Fanning, 47, has been a specialist on national security issues for more than two decades and has played a key role overseeing some of the Pentagon’s biggest shipbuilding and fighter jet programs. Now he will oversee an Army that has been battered by the longest stretch of continuous combat in U.S. history and is facing potentially severe budget cuts.
Wikipedia has Eric Fanning's impressive bio.
WSJ commenters don't like it one single bit.
They're not particularly clever, the unhappy commenters. Nobody said anything about not ever wearing but still liking very much a man in uniform.
There must be a ton of qualified people to choose from when you think about it, a bewilderingly large choice of good people available, who then is groomed for higher positions and who selected for them becomes a matter of selecting along lines that do not bear on job effectiveness, they're all similar for the most part with the very rare genius, rather, other values are indulged that do not bear on performance and this template or pattern of choosing statistical outliers followed consistently for political reasoning so that over time public servants in no wise resemble the actual public.
On the other hand, he really could be the standout best. I don't know.
Good luck. His career arc is surprisingly rapid. He was made undersecretary of the Army only a few months ago. Undersecretary of Army to Secretary of Army in three and half months. Schwing. Like a piece on a game board moved by a hand from above.
11 comments:
If it comes down to a contest over who's got the biggest butt plugs, we've got the Jihadis beat!
I don't care if he's gay or straight or whatever. All I care about is whether he will support & protect Soldiers (and Marines) in his new role. Period. I am hoping he will.
Why do we even know what kind of sex he prefers? Is that part of the job?
bagoh20 ... excellent question. Just how do we know these things? Media, that's how. Whether it makes a difference, or not, seems not to bother the pundits. They just must have a victim. I'd hope he's a normal person vis a vis the soldiers he will over see. Time will tell....if he's good, great, if not, bad.
I want to know if he likes the top or bottom.
Bottom, of course. How else would he be where he is otherwise. I'm just talking bureaucrat wise, nothing to do with sexual preference.
If he were a gay Patton or Sherman, I would be..hell yeah, he is a friggin Patton or Sherman, who cares what he does outside of work.
I am guessing that is not the case. If this is him getting this job solely because he likes men, that is a very bad decision by those who appointed him (yeah, you Mr. President).
I recognize that most civilian DoD jobs are not Patton or Sherman positions anyway, I just meant what Airdog said, all I care about is if this guy is 100% dedicated to the mission of defending the country and supporting the service personnel in harms way.
My biggest concern vis a vis his appointment is that he has never served in the military, in any capacity, to the best of my knowledge. With his remarkable appointments, most by Obama, what are his credentials to oversee the US Army? That said, he can be a leader if he focuses on the soldiers and not the politics or social agendas. I am not one who thinks all executives must have been soldiers (or Marines), but it does influence my thinking. We shall see.
Titus fainted for comment.
Hogs
Post a Comment