Michèle Flournoy (click here) is Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
She served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from February 2009 to February 2012. She was the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense in the formulation of national security and defense policy, oversight of military plans and operations, and in National Security Council deliberations. She led the development of DoD’s 2012 Strategic Guidance and represented the Department in dozens of foreign engagements, in the media and before Congress....
She won't have a smooth administration. She'll differ on combat role of troops abroad and she hasn't seen combat herself. But, she has been within the defense department and industry for a significant period of time. She was critical of the USA leaving Iraq.
She has criticized leafing Afghanistan, BUT, has also stated any strikes against Iran was very misguided. She stated any steps by the USA and/or Israel against Iran would undermine the mission of the USA in the Middle East.
She is basically a hawk and an administrator.
Other potentials may prove to be better, Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed or former Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B Carter.
Carter is currently a Harvard teaching and Jack Reed is a highly regarded Senator in Rhode Island. I think Carter would be the best choice as he has been involved within the military establishment with this president.
November 24, 2014
By Tom Mooney
...“Senator Reed (click here) loves his job and wants to continue serving the people of Rhode Island in the United States senate,” said Unruh. “He has made it very clear that he does not wish to be considered for secretary of defense or any other Cabinet position. He just asked the people of Rhode Island to hire him for another six-year term and plans to honor that commitment.”...
The Defense Department needs someone who is willing to transition the USA out of being the world's police. The people never wanted that responsibility. The military industrial complex chronically pushed the USA into the position of being an overwhelming force in the world.
The Defense Department needs someone who is willing to transition the USA out of being the world's police. The people never wanted that responsibility. The military industrial complex chronically pushed the USA into the position of being an overwhelming force in the world.
By Craig Whitlock
...Carter stayed on as deputy secretary (click here)— the No. 2 position at the Defense Department, responsible for the day-to-day management of its 2.2 million employees — over the past 10 months at Obama’s request. But many defense officials and analysts viewed Carter as an uncomfortable understudy to Hagel, given his own ambitions to lead the Pentagon.
In his letter, Carter said he had “long firmly intended” to leave the Pentagon by December. But he said he kept quiet about his plans because of “the turbulence surrounding the fiscal situation,” an apparent reference to the federal government shutdown and other forced budget cuts confronting the military....
The military industrial complex has pushed new gadgets and gizmos like the F35 that with budget cuts the USA DOD has to inhibit the length of serve in military personnel to make it a career instead of just an enlistment or officer career choice.
The Sequestration cuts of Congress have not reduced the hideous spending in the private sector of the DOD, it has instead reduced the personnel. So, the DOD now has to protect the USA without the benefit of fully engaged personnel. I'd rather see the branches of the military fully staffed than pay for tinker toys.
Ashton Carter has the ambition to claim that path for his own and provide an asset to President Obama in reducing the presence of the USA in foreign theaters while allowing regional authority to maintain the peace.
January/February issue of Foreign Affairs
By Ashton Carter
...Although (click here) the department still struggles to contain the costs of military systems, it has come a long way in providing better buying power for the taxpayer. The Pentagon has also, by sad necessity, pioneered advances in medical technology, particularly in such areas as prosthetic limbs and the treatment of traumatic brain injuries and posttraumatic stress disorder.
But the same system that excels at anticipating future needs has proved less capable of quickly providing technology and equipment to troops on the battlefield. I have spent much of the past five years, first as undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics and then as deputy secretary of defense, trying to address this shortfall. With the Iraq war over and the war in Afghanistan coming to a close, it is important to understand what prevented the Pentagon from rapidly meeting immediate demands during those wars, what enduring lessons can be learned from its efforts to become more responsive, and how to put in place the right institutions to ensure success against future threats when agility is crucial....
The American people want to move the military into the future as being a leader in defense, but, not the only military power on Earth able to defeat the movement of terrorism.
There are very few countries the USA has any profound argument needing military solutions, the danger to the USA is from a far smaller UNIT, namely the individual.
The individual is not a global threat, it is a uniquely local threat. To that end it isn't the DOD that is going to solve the problem, but, allies that can declare sovereignty against those that would seek to undermine it.
The answer to bringing down such national debt is not to end services or allow a government shut down to end spending on VA disability benefits. The country has an obligation to those we ask to make the greatest sacrifice to our country.
The answer to bringing down the national debt in relation to MILITARY ACTIVITY of the USA is to empower local authorities to establish and maintain their sovereign status. It is why the current coalition in the Middle East is so vital. The USA cannot do this alone anymore and to state it can is a lie.
The other answer, which is more Republican than anything else, is to turn the USA into an automated war machine and continue the global activities. The Republicans see drones replacing soldiers on the battlefield and to continue the march of domination around the world. That is very, very expensive and will ultimately result in a nuclear holocaust. Not even a limited nuclear war, but, a nuclear war whereby the objective would be to completely destroy the USA and it's people viewed to allow such a global monster to exist.
The recent activities by Putin PROVES exactly that. He has been flying high altitude bombers around the world reaching close proximity to NATO and USA assets. Putin's bombers have even visited Guam in it's muscle flexing. To be completely honest, Russia's nuclear capacity has surpassed it's ability to win conventional wars. If Russia could win a conventional war it would HAVE BEEN doing so in Syria. Russia is completely absent in Syria with no evidence in returning to the country. Russia instead has burdened Turkey's borders to facilitate NATO to act in Syria.
If Turkey finds it's sovereignty threatened NATO will have no choice but to provide defense of Turkey. There will be no assault by Russia. Instead, Russia has decided to amend it's ability to commit war to a country not a member of NATO, namely Ukraine. The war with the Ukraine by Russia is hideous. Ukraine had completely disarmed itself, no different than Iraq with Saddam, to pursue NEUTRALITY in global events. That all changed when Putin broke treaties and decided to reclaim Ukraine as a wayward child.
if NATO were to enter the frey in Ukraine, which is can because of the dismantled treaty, Putin would be taking different actions in regard to Ukraine's border. Like I said his bombers have been making the rounds.
Would Putin actually deploy nukes? I doubt it seriously and I think it is all very elaborate muscle flexing, but, with the 'tone within Russia' being that of a regime rather than a country in control of it's outcomes, there is no guarantees. Desperate men do desperate things. Putin has tried to soften that image in resent pictures with the Australian Prime Minister and Koala Bears, but, that sincerely doesn't change any skepticism.
The USA has a challenge before it in finding any new DOD Secretary. It has to be a person that does not increase personnel back to a war stance in the Middle East that will doom the USA to a forever war and defend countries already allies from Russia that has an unstable internal political environment. It isn't an easy job, but, there is at least ONE person capable of doing exactly that.
Why look any further than Ashton Carter. At the very least he could replace the exiting Secretary and write policy that makes sense for the USA while bringing others up to speed to replace him in the future.
...At the outset of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon made two fatal miscalculations. First, it believed these wars would be over in a matter of months....
...Accordingly, since it normally takes years to develop new capabilities, the Pentagon saw little value in making acquisitions unique to the environments of Afghanistan and Iraq that would be irrelevant by the time they were ready. Second, the Pentagon was prepared for traditional military-versus-military conflicts -- a characterization that applied only to the early stages of the Iraq war. As a result, the military was not well positioned to fight an enemy without uniforms, command centers, or traditional organizational structures. The Pentagon initially failed to see the conflicts as requiring entirely new technologies and equipment, even as it became clear that improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and other makeshift tactics of an insurgency were more than nuisances -- they were strategic threats to U.S. objectives....
The paragraph speaks for itself.
