I’m not speaking for Evan, but this article makes a pretty good argument:
After a tumultuous four years, we need civilian leadership and a return to normalcy.
www.nytimes.com
Been out-of-pocket, but I agree with much of what is stated in that op-ed. Ultimately, I think it is important for DoD and the Executive branch to follow historic norms. Mattis was a special case and shouldn't be seen as the new norm -- he was an exception during an exceptional time. Even then, I was against his initial appointment for the same reasons I'm expressing now.
We need civilian control of DoD. The requirement used to be out of the military for 10 years but Congress shortened it to 7 years. There's no reason to be granting waivers -- they've already cut down on the required "time as a civilian."
It's just a perplexing decision especially since Michelle Flournoy would've been a perfect fit and she's highly-qualified. No offense to General Austin, but Flournoy is the better qualified candidate and has more experience leading at DoD than he does.
A lot of people saw this article as listing all the negatives of Flournoy, but in my view the vast majority of the negatives are actually positives
I seriously can't believe people knocked Flournoy for being respected and having a strong familiarity with DoD's modus operandi. I'll admit I haven't been in the defense world perhaps as long as others here, but in my experience, thus far, having someone who is widely-respected by the defense community, seen as extremely competent, and deeply understands the complexity and culture at the Pentagon is quite rare.
Won't go into specifics, but I can think of one Under Secretary for Defense who is a complete embarrassment to anyone with even half-a-clue, and it's obvious that person will be gone very soon after Biden is inaugurated. They have no business being where they are at DoD. Flournoy is the opposite of that. I'm sure General Austin will be competent, but I won't be surprised if his time at the Pentagon is rather short. Just my opinion