since the founding (and never lost a war with). Break up the DOD and return it to War and Navy Depts.
In the meantime, we have the problem of finding a SecDef who is a combination of a good administrator to clean up corruption, procure effective equipment, fund new technologies, etc... AND we need a strategic thinking General-type to direct military planning & operations. Kind of a hopeless task to find someone with both qualities, yet still be a civilian. It might be one of the reasons why the leadership of the military is failing in so many ways since the Cold War ended. What was once a centralized organization focused solely on fighting the USSR, is now struggling to manage a much looser, more fluid, multi-polar world.
Decentralize a little and we'll get our groove back.
"Kind of a hopeless task to find someone with both qualities, yet still be a civilian"
DeleteFor the sake of discussion, let's say you're correct about that. The obvious and easy solution is to find someone who knows enough to surround himself with competent people who are expertly competent in their narrow field. The top guy doesn't have to be the expert in every field. He just has to know enough to find good people who are and let them do their jobs while he provides the general guidance and oversight.
"Decentralize a little and we'll get our groove back."
To an extent, this is kind of the approach I'm suggesting, missing only the single overseer.
It would make an interesting article on the traits and experiences that make a good SECDEF with examples of past greatness or ineptitude.
ReplyDeleteI think his success will will have a lot to do with who they pick for the Service Secretaries, If good people are selected and support Sec Hegseth I think that will be a win!
ReplyDelete