Another Inexperienced Pick
This time for Secretary of the Navy
Via the AP: Trump turns to outsider to shake up Navy, but his lack of military experience raises concerns.
Trump late Tuesday nominated Phelan, a major donor to his campaign who founded the private investment firm Rugger Management LLC. The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment on his qualifications. According to his biography, Phelan’s primary exposure to the military comes from an advisory position he holds on the Spirit of America, a non-profit that supports the defense of Ukraine and the defense of Taiwan.
Not all service secretaries come into the office with prior military experience, but he’d be the first in the Navy since 2006. Current Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth similarly does not have prior military service. She, however, has spent her career in a host of defense civilian positions.
More via NBC News:
As the 79th Navy secretary, Phelan would oversee more than 900,000 people and an annual budget of more than $210 billion.
The last eight people who have held the title since 2009 had served either in the Navy, Marine Corps, Army or Coast Guard, according to their Naval History and Heritage Command biographies.
Twenty out of 26 people to be confirmed as Navy secretary over the last 70 years were veterans, the Military Times reported.
Carlos Del Toro, whom Phelan would be replacing, had served in the Navy for more than 20 years and had done several tours of duty at sea, his Navy biography says.
BTW, there is a big difference between noting that not all such secretaries have had military service and having someone who essentially has zero relevant experience.
So, it does seem that in addition to TV appearances being a big draw for Trump, another one is being incredibly wealthy.
Along those lines, Zuckerberg dines with Trump in Mar-a-Lago. Trump does seem to be courting the oligarchs.
Come now. it’s not as though a nation dependent on trade that comes largely over the Atlantic and Pacific needs to insure the freedom and safety of the sea lanes. Besides, if all goes bad, the US can impose a crippling tariff on the oceans.
His defenders will claim his business experience, after all he’s a billionaire. But running an investment firm, that can be extremely wealthy, yet still be technically a small business, is far different than the Navy. If his experience was running GM, US Steel, Apple, Google etc, it would be more reassuring.
Trump is treating these high level positions the way most presidents treat second level ambassadorships.
@Sleeping Dog:
Rex Tillerson is on the line and would like a word 😉
(Having noted that, yes, that would be better, but it still wouldn’t be good).
@Sleeping Dog:
@Steven L. Taylor:
McNamara ran Ford before becoming the longest ever serving secretary of defense. I’m not familiar with his overall record in that office, but one word is a large dark cloud on his tenure: Vietnam.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I don’t disagree with you.
@Kathy:..McNamara…
This name popped into my head as well.
Per WikiP he started at Ford in 1946 and was named President of Ford in November of 1960. When President Kennedy was inaugurated on January 21, 1961 McNamara became Secretary of Defense.
ol·i·gar·chy n. a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
Nice to see the keepers of the left’s approved narrative Wikipedia has redefined oligarchy to mean any group of people with resources disapproved by the left’s narrative attempting to have political influence.
So the Tea Party was an oligarchy.
@Paul L.: If you are going to play the simplistic definition game, at least define the word used, not a different one, even if it is adjacent.
@Steven L. Taylor: Tillerson was SOS for 14 months. Did he really ever have a chance? Ultimately, he was smart enough to recognize Trump for what he was, a fucking moron (he let everyone know that was what he thought of Trump).
Is there an argument that the military’s perspective on things is already well represented in the government, and that there is a need to have a civilian perspective not biased by previous military experience?
This seems like a dumb pick, from Trump’s point of view, regardless of whether the Navy is one of the agencies that Trump wants to co-opt, or one of the agencies he wants to sabotage. Given the enormous institutional momentum of the Navy, either one would require a Secretary with deep insider knowledge.
@Lucysfootball: He gets credit for being honest about Trump. He was still a bad pick.
@Michael Cain: Absolutely! But there are civilians with expertise and knowledge in this area.
I think having served in the military is a bonus for these kinds of jobs but not an absolute must. The musts would include the managerial and leadership skills to run a large organization plus familiarity with current military issues. Budget fights are fierce within each service branch and between the branches. You need someone with a good idea about the picture so you know to whom you ned to say no. Everyone wants new and shinier toys but you cant afford it. Then there are the personnel issues that can get tricky. If the guy in charge doesnt understand those issues he is likely to get rolled by a favorite group or he is going to end up making decisions based upon what he was told to do by Trump without being able to give good reasons. That wont fly well will people on the job for 25-30 years.
Steve
Kevin Drum had a post yesterday quoting a WAPO story that Trump has named conventionally qualified people to lead economic policy. This is consistent with the view that the oligarchs are concerned only with taxes, regulation, and other economic concerns. As for everything else, even national defense, they’re content to give whoever can draw a Republican
majorityplurality free reign to do whatever keeps the rubes onboard. After all, they have security to keep guns at bay. They can send their daughters and mistresses to Paris for a shopping spree and a scrape. They’re making money ignoring AGW. If education is privatized they send their kids to private schools anyway. And they think their lobbyists can manipulate Trump on tariffs.The President deserves to appoint people who will further his policies. Mr. Phelan will do a good job of ensuring that our aircraft carriers have steam powered catapults. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26478/donald-trump-emals-steam-catapult-aircraft-carrier/
@Slugger:
I bet if the felon whines hard enough, and hold his breath long enough, the Navy will not only ditch the EM catapults for older steam-powered ones, but will even install a dedicated coal boiler to make steam.
@Slugger: I recall that story. I have assumed that they have sorted out the issue with the magnetic impulse catapult. What he doesn’t like is the fact it wasn’t perfect, and that the non-perfection happened while he was president.
One would think that “It works great and is twice as fast as steam” would make him shut up.
This seems a good spot to note the difference between a policy choice such as tariffs, and policies that affect military readiness. The outcome of imposing a tariff is visible to everyone. Everyone can observe whether prices at Walmart go up or not. It doesn’t take a very long time for that to happen, either. It’s basically an empirical question which is easy to observe.
Policies, and personnel that could harm readiness of the armed forces though, are far less easily observable by ordinary citizens. Which makes them a lot more dangerous. Particularly if the president seeks to discredit and undermine public confidence in top military brass. And by the way, that’s going to have an impact on readiness, as well.
A good pick for insider trading grift, as in who’s gonna get the next big contract, who’s going to be cut off from a big contract? An experienced top-end Wall Streeter should know how to get away with that stuff. Not that Trump’s DOJ will be looking, or anything.