New Secretary of Army is an Interesting Choice?

True. There's something to be said about having prior experience in whatever high-ranking job to which you're appointed. On paper, at least, Gen. Fanning seems to be qualified.

OTOH, I'm concerned that Gen. Fanning is "openly" gay.

All military officers, although they may be appointed, as is certainly the case of a 4-star general as Fanning is, must still pass Congressional scrutiny to be awarded his promotion (not as head of the DOD, but as a person up for what currently is the highest rank to which a person in the military can attain--4 star General).

Since apparently he's been openly gay at least as long as when he was made a 2nd Lieutenant, let alone a 4-star General, he would have to had been before Congress 10 times.

While being openly gay when you're only a lower ranking officer probably wouldn't be much of a deterrent for Congress to approve your promotion, when you're taking about being promoted to our nation's highest military rank as he already has been, I find it strange that none of the 100 members of the US Senate never questioned Fanning's being "openly" gay--even the handful of GOP senators who are now running for POTUS.

As best I can tell, none of them have opposed Obama's appointing him as DOD Secretary-- even those that have opposed the "gay agenda."

While 17 months isn't very long a time period, it's still plenty of time for starting the ball rolling for what could eventually be the beginning of the end of America's being a military superpower.

The leaders of such other rival claimants for the world's top military power as Russia, China, and even India--all of which have within their arsenal enough nuclear weapons--and, don't forget America's Middle Eastern "friend," Iran--where Obama practically allowed them to continue on with what Iran claims is only to bolster its electrical power grid, is one of the most openly anti-Israeli nations in the world, won't even have their reactors facing "surprise" visits by the UN's nuclear inspection teams.

Anyway, only time will tell how Fanning will implement Obama's already-announced plans to gut the number of personnel and military installations to what the US military was like prior to WW2.

Moreover, Obama's defense spending bill doesn't seem to be in that much trouble in the GOP-controlled US Senate.

Oh, these POTUS candidates may raise some stink about it, but when it comes to actually voting on the US budget, many of the GOP US Senators will still vote for approval of it simply because they don't want to be on record as being one who voted to shut down the US government within only a couple weeks' until then end of the current fiscal year.

Also, one needs to keep in mind that although Obama's tenure as POTUS will end on January 20 of 2016, that doesn't always mean that Gen. Fanning will no longer be Defense Secretary.

Back in late December, 1963, LBJ retained JFK's Defense Secretary Robert McNamara until 1968, and in 1974, President Ford retained James Schlesinger after he was made POTUS on the heels of Nixon's resignation.

While I hope that the November, 2016, election doesn't wind up with Hillary Clinton as victor, suppose she does win.

Well she's the wife of former POTUS Bill Clinton, the one who implemented the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for our nation's military--and she's already announced that she'll do anything with her power to see that gays will have top priority to promote their agenda. Keeping Fanning as head of the DOD may not be an impossible as it now seems.

 

I don't care who he sleeps with, I do care that he is a well credentialed leader who will help our troops.

 

Do you think Fanning's abominations should be ignored? Should leaders in any nation defy God as Fanning has been doing for decades?

 

I don't know if General Eric Fanning personally has had any real "hands-on, close combat" experience--assuming that's what you mean by "military experience."

OTOH, I suppose that probably he did when he was an O-1 or an O-2. These lower ranking officers usually serve hand-to-hand alongside the enlisted troops that they command at the platoon level. No doubt he probably fired his combat rifle or pistol and threw hand grenades in close order combat in those days.

By the time he achieved a field-grade promotion to 0-5 or above, his close order combat days were behind him since by that time he would have been serving more as a strategic commander at a brigade or numbered-Army level.

IMHO, to say that DOD Secretary General Eric Fanning never had any combat experience in his entire military career would probably be a mistake.

 

"On The Job Experience" vs. GOP Voters Attitudes In The 2016 POTUS Race

The discussion in this thread over what constitutes being qualified to become US Secretary of Defense has prompted me to open a separate thread about the real "Hands-On Job experience" that the current top three GOP POTUS contenders have.

God willing, I'll start a new thread on this because I think that the actual day-to-day hands-on job experience that contenders for the office of Chief Executive have is, IMHO, a very important factor--especially when that person will eventually be over ALL Presidential Cabinet Secretaries.

 

He's open with what he's doing. How many of the married adulterers aren't but no one is questioning their "hidden sin" speaking to their morals?

He's qualified to do the job. More power to him.

 

Okay. I'm gonna need you to keep your posts much shorter.:smilewinkgrin: