Very interested to see how Four-Stars will treat a Guard Major who is hardly old enough to make Colonel. I'm sure they'll be very respectful in public. This might not be someone forceful enough to...
Very interested to see how Four-Stars will treat a Guard Major who is hardly old enough to make Colonel. I'm sure they'll be very respectful in public. This might not be someone forceful enough to take charge in a room with that much brass. Could make it hard to push some of his agenda for the military.
Yeah, this is a nuts choice. I wonder if there's any kind of precedent for this. A defense secretary of such low rank and little experience (tldr platoon leader and instructor). I'm not American...
Yeah, this is a nuts choice. I wonder if there's any kind of precedent for this. A defense secretary of such low rank and little experience (tldr platoon leader and instructor). I'm not American though so I don't know whether or not civilians have held the job like in my country or if it's historically been high ranking military?
Well when Trump appointed Matt is last time, Congress had to pass a waiver because he had served too recently. So a current National Guardsman is quite unprecedented. But I don't agree that...
Well when Trump appointed Matt is last time, Congress had to pass a waiver because he had served too recently. So a current National Guardsman is quite unprecedented. But I don't agree that actual, direct experience in the military is strictly necessary, and certainly anything short of being probably a three-star general wouldn't really be directly applicable. Colonels and above may have relevant experience, but not directly applicable, per se.
But this guy is in the military for two days a month and his biggest boss is the state governor. The rest of the time, he hosts a TV show that tells Trump what to think. Honestly, it might not be a bad idea for the Republicans to block this nomination.
Edit: now I'm seeing that where it says he's currently in the Guard, it is very misleading. He is in the IRR, which is basically just people who have gotten out but did so recently enough that the military keeps them recallable in case war were declared. @mycketforvirrad@cfabbro could one of you edit the title to reflect the fact that he's not currently in the Guard?
It is explicitly supposed to be a civilian. Arguably Hegseth is actually too connected to the military. Congress said soon after the office was established: They should have experience running a...
It is explicitly supposed to be a civilian. Arguably Hegseth is actually too connected to the military. Congress said soon after the office was established:
It is hereby expressed as the intent of the Congress that the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approval by the Congress of continuing appointments of military men to the office of Secretary of Defense in the future. It is hereby expressed as the sense of the Congress that after General Marshall leaves the office of Secretary of Defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.
They should have experience running a large organization though. Most of Hegseth's professional experience seems to be getting paid to tell people his opinions, which I consider to be the easiest job on the planet.
I know the Republicans have the trifecta, but I have to think that even the Senate may put a stop to this one. All departments are important (except for Elon and Vivek's new "Department" of...
I know the Republicans have the trifecta, but I have to think that even the Senate may put a stop to this one. All departments are important (except for Elon and Vivek's new "Department" of Government Efficiency), but the DoD is definitely up there as one of the most important. Given the state of things, are Senate Republicans really going to confirm him? They're not all crazy MAGA types.
Or is this some kinda 5D chess where he's putting up a totally unqualified person for nomination, who he knows can't get confirmed without fight, only to withdraw him and then later nominate someone else who's somewhat qualified and still awful, but will then get an easier confirmation hearing?
I can't believe I'm back to thinking like this again.
Also, don't answer my question about Senate GOP. Deep down, I know the answer. Sigh.
No, but they're party loyalists. The reason everyone is terrified is that it only takes a small number of bootlickers to enable some truely horrible things. I hope you're right and that the...
They're not all crazy MAGA types.
No, but they're party loyalists. The reason everyone is terrified is that it only takes a small number of bootlickers to enable some truely horrible things.
I hope you're right and that the extremism causes the party to irreversibly fracture and render them unelectable for a few decades.
A friend has a theory, or maybe hope is a better word, that since the GOP has both houses, that they have “full” power as a coequal branch, they the GOP there may grow a spine and try to do shit...
A friend has a theory, or maybe hope is a better word, that since the GOP has both houses, that they have “full” power as a coequal branch, they the GOP there may grow a spine and try to do shit their way. They may not always listen to the White House.
The downside of having power, as we’ve seen when the GOP got the House and had to deal elect a speaker, is that all of a sudden everyone wants a piece of it. Hopefully that leads to some dysfunction.
That is essentially what it's designed to do. Our government's sluggishness and unreliability is infuriating when those in power have good ideas, but provides damage control when someone dangerous...
That is essentially what it's designed to do. Our government's sluggishness and unreliability is infuriating when those in power have good ideas, but provides damage control when someone dangerous is at the helm.
Oh my god it is DOGE! I’ve thought since 2016 when Trump won the Republican nomination that this would all be hilarious if it were a dark comedy instead of real life where real people are getting...
Oh my god it is DOGE!
I’ve thought since 2016 when Trump won the Republican nomination that this would all be hilarious if it were a dark comedy instead of real life where real people are getting hurt and real global problems are being made intentionally worse. It is such a bizarre mixture of horror and absurd that it just breaks my brain. Still.
Re the trifecta, the narrower the majority, the more opportunity for a few dissenters to obstruct and gum up the works. It's decisions like this where Trump goes against the consensus that present...
Re the trifecta, the narrower the majority, the more opportunity for a few dissenters to obstruct and gum up the works.
It's decisions like this where Trump goes against the consensus that present opportunities.
Trump the charismatic maverick got elected, but he is incapable of toning down his outrageous personality and thought process.
I have a sad fascination for watching how well or poorly, the democratic safeguards built within our system of government will work when faced with this particular situation and personality
There is a draft executive order going around that would create a group to "review" generals and refer any of the to the President for immediate removal/action against. It would seek to "take...
There is a draft executive order going around that would create a group to "review" generals and refer any of the to the President for immediate removal/action against.
It would seek to "take care" of generals that posed such a problem.
Oops, accidentally deleted my response without posting it. Quick recap: I think even pro-Trump generals would be problematic with someone like this, possibly even more than anti-Trump generals....
Oops, accidentally deleted my response without posting it. Quick recap:
I think even pro-Trump generals would be problematic with someone like this, possibly even more than anti-Trump generals. Anyway, it's probably intended for the current CJCS, who is Black, and the kind who has acknowledged that *gasp* racism exists.
Well, they're just going to remove anyone who gets in their way: https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-draft-executive-order-would-create-board-to-purge-generals-7ebaa606
Well, they're just going to remove anyone who gets in their way:
He also championed the case of four former Blackwater contractors convicted in a 2007 shooting rampage in Baghdad that killed more than a dozen Iraqi civilians. They were pardoned by Trump in one of his final acts in office.
He also opposes women in combat roles from a recent interview. And you know what, a large part of me says "fine, leave women out of it" but I know better.
He also opposes women in combat roles from a recent interview.
And you know what, a large part of me says "fine, leave women out of it" but I know better.
One the one hand, it may feel comforting to know that a group you belong to is excluded from active combat roles. On the other, it's certain to be used as justification for the removal of rights.
One the one hand, it may feel comforting to know that a group you belong to is excluded from active combat roles. On the other, it's certain to be used as justification for the removal of rights.
Right, it's not a good thing to have less equality and I believe if a draft exists (and I don't think it should) it shouldn't just be men. But also... Yeah. Fuck it.
Right, it's not a good thing to have less equality and I believe if a draft exists (and I don't think it should) it shouldn't just be men.
Amusingly, my top comment of all time on Reddit was making this exact declaration. I phrased it poorly however, and have always felt a little uneasy about it being misinterpreted as some MRA...
Amusingly, my top comment of all time on Reddit was making this exact declaration. I phrased it poorly however, and have always felt a little uneasy about it being misinterpreted as some MRA whingeing, which I hope you know I'm not about.
It's gratifying to see such an enlightened "human" concur.
I know there are still folks out there against women in combat. I'm always curious why. Most of the reasons that used to be standard now have been worked out or around. It's amazing how efficient...
I know there are still folks out there against women in combat. I'm always curious why. Most of the reasons that used to be standard now have been worked out or around.
I know no one sane who's against women in combat. The more reasonable arguments I've seen are not "no women in combat" so much as "no point in drafting them." At the point you're seriously...
I know there are still folks out there against women in combat.
I know no one sane who's against women in combat. The more reasonable arguments I've seen are not "no women in combat" so much as "no point in drafting them."
At the point you're seriously considering a draft you're already far outside the norm, so there's standardization considerations that you want to be sure to hit. At the end of the day there's a few extra considerations you'll have to handle if you're also drafting women, which probably isn't worth the logistical overhead.
Further drafts are basically always due to a lack of front line troops (since losses are highest there), so yes you ideally want men because they're statistically likely to be stronger and able to handle whatever is needed. Of course you can screen for women who cross that gap, and they exist, but again a draft is a situation where you really aren't looking to deal with exceptions and want to just jam as many people to the front lines as possible and hope they don't get meatgrindered.
Ultimately at the point you're instituting a draft you've got bigger concerns.
Sane or not, And IMO if you're drafting, which again I oppose, finding as many people combat ready as possible should probably include women, since they're also potentially combat ready people and...
I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles,” Hegseth said. “It hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.
“We have all served with women and they’re great. But it’s just our institutions don’t have to incentivize that in places where traditionally... over human history, men in those positions are more capable.”
And IMO if you're drafting, which again I oppose, finding as many people combat ready as possible should probably include women, since they're also potentially combat ready people and if you're in a draft is it actually that much more complicated? I doubt it.
As someone who’s handled large logistics having to adjust for much much smaller things I think you’re underestimating a lot. You’re at the bare minimum looking at having to adjust what you expect...
As someone who’s handled large logistics having to adjust for much much smaller things I think you’re underestimating a lot.
You’re at the bare minimum looking at having to adjust what you expect your troops to be able to carry.
That’s if you throw out all societal niceties like separate bathrooms/bunking/etc. Periods and pregnancy are other very real biological considerations that just aren’t a concern if you’re grabbing a bunch of guys.
The whole point of a draft is that you're in some level of dire straits. And since women currently serve, those adaptations already exist. There have been tons of articles about how American...
As someone who’s handled large logistics having to adjust for much much smaller things I think you’re underestimating a lot.
You’re at the bare minimum looking at having to adjust what you expect your troops to be able to carry.
That’s if you throw out all societal niceties like separate bathrooms/bunking/etc. Periods and pregnancy are other very real biological considerations that just aren’t a concern if you’re grabbing a bunch of guys.
The whole point of a draft is that you're in some level of dire straits. And since women currently serve, those adaptations already exist. There have been tons of articles about how American teenagers are increasingly out of shape and thus less fit for the military. That would be the same issue in a future draft.
Once you figure out the logistics up front, most of which has already been done, I don't think I'm underestimating it at all. I am treating it lightly because the person on the side of "no women in combat" is the potential secretary of defense and Fox and Friends host, and in the face of that absurdity, please do keep women out of it all.
Women are less then 20% of the modern military force, and again, this is almost certainly going to be for front line operations, where they make up an even smaller %. A full draft means you're at...
The whole point of a draft is that you're in some level of dire straits. And since women currently serve, those adaptations already exist.
Women are less then 20% of the modern military force, and again, this is almost certainly going to be for front line operations, where they make up an even smaller %. A full draft means you're at least doubling the intake/need. These adaptations exist in a normal "no rush" military pipeline. Not in a "get them to the front now" pipeline that most drafts have been.
Further the military is already mostly geared towards recruiting/training males for a variety of reasons, so in normal cases it would be wasteful to overbuild infrastructure to support a % of women that will only suddenly appear in a draft scenario. Should women in the military gradually increase towards 50% then it's less of an issue, but if you flipped the switch tomorrow you're looking at doubling your infrastructure.
There have been tons of articles about how American teenagers are increasingly out of shape and thus less fit for the military.
Yes, and this is an issue, but not one that's relevant to my point. Equipment loads are assumed for after bootcamp/training. So yes that will take longer to do, simple biology/hormones mean that men will on average be able to carry more than women once trained.
Honestly, I'm ambivalent on the issue. At the point the US is in another draft things are fucked one way or another. Doesn't mean it's actually simple to configure the required infrastructure. Again this is being generous and ignoring a LOT of the major ethical issues and dangerous situations you'll be putting them in long before the front lines, or the concerning incentives in a situation as terrifying as a draft to try and purposely get pregnant to get out of it (which when people where shooting themselves in our last draft it would be foolish to assume otherwise).
Honestly, i'm surprised more people don't take a foot off, or their trigger fingers. As you note, all of these incentives do exist for men as well as women. But as having a draft in itself is a...
Honestly, i'm surprised more people don't take a foot off, or their trigger fingers. As you note, all of these incentives do exist for men as well as women.
But as having a draft in itself is a huge ethical issue and involves incredibly dangerous situations, it feels weird to only or primarily worry about the menstruating people in that situation. At 18 I'd have signed up to be drafted - I in fact tried - and while current me looks back at past me saying "that's stupid" I'd tell men the same thing today. My entire adult life we've been at war after all.
But regardless, yeah, there's logistics, but women have served in combat across the globe throughout history. And while equal draft responsibility doesn't lead to equal rights as evidence by Black American Servicemen in our own history, women have served in combat and "technically out of combat but also basically in combat" in the modern era too. Maybe the visceral response to sending women into combat would keep Americans from throwing our teenagers at the next war, I don't know.
But having logistics - something that could be solved in advance with planning any time they want to start, and periods consistently tossed as the reasons it's too hard, while accounting for no possible benefits from having women serve is like hearing the same argument on repeat for decades. Women serve in countries where war is in their streets, in many countries with national conscription, etc. If the logistics are never addressed, they'll never be addressed. And I suspect that's on purpose.
Senator Duckworth was shot down before women were allowed to serve in combat.
Her response to Hegseth's comments were:
Our military cannot go to war without our female service members. This is not the Revolutionary War where there’s some sort of a line in the sand, and combat is on one side, and the rest of us can stay behind, and that’s not combat.
I would ask him, where do you think I lost my legs? In a bar fight? I’m pretty sure I was in combat when that happened. You know, it just shows how out of touch he is with the nature of modern warfare if he thinks that we can keep women behind some sort of imaginary line, which is not the way warfare is today.
And I'm pretty sure she outranks him.
I can't find if she supports repealing the draft or leaving it as is, or adding women to it, mostly because she's called Trump a draft-dodger often enough the news articles are overwhelming the results. (Disgustingly, one of the top two "People also ask" is "Is Tammy Duckworth a US citizen and yeah, that's some shit.) But anyway, I'm aware logistics are not nothing, especially at scale, but I think they're an excuse in the long term.
Where do you want to draw the line? It's all arbitrary. You could just go back to slave military practices as well with commissars shooting people in the back who retreat. The main reason it's...
it feels weird to only or primarily worry about the menstruating people in that situation.
Where do you want to draw the line? It's all arbitrary. You could just go back to slave military practices as well with commissars shooting people in the back who retreat.
The main reason it's worried about at all is because it comes with a real cost. If you're dumping a bunch of people in a situation where they will be required to do physical labor and possibly be cut off from supplies for significant periods of time, it's just flat out going to be harder on women on average.
But having logistics - something that could be solved in advance with planning any time they want to start, and periods consistently tossed as the reasons it's too hard, while accounting for no possible benefits from having women serve is like hearing the same argument on repeat for decades.
It's cost benefit? What's the point of ramping up your logistical capabilities for an already edge case of an edge case? Naturally armies are male dominated. If you have a draft and suddenly ramp up intake, your system was already naturally setup to handle that .
So instead you propose we have a bunch of logistical capability that we will never use UNLESS you suddenly get a huge influx of female military members caused by a mandatory draft?
response to Hegseth's comments
I really don't know why you keep bringing up Hegseth. I felt my stance was made clear on this from the start, but I really couldn't begin to give a damn what they say as it's not backed by anything remotely sound, regardless the conclusion. I am not remotely against women in the military or in combat roles, nor am i discussing that.
I mean I definitely think I draw the line before "slave military practices." Yeah, and other countries conscript women regularly. Our draft is hopefully never used again, but there's the...
Where do you want to draw the line? It's all arbitrary. You could just go back to slave military practices as well with commissars shooting people in the back who retreat.
I mean I definitely think I draw the line before "slave military practices."
The main reason it's worried about at all is because it comes with a real cost. If you're dumping a bunch of people in a situation where they will be required to do physical labor and possibly be cut off from supplies for significant periods of time, it's just flat out going to be harder on women on average.
Yeah, and other countries conscript women regularly. Our draft is hopefully never used again, but there's the difficulty on the people and the logistics. I"m saying the latter is, IMO, able to be overcome and the former applies to everyone. If women are drafted and are not capable of serving due to their body's inability to do so, it'd make sense to treat them like men who are unable to serve, even if those percentages are different.
It's cost benefit? What's the point of ramping up your logistical capabilities for an already edge case of an edge case? Naturally armies are male dominated. If you have a draft and suddenly ramp up intake, your system was already naturally setup to handle that .
Which is why I said do it in advance yeah.
So instead you propose we have a bunch of logistical capability that we will never use UNLESS you suddenly get a huge influx of female military members caused by a mandatory draft?
A draft would also cause a huge influx of male military members. I'm not sure that the percentage of women serving would drastically change, maybe it would, but lets say far fewer women are physically fit to serve. It's just ramping up your overall military membership, rather than only the men. (And again I think this ignores the idea that there's benefit to the military from women's service rather than just inconvenience for deviating from the norm.)
I really don't know why you keep bringing up Hegseth. I felt my stance was made clear on this from the start, but I really couldn't begin to give a damn what they say as it's not backed by anything remotely sound, regardless the conclusion. I am not remotely against women in the military or in combat roles, nor am i discussing that.
Because that was where the convo started. But actually I was bringing up a veteran's response to the comments and her opinions on women serving in general. I tried to find her thoughts on the draft but was unable to.
I am not perceiving this as an argument that we're in, so if this is too heated we can chill. I have not served in the military, though I have friends and family that did, and I'm coming at this from the perspective that if it's worth involuntarily conscripting large numbers of people, that it's worth conscripting any gender. That's all. Not trying to convince you or fight or anything.
For honesty purposes, I'm for women in the draft. Now, how are you going to be sure deployment dates don't sync up with menstruation dates? Hard to be an effective front line soldier dealing with...
For honesty purposes, I'm for women in the draft.
Now, how are you going to be sure deployment dates don't sync up with menstruation dates? Hard to be an effective front line soldier dealing with cramps and bleeding. Now we've got to logistically support getting tampons to the front as well, space that could be for bullets. Men are less complicated - sadly - you just need bullets and food and wet wipes.
Most women (and other people that menstruate) work, raise kids, play sports, and go to the target range just fine when cramping. And periods syncing is a myth. A box of tampons is smaller than a...
For honesty purposes, I'm for women in the draft.
Now, how are you going to be sure deployment dates don't sync up with menstruation dates? Hard to be an effective front line soldier dealing with cramps and bleeding. Now we've got to logistically support getting tampons to the front as well, space that could be for bullets. Men are less complicated - sadly - you just need bullets and food and wet wipes.
Most women (and other people that menstruate) work, raise kids, play sports, and go to the target range just fine when cramping. And periods syncing is a myth. A box of tampons is smaller than a box of bullets and lighter and there are reusable, cleanable, period management options too. A month of pills is smaller than gum. A shot before deployment and some wet wipes would work for the vast majority of people too.
This is a bunch of stereotypes about how menstruation stops everything. Sure for some folks it's medically disabling, and that's legit. But most of us have dealt with it since childhood and manage to do all the various jobs, from manual labor to first responder to surgeon just fine. ಠ_ಠ
But since we shouldn't have a draft, draft no one. The issue with combat roles is it limits women's ability to be promoted
But we treat all veterans horribly and if we're going to keep doing that, my petty side says keep the women and non-binary folks out of that shit.
I'd like to see something moving forward that makes it hard for the government to restrict the rights of any group of people. I'd even be ok with this for prisons, since that system needs reform,...
I'd like to see something moving forward that makes it hard for the government to restrict the rights of any group of people. I'd even be ok with this for prisons, since that system needs reform, anyway.
It's pretty much never good when this happens. We had the Japanese internment camps, folks locked in cages at the border, and now we seem to be on track for women to lose personhood.
Yeah I kind of feel the same. "Well good, a lot less women will be killed then" but that isn't equality no matter how pacifist I may be and obviously men or anyone shouldn't be getting killed...
Yeah I kind of feel the same. "Well good, a lot less women will be killed then" but that isn't equality no matter how pacifist I may be and obviously men or anyone shouldn't be getting killed either.. but if they actually do this, I bet they would bring back DADT if they could.
All of Trump's appointees and nominations so far have one thing in common: they're all people who have enthusiastically verbally fellated Trump in past. He's not selecting anyone from the...
All of Trump's appointees and nominations so far have one thing in common: they're all people who have enthusiastically verbally fellated Trump in past. He's not selecting anyone from the conservative / GOP A-Team with experience and qualifications like Bill Barr or Mike Pompeo, with the exception of maybe Rubio.
I'm convinced Democrats just need to stand back and let Trump burn it all to the ground. That's the only way we're going to end MAGA and Trumpism. But I digress.
The only concerns that I have with that approach are: The collateral damage along the way The “shooting the moon” chance that Trump actually attempts a full military takeover, which comes to mind...
I'm convinced Democrats just need to stand back and let Trump burn it all to the ground. That's the only way we're going to end MAGA and Trumpism.
The only concerns that I have with that approach are:
The collateral damage along the way
The “shooting the moon” chance that Trump actually attempts a full military takeover, which comes to mind with the recent draft executive order, which I fear would be on the path to a full dictatorship.
Update: Hegseth was flagged by his unit's security manager as a possible insider threat: https://apnews.com/article/trump-defense-department-pentagon-hegseth-fox-news-8cd9f065e54a7cbbaceeec8bae9261a6
I laughed just so loud out of the reminder of the total ridiculousness of the incompetence of the 1st Trump administration. I'll probably despair for the future later but damn I needed that. Trump...
I laughed just so loud out of the reminder of the total ridiculousness of the incompetence of the 1st Trump administration. I'll probably despair for the future later but damn I needed that.
Senior officials on President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team on Friday weighed the future of Pete Hegseth, Trump’s choice to lead the Defense Department, amid new revelations that police investigated an allegation that he sexually assaulted a woman in 2017.
The president-elect was not told about the extent of the sexual misconduct allegation before he chose Hegseth as the Pentagon nominee because no private firm vetted him, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.
Because they did zero vetting. And Deus Vult on top of that?
Oh boy someone get some cabbages ready. (I only laugh so I don't have to cry)
My best hope for this next four years is crippling incompetence, infighting, graft that becomes publicly known. If the Republicans actually cut a popular program (as with their recent threat to...
My best hope for this next four years is crippling incompetence, infighting, graft that becomes publicly known.
If the Republicans actually cut a popular program (as with their recent threat to cut veterans health benefits), that would be icing on the cake.
My fear is that they succeed in their authoritarian takeover and we no longer have elections that are not rigged, no longer have habeus corpus etc. the right and business leaders seem fine with full blown fascism, although maybe not with Trump's incompetence and vindictive personality.
Yeah my fears are similar, but frankly I hope that all the dangerous people piss Trump off and get exiled/fired/whatever from the inner circle. Including Vance. I feel like Benoit Blanc - it's SO DUMB
Yeah my fears are similar, but frankly I hope that all the dangerous people piss Trump off and get exiled/fired/whatever from the inner circle.
Related absurd update - now Matt Gaetz (Florida congressman currently under investigation for drug use and sex with a minor) is his nominee for Attorney General....
Related absurd update - now Matt Gaetz (Florida congressman currently under investigation for drug use and sex with a minor) is his nominee for Attorney General.
AP-NORC poll on Americans' approval of Trump's picks: https://apnews.com/article/trump-hegseth-gabbard-rubio-kennedy-cabinet-poll-2e6a3b7a9f5fad9fb7527681f1f5a9aa
AP-NORC poll on Americans' approval of Trump's picks:
Very interested to see how Four-Stars will treat a Guard Major who is hardly old enough to make Colonel. I'm sure they'll be very respectful in public. This might not be someone forceful enough to take charge in a room with that much brass. Could make it hard to push some of his agenda for the military.
Yeah, this is a nuts choice. I wonder if there's any kind of precedent for this. A defense secretary of such low rank and little experience (tldr platoon leader and instructor). I'm not American though so I don't know whether or not civilians have held the job like in my country or if it's historically been high ranking military?
Well when Trump appointed Matt is last time, Congress had to pass a waiver because he had served too recently. So a current National Guardsman is quite unprecedented. But I don't agree that actual, direct experience in the military is strictly necessary, and certainly anything short of being probably a three-star general wouldn't really be directly applicable. Colonels and above may have relevant experience, but not directly applicable, per se.
But this guy is in the military for two days a month and his biggest boss is the state governor. The rest of the time, he hosts a TV show that tells Trump what to think. Honestly, it might not be a bad idea for the Republicans to block this nomination.
Edit: now I'm seeing that where it says he's currently in the Guard, it is very misleading. He is in the IRR, which is basically just people who have gotten out but did so recently enough that the military keeps them recallable in case war were declared. @mycketforvirrad @cfabbro could one of you edit the title to reflect the fact that he's not currently in the Guard?
fixed
Robert McNamara served in World War II, but before being appointed Defense Secretary by JFK, he was president of Ford.
It is explicitly supposed to be a civilian. Arguably Hegseth is actually too connected to the military. Congress said soon after the office was established:
They should have experience running a large organization though. Most of Hegseth's professional experience seems to be getting paid to tell people his opinions, which I consider to be the easiest job on the planet.
I know the Republicans have the trifecta, but I have to think that even the Senate may put a stop to this one. All departments are important (except for Elon and Vivek's new "Department" of Government Efficiency), but the DoD is definitely up there as one of the most important. Given the state of things, are Senate Republicans really going to confirm him? They're not all crazy MAGA types.
Or is this some kinda 5D chess where he's putting up a totally unqualified person for nomination, who he knows can't get confirmed without fight, only to withdraw him and then later nominate someone else who's somewhat qualified and still awful, but will then get an easier confirmation hearing?
I can't believe I'm back to thinking like this again.
Also, don't answer my question about Senate GOP. Deep down, I know the answer. Sigh.
Pretty sure what you described is 2D chess level strategy.
To them it's 5D!
No, but they're party loyalists. The reason everyone is terrified is that it only takes a small number of bootlickers to enable some truely horrible things.
I hope you're right and that the extremism causes the party to irreversibly fracture and render them unelectable for a few decades.
A friend has a theory, or maybe hope is a better word, that since the GOP has both houses, that they have “full” power as a coequal branch, they the GOP there may grow a spine and try to do shit their way. They may not always listen to the White House.
The downside of having power, as we’ve seen when the GOP got the House and had to deal elect a speaker, is that all of a sudden everyone wants a piece of it. Hopefully that leads to some dysfunction.
We shall see.
How fucking sad is that. That our best hope for the future of this country is that congress is so dysfunctional that it can't fuck too many things up.
That is essentially what it's designed to do. Our government's sluggishness and unreliability is infuriating when those in power have good ideas, but provides damage control when someone dangerous is at the helm.
I am amazed Elon went for DOGE over "Department X".
Oh my god it is DOGE!
I’ve thought since 2016 when Trump won the Republican nomination that this would all be hilarious if it were a dark comedy instead of real life where real people are getting hurt and real global problems are being made intentionally worse. It is such a bizarre mixture of horror and absurd that it just breaks my brain. Still.
Jesus fucking christ
Actually, almost literally, Idiocracy.
No it's not. In Idiocracy they listened to the smart person.
Probably a more apt comparison: Don't Look Up (2021)
I sure hope no one tells Kristi Noem about the DoGE, lest she drive there to shoot up the headquarters.
Market manipulation pays more.
Re the trifecta, the narrower the majority, the more opportunity for a few dissenters to obstruct and gum up the works.
It's decisions like this where Trump goes against the consensus that present opportunities.
Trump the charismatic maverick got elected, but he is incapable of toning down his outrageous personality and thought process.
I have a sad fascination for watching how well or poorly, the democratic safeguards built within our system of government will work when faced with this particular situation and personality
There is a draft executive order going around that would create a group to "review" generals and refer any of the to the President for immediate removal/action against.
It would seek to "take care" of generals that posed such a problem.
Oops, accidentally deleted my response without posting it. Quick recap:
I think even pro-Trump generals would be problematic with someone like this, possibly even more than anti-Trump generals. Anyway, it's probably intended for the current CJCS, who is Black, and the kind who has acknowledged that *gasp* racism exists.
Well, they're just going to remove anyone who gets in their way:
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-draft-executive-order-would-create-board-to-purge-generals-7ebaa606
That is a civil war indicator. Hello historic moment, we're living in it.
They’ve thought of that
We're probably in for some kind of anonymous military leader statement.
Why am I even surprised anymore..
He also opposes women in combat roles from a recent interview.
And you know what, a large part of me says "fine, leave women out of it" but I know better.
One the one hand, it may feel comforting to know that a group you belong to is excluded from active combat roles. On the other, it's certain to be used as justification for the removal of rights.
Right, it's not a good thing to have less equality and I believe if a draft exists (and I don't think it should) it shouldn't just be men.
But also...
Yeah. Fuck it.
Amusingly, my top comment of all time on Reddit was making this exact declaration. I phrased it poorly however, and have always felt a little uneasy about it being misinterpreted as some MRA whingeing, which I hope you know I'm not about.
It's gratifying to see such an enlightened "human" concur.
I know there are still folks out there against women in combat. I'm always curious why. Most of the reasons that used to be standard now have been worked out or around.
It's amazing how efficient the military is at working around situations that formerly seemed impossible, like women on submarines. The way the Navy handled that was incredibly well thought out.
I know no one sane who's against women in combat. The more reasonable arguments I've seen are not "no women in combat" so much as "no point in drafting them."
At the point you're seriously considering a draft you're already far outside the norm, so there's standardization considerations that you want to be sure to hit. At the end of the day there's a few extra considerations you'll have to handle if you're also drafting women, which probably isn't worth the logistical overhead.
Further drafts are basically always due to a lack of front line troops (since losses are highest there), so yes you ideally want men because they're statistically likely to be stronger and able to handle whatever is needed. Of course you can screen for women who cross that gap, and they exist, but again a draft is a situation where you really aren't looking to deal with exceptions and want to just jam as many people to the front lines as possible and hope they don't get meatgrindered.
Ultimately at the point you're instituting a draft you've got bigger concerns.
Sane or not,
And IMO if you're drafting, which again I oppose, finding as many people combat ready as possible should probably include women, since they're also potentially combat ready people and if you're in a draft is it actually that much more complicated? I doubt it.
As someone who’s handled large logistics having to adjust for much much smaller things I think you’re underestimating a lot.
You’re at the bare minimum looking at having to adjust what you expect your troops to be able to carry.
That’s if you throw out all societal niceties like separate bathrooms/bunking/etc. Periods and pregnancy are other very real biological considerations that just aren’t a concern if you’re grabbing a bunch of guys.
The whole point of a draft is that you're in some level of dire straits. And since women currently serve, those adaptations already exist. There have been tons of articles about how American teenagers are increasingly out of shape and thus less fit for the military. That would be the same issue in a future draft.
Once you figure out the logistics up front, most of which has already been done, I don't think I'm underestimating it at all. I am treating it lightly because the person on the side of "no women in combat" is the potential secretary of defense and Fox and Friends host, and in the face of that absurdity, please do keep women out of it all.
Women are less then 20% of the modern military force, and again, this is almost certainly going to be for front line operations, where they make up an even smaller %. A full draft means you're at least doubling the intake/need. These adaptations exist in a normal "no rush" military pipeline. Not in a "get them to the front now" pipeline that most drafts have been.
Further the military is already mostly geared towards recruiting/training males for a variety of reasons, so in normal cases it would be wasteful to overbuild infrastructure to support a % of women that will only suddenly appear in a draft scenario. Should women in the military gradually increase towards 50% then it's less of an issue, but if you flipped the switch tomorrow you're looking at doubling your infrastructure.
Yes, and this is an issue, but not one that's relevant to my point. Equipment loads are assumed for after bootcamp/training. So yes that will take longer to do, simple biology/hormones mean that men will on average be able to carry more than women once trained.
Honestly, I'm ambivalent on the issue. At the point the US is in another draft things are fucked one way or another. Doesn't mean it's actually simple to configure the required infrastructure. Again this is being generous and ignoring a LOT of the major ethical issues and dangerous situations you'll be putting them in long before the front lines, or the concerning incentives in a situation as terrifying as a draft to try and purposely get pregnant to get out of it (which when people where shooting themselves in our last draft it would be foolish to assume otherwise).
Honestly, i'm surprised more people don't take a foot off, or their trigger fingers. As you note, all of these incentives do exist for men as well as women.
But as having a draft in itself is a huge ethical issue and involves incredibly dangerous situations, it feels weird to only or primarily worry about the menstruating people in that situation. At 18 I'd have signed up to be drafted - I in fact tried - and while current me looks back at past me saying "that's stupid" I'd tell men the same thing today. My entire adult life we've been at war after all.
But regardless, yeah, there's logistics, but women have served in combat across the globe throughout history. And while equal draft responsibility doesn't lead to equal rights as evidence by Black American Servicemen in our own history, women have served in combat and "technically out of combat but also basically in combat" in the modern era too. Maybe the visceral response to sending women into combat would keep Americans from throwing our teenagers at the next war, I don't know.
But having logistics - something that could be solved in advance with planning any time they want to start, and periods consistently tossed as the reasons it's too hard, while accounting for no possible benefits from having women serve is like hearing the same argument on repeat for decades. Women serve in countries where war is in their streets, in many countries with national conscription, etc. If the logistics are never addressed, they'll never be addressed. And I suspect that's on purpose.
Senator Duckworth was shot down before women were allowed to serve in combat.
Her response to Hegseth's comments were:
And I'm pretty sure she outranks him.
I can't find if she supports repealing the draft or leaving it as is, or adding women to it, mostly because she's called Trump a draft-dodger often enough the news articles are overwhelming the results. (Disgustingly, one of the top two "People also ask" is "Is Tammy Duckworth a US citizen and yeah, that's some shit.) But anyway, I'm aware logistics are not nothing, especially at scale, but I think they're an excuse in the long term.
Where do you want to draw the line? It's all arbitrary. You could just go back to slave military practices as well with commissars shooting people in the back who retreat.
The main reason it's worried about at all is because it comes with a real cost. If you're dumping a bunch of people in a situation where they will be required to do physical labor and possibly be cut off from supplies for significant periods of time, it's just flat out going to be harder on women on average.
It's cost benefit? What's the point of ramping up your logistical capabilities for an already edge case of an edge case? Naturally armies are male dominated. If you have a draft and suddenly ramp up intake, your system was already naturally setup to handle that .
So instead you propose we have a bunch of logistical capability that we will never use UNLESS you suddenly get a huge influx of female military members caused by a mandatory draft?
I really don't know why you keep bringing up Hegseth. I felt my stance was made clear on this from the start, but I really couldn't begin to give a damn what they say as it's not backed by anything remotely sound, regardless the conclusion. I am not remotely against women in the military or in combat roles, nor am i discussing that.
I mean I definitely think I draw the line before "slave military practices."
Yeah, and other countries conscript women regularly. Our draft is hopefully never used again, but there's the difficulty on the people and the logistics. I"m saying the latter is, IMO, able to be overcome and the former applies to everyone. If women are drafted and are not capable of serving due to their body's inability to do so, it'd make sense to treat them like men who are unable to serve, even if those percentages are different.
Which is why I said do it in advance yeah.
A draft would also cause a huge influx of male military members. I'm not sure that the percentage of women serving would drastically change, maybe it would, but lets say far fewer women are physically fit to serve. It's just ramping up your overall military membership, rather than only the men. (And again I think this ignores the idea that there's benefit to the military from women's service rather than just inconvenience for deviating from the norm.)
I am not perceiving this as an argument that we're in, so if this is too heated we can chill. I have not served in the military, though I have friends and family that did, and I'm coming at this from the perspective that if it's worth involuntarily conscripting large numbers of people, that it's worth conscripting any gender. That's all. Not trying to convince you or fight or anything.
Edited to fix quotes because I'm bad at it.
For honesty purposes, I'm for women in the draft.
Now, how are you going to be sure deployment dates don't sync up with menstruation dates? Hard to be an effective front line soldier dealing with cramps and bleeding. Now we've got to logistically support getting tampons to the front as well, space that could be for bullets. Men are less complicated - sadly - you just need bullets and food and wet wipes.
Most women (and other people that menstruate) work, raise kids, play sports, and go to the target range just fine when cramping. And periods syncing is a myth. A box of tampons is smaller than a box of bullets and lighter and there are reusable, cleanable, period management options too. A month of pills is smaller than gum. A shot before deployment and some wet wipes would work for the vast majority of people too.
This is a bunch of stereotypes about how menstruation stops everything. Sure for some folks it's medically disabling, and that's legit. But most of us have dealt with it since childhood and manage to do all the various jobs, from manual labor to first responder to surgeon just fine. ಠ_ಠ
But since we shouldn't have a draft, draft no one. The issue with combat roles is it limits women's ability to be promoted
But we treat all veterans horribly and if we're going to keep doing that, my petty side says keep the women and non-binary folks out of that shit.
I'd like to see something moving forward that makes it hard for the government to restrict the rights of any group of people. I'd even be ok with this for prisons, since that system needs reform, anyway.
It's pretty much never good when this happens. We had the Japanese internment camps, folks locked in cages at the border, and now we seem to be on track for women to lose personhood.
Yeah I kind of feel the same. "Well good, a lot less women will be killed then" but that isn't equality no matter how pacifist I may be and obviously men or anyone shouldn't be getting killed either.. but if they actually do this, I bet they would bring back DADT if they could.
Yeah I know my gut response is the petty one and not the ethical or moral one. But also I want to be petty right now
All of Trump's appointees and nominations so far have one thing in common: they're all people who have enthusiastically verbally fellated Trump in past. He's not selecting anyone from the conservative / GOP A-Team with experience and qualifications like Bill Barr or Mike Pompeo, with the exception of maybe Rubio.
I'm convinced Democrats just need to stand back and let Trump burn it all to the ground. That's the only way we're going to end MAGA and Trumpism. But I digress.
The only concerns that I have with that approach are:
Update:
Hegseth was flagged by his unit's security manager as a possible insider threat:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-defense-department-pentagon-hegseth-fox-news-8cd9f065e54a7cbbaceeec8bae9261a6
I laughed just so loud out of the reminder of the total ridiculousness of the incompetence of the 1st Trump administration. I'll probably despair for the future later but damn I needed that.
Trump team weighs Pentagon pick after sexual assault allegation surfaces
Gift article
Because they did zero vetting. And Deus Vult on top of that?
Oh boy someone get some cabbages ready. (I only laugh so I don't have to cry)
My best hope for this next four years is crippling incompetence, infighting, graft that becomes publicly known.
If the Republicans actually cut a popular program (as with their recent threat to cut veterans health benefits), that would be icing on the cake.
My fear is that they succeed in their authoritarian takeover and we no longer have elections that are not rigged, no longer have habeus corpus etc. the right and business leaders seem fine with full blown fascism, although maybe not with Trump's incompetence and vindictive personality.
It's a very risky moment.
Yeah my fears are similar, but frankly I hope that all the dangerous people piss Trump off and get exiled/fired/whatever from the inner circle.
Including Vance.
I feel like Benoit Blanc - it's SO DUMB
Related absurd update - now Matt Gaetz (Florida congressman currently under investigation for drug use and sex with a minor) is his nominee for Attorney General.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/13/trump-taps-rep-matt-gaetz-as-attorney-general.html
This is a good nomination because Gaetz surely knows the criminal justice system well by now!
AP-NORC poll on Americans' approval of Trump's picks:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-hegseth-gabbard-rubio-kennedy-cabinet-poll-2e6a3b7a9f5fad9fb7527681f1f5a9aa