Hegseth calling every brigadier general or higher in for a meeting

I think they took an oath for the party…probably the only oath they ever took.

 

Shoot right sorry it was 19 years and 10 months to be exact.

• U.S. Army Reserve — 2001-05 to ~2002 (joined Guard “about a year later”)
• Army National Guard (NJ) — 2003–2006. Deployments: Guantánamo 2004–2005; Iraq 2005–2006.
• Army National Guard (MN) — 2010–2014. Afghanistan: senior COIN instructor, ~8–10 months in 2011–2012.
• Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) — 2015–2019
• Army National Guard (DC) — 2019-06 to 2021-03 (retired as Major).

 

Small point of order: discharged, not retired.

 

it was a quote directly from him that he retired.
Even a spokesperson from the guard emailed PolitiFact:
“When Hegseth retired in March 2021…” and the source list cites an email exchange with the Guard’s PAO

Did Pete Hegseth’s tattoos bar him from Biden inauguration?

 

Articles can get these things off. Unless you get medically retired, which is definitely not the case, you need a minimum of 20 “good years,” for a Reserve or Guard retirement. Simply put, a “good year” is one in which you got a minimum amount of points through drills, annual training, schools, deployments, etc. Hegseth had two extended periods of broken service, where he was in the IRR. Like I wrote earlier, there’s nothing unusual or wrong with that. Happens all the time for lots of reasons. You stay on the books and can be recalled to service in the event of a national emergency, getting a small paycheck for keeping minimum readiness standards, etc, but the time does not count toward retirement, promotion, pay increases, and so on. Looking at his combined service, I’d say he has about 10 “good years.” I’ve also read his book (I read all of the leaders’ books) and he does not assert he is “retired.”

 

Trump just egged on his supporters to overthrow the government. He did not call in the national guard to help.

 

Let me ask you a stupid question. If I was in law school from 2001-2003, then practiced law from 2004-2006, from 2010-2014, and from 2019-2021, would I have been practicing law for 20 years? How about if during many of those years my law practice was on just one weekend per month and 4 weeks during the summer? As an aside, when you are in ROTC during college, you are not in the military.

 

With the exception of those on active duty in an enlisted commissioning program, that is correct.

 

Thanks.

 

In no way does this guy seem respected by, or truly respectful of, his “peers” in the military. He’s a total joke. Just like this current administration.

 

Well, that’s quite an assessment. Who are his peers?

 

My guess is that very few of the top brass who were forced to attend the recent meeting respect Hegseth.

 

I wish more of the political activist generals would expose themselves. Quite a few already have but not enough to really clean the mess up entirely with the top of the chain of command. Bidens flunkies were pretty good at embedding them in there those 4 years.

 

Good question. For the context of the other member’s comment, it would be those who are truly military professionals.
That’s why I placed “peers” in quotations.

Edit: Would you disagree?

 

Pete Hegseth has been declared a "laughing stock" within the Department of Defense by a U.S. Marine veteran and Arizona Senator. All because Hegseth is trying to compensate for something; apparently, Hegseth doesn't know what he's doing. It's only a matter of time before Saturday Night Live makes a parody of this summit . . .

He claimed that the entire summit could have been handled by an e-mail with a lot less drama.

Rumor has it that ICE agents are closing in on the Senator with the Latino-sounding name tonight . . .

Marine Veteran Says Hegseth Is A 'Laughing Stock' Within Defense Department

 

Uh, SNL already parodied it in their cold open last night. Just as I predicted up thread.

 

Apologies for the delayed response. I feel this one requires more exposition.

No, I would not say anyone in the top brass, or anyone in uniformed service for that matter, is the Secretary's peer. They are in fact his subordinates, for better or for worse. If you were to ask me who are his peers then, I would say the other senior members of the Cabinet (State, Treasury, Attorney General, etc.) or, if you like, other people who have served as Secretary of Defense in previous administrations.

But I fully appreciate that does not address the heart of your actual argument here: Is Pete Hegseth qualified to lead a department with the limited amount of military experience that he has? Well, the answer is yes. Because the only qualifications for being Secretary are to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The President and Senate were aware of his military experience. Still, he was nominated and confirmed. What about his personal issues? The President and Senate were aware of these allegations. Still, he was nominated and confirmed. I don't know what more there is to say about that. The military does not get to choose its civilian leaders, and there is no requirement for the military to like who the President and Senate place over them. The only requirement is to obey lawful orders and uphold the Constitution that deliberately subordinates the military to civilian governance. In the better part of 30 years I've been serving, I only recall once the military ever expressing enthusiasm for an incoming Secretary of Defense, and that was for James Mattis in 2016. In the opinion of many of us, he ended up being a disappointment for resigning, apparently, the first time he did not get his way on a military matter (on an issue, it seems, he would have eventually gotten his way) instead of staying and being a moderating factor for the Administration. Since someone will probably bring up Lloyd Austin next, I know the Biden Administration was hoping he would be received, as a former general, with the same level of enthusiasm as a Mattis or a Marshall, but he ended up being a huge disappointment for the rank and file in terms of being a steward for the profession. Partially, that is why we are in this situation now, where you have a Secretary who is roundly disliked in the civilian world (that might be something of an understatement) but whose biggest qualification in the eyes of the President, the primary decision maker, was that he understands the problem of eroded discipline and proficiency in the military because he has experienced it, researched it, and written on it; has produced a roadmap for correcting it; and has put his hand in the air and said he will lead the effort and take whatever criticism is necessary in the process. As far as how the military has received the message the Secretary put out last week, what I'm hearing generally varies between "It's about time" and "He's absolutely right, but I don't like the way he said some of it." I think the worst comment I've heard so far from a military person was, "Of course, we have to fix all of that, but he's still an asshole, and there's no fixing that." So even when the troops dislike the messenger, they have a hard time disputing the message.

Somewhat of a shift in gears, but I have actually brought up before that I believe there ought to be statutory minimum qualifications for each Cabinet position, Supreme Court justices, ambassadors, etc. that tie the hands of Presidents and the Senate into nominating and confirming people that are actually experts in the field they would supposedly lead, instead of, say, rewarding former political rivals for endorsing you, surrounding yourself with lickspittles, and so on. If we're being completely honest, Pete Buttigieg had no business being Secretary of Transportation with no background in any its agencies, and same for Marco Rubio as Secretary of State with no background in foreign service. As far of Secretary of Defense/War goes, this is what I say the minimum, statutory standards ought to be: military retiree, minimum grade of O6, maximum grade of O8 (unless waived by 2/3rds of the Senate); graduate of senior service school (War College); five years removed from service (unless waived by 2/3rds of the Senate); minimum of two years private sector experience after completion of service, not in direct support of any military organization (in other words, can't be a contractor like me just doing a military job in civilian clothes), and this last requirement is not waiverable. I will point out that almost every Secretary of Defense since 1947 would not have qualified under these restrictions, and that's probably a good thing. Of course, whenever I bring up requirements like this, the party out of power is always, like, "Yeah, do that." And the party in power is, like, "I trust my President to appoint the right people." So nothing is likely to change until the party in power is willing to limit its own President.

 

This is pretty much what I have been hearing as well.

 

All fair points imo. And a very insightful response.