Biden chooses retired general Lloyd Austin to be defense secretary - source

By Trevor Hunnicutt and Phil Stewart

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Army General Lloyd Austin, commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, greets the last group of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division to cross the Kuwaiti border as part of the last U.S. military convoy to leave Iraq December 18, 2011. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

 

WILMINGTON, Del. (Reuters) -President-elect Joe Biden has chosen retired General Lloyd Austin, who oversaw U.S. forces in the Middle East under President Barack Obama, to be his defense secretary, a person familiar with the decision said on Monday.

 

Austin, who would be the first Black U.S. secretary of defense, was a surprise pick over Michelle Flournoy, the woman considered the leading contender for the job. Flournoy would have been the first woman defense secretary.

 

The news was first reported by Politico.

 

Austin will need a waiver from Congress since it has been less than the required seven years since he served. He would be the second Pentagon chief in four years to require a waiver, after President Donald Trump picked James Mattis, a retired Marine general, to be his first defense secretary.

 

The nomination of Austin, who headed U.S. Central Command under Obama, could draw fire some progressive groups given his role in retirement on the board of a number of companies, including weapons maker Raytheon Technologies Corp.

 

Biden, who takes office on Jan. 20, also announced members of his health team to lead the administration's response to the raging coronavirus pandemic.

 

Biden chose California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for secretary of health and human services and picked Dr. Rochelle Walensky, chief of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, to run the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was named as Biden's chief medical adviser on the virus.

 

Biden's first major challenge in the White House will be containing a resurgent COVID-19 virus that has killed more than 282,000 Americans, and finding ways to jump-start an economy still reeling from millions of pandemic-fueled job losses.

 

He installed Jeff Zients, an economic adviser https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2II2BN known for his managerial skills, as coronavirus "czar" to oversee a response that will include an unprecedented operation to distribute hundreds of millions of doses of a new vaccine, coordinating efforts across multiple federal agencies.

 

"This team of world-class medical experts and public servants will be ready on Day One to mobilize every resource of the federal government to expand testing and masking," Biden said in a statement, adding they would "oversee the safe, equitable, and free distribution of treatments and vaccines."

 

Biden, a Democrat, has pressed ahead with the transition to the White House even as Trump, a Republican, refuses to concede the Nov. 3 election and wages a foundering effort to overturn the results with unsubstantiated claims of fraud.

 

Dozens of Trump's legal challenges have been rejected by the courts, the latest on Monday when judges in Detroit and Atlanta tossed bids to decertify Biden's election victories in Michigan and Georgia. Biden won Michigan by about 154,000 votes and Georgia by about 12,000 votes.

 

GEORGIA CERTIFIES BIDEN WIN

In Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Monday certified the state's results, a statement said, after a third count confirmed Biden's win. The Electoral College will formalize results nationwide on Dec. 14.

 

Raffensperger, a Republican, said continued debunked claims about voting fraud were "hurting our state." Runoff elections for Georgia's two U.S. Senate seats, scheduled for Jan. 5, will determine which party controls the chamber.

 

Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who has led legal challenges in several states, was being treated in a Washington hospital after testing positive for COVID-19. Giuliani, 76, the latest in a long string of people close to the White House to catch the coronavirus, including the president himself, was doing well and did not have a temperature, Trump said.

 

Biden's choice of Becerra, 62, a Latino former congressman, adds a politician to a health effort that otherwise largely relies on government administrators and health experts.

 

The choice also comes as Biden faces pressure to ensure diversity in his Cabinet appointments, including complaints from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus about the number of Latinos and from civil rights groups about the lack of Black nominees for top posts.

 

Biden's decision to nominate the first Black defense secretary in Austin helps him make good on his promise for more diversity. It will also resonate among proponents for greater diversity in the leadership of the U.S. armed forces, which is regularly criticized for failing to promote Black servicemembers and whose top leadership has been largely white.

 

Austin has not cultivated a public persona and is not seen as someone who enjoys the media spotlight. However, he is known to be a shrewd military strategist with deep knowledge of the U.S. armed forces.

 

Earlier on Monday, the Democrat who leads the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, had openly shown his preference for Flournoy. "I think Michelle Flournoy is hands-down the best-qualified person to do the job," Smith said.

 

(Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt and John Whitesides; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu and Julia Harte; Writing by Grant McCool and John Whitesides; Editing by Scott Malone, Sonya Hepinstall and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-12-08

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Guy is being totally led by Obama team it seems.

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, 4reaL said:

Guy is being totally led by Obama team it seems.

 

 

 

 

At least they will have some experience of the job, unlike a few of Trump's crowd!

Bad pick by Biden since it violates the principle of civilian control of the military.

Deep State crawling up from the Swamp ....

Troll post reported and removed.  

 

31 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Bad pick by Biden since it violates the principle of civilian control of the military.

Jim Mattis?  Who by all accounts, turned out to be one of the very few competent individuals with some integrity in the Trump administration.

28 minutes ago, Jack Mountain said:

Deep State crawling up from the Swamp ....

Oh I don’t know about that,I do like him appointmenting people of color helps instill pride and hope in the folks of color unity and strength it also reflects our nation as a whole he certainly has experience in military matters 

12 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Jim Mattis?  Who by all accounts, turned out to be one of the very few competent individuals with some integrity in the Trump administration.

 

Mattis lacked integrity enough to criticize Trump for hist attacks on democracy.  But even if he had been a model of rectitude, appointed a general to head DoD violates the principle of civilian control of the military, which is a legal requirement as well as a principle of good government.  Is there something hard to understand about that?

53 minutes ago, fangless said:

At least they will have some experience of the job, unlike a few of Trump's crowd!

 

  At least Trumps guys didnt start any wars , so, maybe NOT having experience in wars is a good thing 

10 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Mattis lacked integrity enough to criticize Trump for hist attacks on democracy.  But even if he had been a model of rectitude, appointed a general to head DoD violates the principle of civilian control of the military, which is a legal requirement as well as a principle of good government.  Is there something hard to understand about that?

The point is you weren't criticizing Trump when he appointed a retired General. 

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

Bad pick by Biden since it violates the principle of civilian control of the military.

Not really.

Biden will be Commander in Chief. 

The Defense Secretary reports to him.

 

 

Next

...

Ya, it's really too bad that Biden didn't follow Trump's typical example of senior appointments, and pick someone who isn't well-qualified for the job and whose background and interest is opposed to the purpose of the department they've been nominated to lead.

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Ya, it's really too bad that Biden didn't follow Trump's typical example of senior appointments, and pick someone who isn't well-qualified for the job and whose background and interest is opposed to the purpose of the department they've been nominated to lead.

Yeah the approach of soon to be ex president Sir Trump reminded me of a variation of the Chinese cultural revolution. Put completely unqualified people in charge strictly based on blind loyalty to the "great" leader and demonize people with actual education and experience in the particular areas. Like preferring to go to a doctor that is a fast food fry cook rather than a real doctor. In other words self destructive and insane.

36 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  At least Trumps guys didnt start any wars , so, maybe NOT having experience in wars is a good thing 

Yes, just like when you discover that big dark mole on your body but go to a plumber instead of a dermatologist. Got it!

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah the approach of soon to be ex president Sir Trump....

I'm focusing more on the soon to be convict trump.

48 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not really.

Biden will be Commander in Chief. 

The Defense Secretary reports to him.

 

 

Next

...

 

That's your opinion, but it isn't the opinion of the US Congress which passed the National Security Act in 1947, which, in addition to establishing the CIA, mandates a minimum seven-year gap between military service and civilian control of the military.  Since Austin only retired from the military in 2016, his appointment would conflict with the law.  Congress could pass a waiver, but that has been done only twice before, for George Marshall in 1950 and Mattis in 2017.  Such a waiver would legalize the appointment, but not render it acceptable policy.  It's not as though there is any shortage of people who could do the job, who aren't military.  

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

The point is you weren't criticizing Trump when he appointed a retired General. 

I certainly was criticizing Trump for the Mattis appointment.  

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Ya, it's really too bad that Biden didn't follow Trump's typical example of senior appointments, and pick someone who isn't well-qualified for the job and whose background and interest is opposed to the purpose of the department they've been nominated to lead.

Like the EPA. Can't wait to see who he appoints. Hopefully a Native American. Not many in Govt. Or for the Dept. of Interior.

7 hours ago, 4reaL said:

Guy is being totally led by Obama team it seems.

 

You are aware that Biden was ALSO a part of the leadership of the Obama team, right? And that Team, whether you liked it or not, successfully administrated the USA for 8 years without, it seems, hardly anyone going to jail or being convicted of criminal charges. So yes, he's choosing people from his own team from the time when he was the #2 guy at the White House. Should hardly be a surprise.

By the way, as a progressive, I'm by no means pleased either with Biden or his appointments. But compared to the alternative, what choice does the USA have? Gotta give the Republicans credit, they managed to shift the entire USA political spectrum so far to the Right since Reagan that even a moderate Democrat like Biden is actually a solidly Right-Wing politician in practically every other comparable first world democracy. Listening to the "radical Marxists" nonsense while living and actually working in a Marxist country has been giving me a daily dose of cognitive dissonance.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2...

 

and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....

 

He has nominated, but the Senate may not 'consent'..

 

I must admit as a non US citizen, I find this a little perplexing. A political  appointee for any position is not unknown among other governments, including my own.  To nominate an experienced ex-soldier as Secretary of Defense seems eminently sensible to me. The emphasis is on 'ex' soldier. He is a civilian now, not a serving soldier.

The 7 year gap between retiring and being appointed seems a little bizarre, though.

Can anyone explain the reason?

31 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2...

 

and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....

 

He has nominated, but the Senate may not 'consent'..

 

I must admit as a non US citizen, I find this a little perplexing. A political  appointee for any position is not unknown among other governments, including my own.  To nominate an experienced ex-soldier as Secretary of Defense seems eminently sensible to me. The emphasis is on 'ex' soldier. He is a civilian now, not a serving soldier.

The 7 year gap between retiring and being appointed seems a little bizarre, though.

Can anyone explain the reason?

The founders didn't want a military dictatorship. They also didn't want a King. The first president Washington was so popular that he could have been both and if he had the USA would have been an entirely different country. But he  honorably chose not to. The value of a civilian run military is deeply ingrained in American culture both civilian and military. The seven year rule came much later. The number of years sounds very arbitrary to me. The idea is clear though.

 

Also to add the commander in chief the president who is a civilian though she could be ex military is in charge of all cabinet officials. Congress is supposed to have the power to declare wars but in reality presidents run wars without declarations  However congress is still in control of the budgets for military and wars.

8 hours ago, cmarshall said:

 

That's your opinion, but it isn't the opinion of the US Congress which passed the National Security Act in 1947, which, in addition to establishing the CIA, mandates a minimum seven-year gap between military service and civilian control of the military.  Since Austin only retired from the military in 2016, his appointment would conflict with the law.  Congress could pass a waiver, but that has been done only twice before, for George Marshall in 1950 and Mattis in 2017.  Such a waiver would legalize the appointment, but not render it acceptable policy.  It's not as though there is any shortage of people who could do the job, who aren't military.  

OK its a fair point but about 5 years isn't that far from 7. I assume if Austin is otherwise qualified he should and will get the same waiver that Mattis got with a much shorter gap. Otherwise I reckon there will be charges of a race based double standard. 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

OK its a fair point but about 5 years isn't that far from 7. I assume if Austin is otherwise qualified he should and will get the same waiver that Mattis got with a much shorter gap. Otherwise I reckon there will be charges of a race based double standard. 

The original period in the National Security Act of 1947 was ten years, which Congress later reduced to seven.  So, reduce it again to four and for not the first time in sixty-seven years, but the second time in four years and the principle of civilian control of the military becomes meaningless. 

 

What's needed after the chaos of the Trump years is a return to normalcy.  Putting a general in charge of the DoD is not normal, but a continuation of misrule.

 

34 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

The original period in the National Security Act of 1947 was ten years, which Congress later reduced to seven.  So, reduce it again to four and for not the first time in sixty-seven years, but the second time in four years and the principle of civilian control of the military becomes meaningless. 

 

What's needed after the chaos of the Trump years is a return to normalcy.  Putting a general in charge of the DoD is not normal, but a continuation of misrule.

 

 

Thanks for expressing your opinion but I think you're exaggerating the problem in this case. Reports are that Joe Biden and Austin had a very good working relationship in the past and there is a societal and military benefit to FINALLY having a black Secretary of Defense.  

2 hours ago, Scott Tracy said:

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2...

 

and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....

 

He has nominated, but the Senate may not 'consent'..

 

I must admit as a non US citizen, I find this a little perplexing. A political  appointee for any position is not unknown among other governments, including my own.  To nominate an experienced ex-soldier as Secretary of Defense seems eminently sensible to me. The emphasis is on 'ex' soldier. He is a civilian now, not a serving soldier.

The 7 year gap between retiring and being appointed seems a little bizarre, though.

Can anyone explain the reason?

The thinking is that he would still be too closely connected to his members of the military. Not independent enough.

Geez, we're in the middle of a pandemic even worse than 1918, economic suffering comparable to the great depression, a divided country comparable to the civil war, a sitting president trying to stage a coup and sabotage the peaceful transition of power, active threats from multiple enemy nations, and people are really worried that an obviously well qualified Secretary of Defense candidate has been in the military a little too recently? Come on man! 

Confirm (soon to be) President Joe Biden's picks and lets get on with it. 

13 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  At least Trumps guys didnt start any wars , so, maybe NOT having experience in wars is a good thing 

The war on American democracy Trump started you forgot? 

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Geez, we're in the middle of a pandemic even worse than 1918, economic suffering comparable to the great depression, a divided country comparable to the civil war, a sitting president trying to stage a coup and sabotage the peaceful transition of power, active threats from multiple enemy nations, and people are really worried that an obviously well qualified Secretary of Defense candidate has been in the military a little too recently? Come on man! 

Confirm (soon to be) President Joe Biden's picks and lets get on with it. 

Although I agree with you completely, I take comfort in knowing that we have returned to discussing minute and, by comparison to the last 4 years, pedantic details about otherwise qualified people.   

19 hours ago, cmarshall said:

 

Mattis lacked integrity enough to criticize Trump for hist attacks on democracy.  But even if he had been a model of rectitude, appointed a general to head DoD violates the principle of civilian control of the military, which is a legal requirement as well as a principle of good government.  Is there something hard to understand about that?

He is a civilian, NOW!