Who will be Biden's new Secretary of Defense?

Because the current one fucked up real bad.

President Joe Biden was not aware for days that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was hospitalized, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

National security adviser Jake Sullivan ultimately informed Biden late Thursday afternoon, soon after Sullivan himself learned that Austin had been hospitalized, that source said. Austin was admitted to the hospital on New Year’s Day due to complications from an elective surgery.

The Pentagon announced the hospitalization Friday. Austin issued his first statement Saturday, five days after being admitted to the hospital, saying he could have done a “better job” of notifying the public.

Austin offered no details about his condition, nor did he say exactly why he was hospitalized on January 1. As of Saturday evening, he remained in the hospital, according to a defense official.

On Saturday evening, Austin thanked the “amazing” staff at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for the care he has received and said he is “on the mend” and looking forward to returning to the Pentagon.

He acknowledged “media concerns about transparency” and said “I commit to doing better” in the statement, which totaled seven sentences. But he did not apologize for failing to notify the public or the press in a timely fashion. Senior administration and military officials who are hospitalized normally put out a statement within 24 hours.

Senior administration officials said they were shocked to learn of Austin’s hospitalization and the delay in informing the White House.

The overriding reaction has been one of concern for the well-being of Austin, who is generally well-liked within the White House.

Still, officials acknowledged the situation was highly unusual and were surprised at the delay in informing the president and senior National Security Council leadership.

Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks periodically assumed the duties of the defense secretary while she was on vacation in Puerto Rico during the time Austin was hospitalized, two US officials said. Hicks had arrived in Puerto Rico prior to Austin’s hospitalization.

Austin has since reassumed his full duties.

The congressional oversight committees were not notified of Austin’s hospitalization until Friday night, according to three congressional aides familiar with the matter.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/01/06/politics/lloyd-austin-hospitalization-officials/index.html

https://bsky.app/profile/profmusgrave.bsky.social/post/3kiebsbiicd2m

On the one hand, the head of any large entity should be removed enough from day-to-day functions that their absence for a week doesn't really make a big difference.

On the other hand, SecDef is probably somebody whose status and whereabouts should always be known.

Especially when WWIII is going on in Ukraine. Everybody seems to think that WWII started in 1939, forgetting that Germany was running amok in Europe before this, while Japan was running amok in Asia, and Italy was attempting to do the same in Ethiopia. 1939 is just the year that the powers who would later win the war decided that they might ought to get serious about stopping the Axis powers.

Okay, the first sentence is a little clickbait-y. It seems his staff didn’t bother informing anyone…
But yeah, the Secretary of Defense is someone whose whereabouts should be known.

That point might be relevant in retrospect. Declaring WWIII in advance is foolish.

Best to be proactive.

WWII actually may have started in China in 1931, when the Japanese pulled a Putin in Manchuria.

World War II started in 1914. In a thousand years the two world wars will be folded into one; perhaps the Cold War will be the WWII of that era.

There goes Crooked Joe, firing people again. Unlike the real president, Donald Trump, who picked a perfect cabinet and never had to fire anyone or had anyone resign.

The real reason Biden didn't know the SecDef was in the hospital was because he forgot. Because dementia, bra. Don't listen to MSDNC or CNlibrulN. They're just gaslighting you. It's like when they say the economy is good. It's not!

How is it not a world war? We have major European powers, along with the US, supplying weapons and "military advisors" to another European power fighting against a major European power. That major European power is getting weapons from Asian and Middle Eastern powers. All sides, regardless of if they have people fighting and dying on the ground in Ukraine, are actively trying to elicit support for either Ukraine or Russia from the rest of the world, not to mention convincing other nations to launch strikes on forces not actively fighting in Ukraine simply because it'll make it harder for Ukraine or Russia to carry on fighting with one another.

Surely we both can agree that something which meets even 90% of the legal definition of genocide, ought to be considered a genocide, if for no other reason than that it might get the rest of the world to take steps to prevent it from meeting 100% of the definition, with a few new examples of what also constitutes a genocide thrown in just for good measure. What makes this any different? The fact that Russia's got nukes? Okay, does that mean we should shy away from saying that US or some other country is committing genocide someplace simply because the aggressor has nukes? I know your ass isn't going to try to claim that at all. What makes this any different?

Do you think that if we all start calling it WWIII that this will mean nukes are going to fly? Pakistan and India have been nuclear powers for decades now, and have hated one another for even longer, have gone to war with one another since both sides have developed nuclear weapons. Both India and China have nukes and are routinely shooting one another across their shared border. Sure, maybe they haven't officially been designated as war neither have any US military operations since WWII, but that doesn't stop us from sticking that label on what we did in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq in the 90s, Afghanistan, and Iraq again in the 00s.

Maybe, and I'll admit that this is a bit of a stretch, but not really different than so many we make, if we start calling it WWIII, it'll get people to actually look at WTF is going on, not only in Ukraine, but other parts of the world were folks funded by the US and the Russians are fighting one another. If they look, they might realize that not only do we need to put a stop to this shit, but we also need to put in place serious measures so that the odds of something like this happening ever again are significantly lower.

Because where we are in the world right now, regardless of what you want to call it, ain't good. Not only do we have fascism rising again in the world, but we're on the precipice of an ecological disaster. We cannot let the fascists win anything significant if we want to have a chance of saving our species. If we wait until certain nations make formal declarations of war before we start calling it WWIII, that might very well be too late for all of us. And besides, in case you haven't noticed, the US, alone, has been willing and able to kill millions of people without anything like a formal declaration of war. So why should we wait until the oligarchs and the politicians decide on what to call it?

Whjen the president is a capable and intelligent person, maybe like Obama, you might be able to have staff do things like this. When the president is Donald Trump or Joe Biden you really should have capable and ready people because the HMIC is a braindead incompetent shitbag who should be fucking up his golf game or bridge game at thew retirement home, rather than sleeping through his presidency.

but hey, we have at least four more years of old and fucking braindead white dude fucking shit up in the white house, and decades before we are allowed to vote in someone younger and capable because we had a brief break with young black guy so that is the end for the next fifty years.

I'm not aware if there's a generally accepted definition of "World War", but if those are the criteria then I'd suggest that there have been very many others that aren't typically classed as such. Off the top of my head in the 20th century they would include the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Soviet-Afghan War and probably others.

Not sure how the "genocide" conversation is the same one as the "world war" conversation. Whether it's an appropriate term to use has obviously nothing to do with a perpetrator having nukes.

No, I don't think that that automatically means that nukes would fly. Although it's definitely a case that it might move the Overton window somewhat in that direction.

I agree with most of this although I might disagree with you about who the bad actors are and I don't see the connection to the naming convention used.

Unfortunately what seems most likely to me is that a peace unfavourable to Ukraine is likely to be negotiated in the next year or two. Ukranian manpower is in short supply and their western allies are showing signs of fatigue. While Russia is getting weapons from other powers, it isn't allied with many of them in any serious way - they just haven't joined the western sanctions because they (with some justification) see the west as behaving hypocritically, applying such sanctions only when it aligns with their strategic interests.

Were that to transpire, in five years time, will you still say that World War III was fought?

You know, someday the far left in the West and the Global South are going to share a meal, maybe hit a bar together. And the far left is going to be shocked at how much the Global South despises them.

I am aware of that, but I am also aware of the amount of shit the global south can eat on a daily basis, so asking them to suck it up and live with it is not a concern of mine.

Noble of you, indeed. But sometimes well-meaning folks need a reminder that many of these oppressed folks they're standing up for absolutely hate them. Doesn't mean you should stop standing up for the downtrodden, just be careful who you get in bed with.

"The global south" is not a monolith. You can't ascribe collective political views to them any more than you can to Europeans or Americans.

True. I was speaking in generalities.

This you seven hours ago?

Yup. The first referred to people in the global south, a large and diverse group. The second referred to the policies of western governments - a much smaller and less diverse one.

Whoever Obama picks.

Well that's good, Obama's a pretty sharp guy

Real Pentagon : We lose and find billions of dollars on a regular basis. LMAO

The point is that Biden is a puppet.

Yeah, of Obama's, which is great. I mean he's doing a brilliant job

You state this with great confidence. What is your evidence for asserting that Obama picks Biden's nominees, other than that you just "know" it?

I don’t need to post evidence, it’s not my decision, it’s Obama’s, you’ll just dismiss it anyway .

I don't need evidence that Trump threw ketchup on the walls of the oval office, but I can believe it anyway and laugh about it every time it's brought up.