Sorry I missed the fun. I've been on travel ahead of the holidays and trying to wrap up a capstone project before Christmas.

Marc,
I will bet you dollars to donuts I have been going to school longer and earning college credit from more colleges and universities than anyone you know, and that's not including hours I CLEP'd to skip most of my freshman year, or any Air University and Marine Corps University credit (yes they are accredited schools)--Hazards of pursuing engineering/science degrees while on active duty.
My beef is with so-called elite schools that are really more exclusive these days. They trade on their previosly earned prestige while in reality they've degenerated into some kind of post-hippy-takeover, politically-correct, sheepskin factory with a ready-made old-boy network to help move them along. When I get a stack of resumes and job applications, the "exclusive" school guys start at the bottom of the stack and have to earn their way up in the interview. Occassionally one of these guys comes along that actually does know F=ma AND that you can't push with a rope AND doesn't have an overarching sense of entitlement -- so he or she will get a shot.

Higher Ed? I LOVE it and will always remain true to my schools. Heck, I plan to teach grad school in my retirement.
GO Seawolveswildcatsaggieseaglesbeaverseagles!!!

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at November 24, 2008 01:11 AM

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began."

That would be from the Google cache of Obama's campaign site, which is copied verbatim on the new change.gov site. So where is the "withdraw now, regardless" part?

Posted by: Nied at November 22, 2008 01:27 AM

Yet more temporary help that has never worn a uniform. No thanks.

Posted by: ELP at November 21, 2008 08:32 PM

Another poster stated Obama's policy: "you would know he's in favor of a phased and realistic withdrawal."

Gee, that sounds a lot like Bush' policy, the one that Obama has been decrying as "the failed policies of the last eight years."

Big change.

Posted by: John at November 21, 2008 05:47 PM

Oh boy....

Hold on to your hats folks, we're in for a serious free fall.

Has anybody noticed all of the Harvard grads???

Posted by: Sean, San Diego CA at November 21, 2008 05:14 PM

Any comments against this potential Sec. of Def. sound like they can easyly apply to Condy Rice...

Posted by: Jose at November 21, 2008 04:33 PM

As long as the new Sec Def actually goes out on FACT finding missions with a panel of battle hardened VETERANS on their staff to IRAQ & AFGN, ANY choice should be an improvement on Rumsfeld.
The crucial issues for the next four years:

1.) Restoring quality VETERAN leadership with an emphasis on GROUND operations among the Joint Chiefs. Any general or admiral that hasn't been directly involved with the GWOT within the last THREE years has GOT to be relieved of command !
2.) Completely overhauling the DoD Procurement System.
"Lowest Bidder" is due for the cemetery. Case in point >
battle hardening the HMV cost more than a different brand new vehicle if you through in the original cost AND the up armor process. Lets try the body armor debacle for another example.
3.) Insuring all mobilized, deployed troops get full digital medical records at their MOBE sites BEFORE leaving for a combat zone and continuing through their tour of duty.
4.) Reviewing ALL wasteful, non-productive programs to trim
the DoD budget where it is actually needed. PORK !
5.) More inter-service integration when it comes to vehicles.
The Marines have some great ones, the Army needs to look at where and when they can combine contracts to save money and lives.

Posted by: SSG Yankee Medic at November 21, 2008 03:52 PM

Sounds like another Monica!

Posted by: chuck at November 21, 2008 03:00 PM

let's see now, Madeline albright to the UN, Hillary to state, this lady as secdef; will any jobs be left for white males?

Posted by: cdr p.w. prawl, usn ret at November 21, 2008 02:55 PM

Many people, regardless of gender, have been appointed to positions that they were not really "qualified" for, and done a great job. That being said, I agree that Harvard and Oxford? Fancy names on that piece of paper that hang on the wall, and not really much to recommend qualification.

Oh...and did you notice?
"Ms. Flournoy, a graduate of Harvard and Oxford, made her bones as a DoD worker bee with the Clinton Administration."

Where is this famous "change" that Obama promised was coming to Washington?

Did we re-elect Clinton when I was not looking?

Posted by: Larry at November 21, 2008 01:17 PM

Ivy League education and academia do not prepare anyone for anything - other than academia. While SECDEF is a far cry from being in the trenches, I would think that some real-world experience would be a pre-requisite.

Posted by: fargingbastige at November 21, 2008 11:28 AM

Hey what combat experience did Rumy have???

OH, I guess some consider squash to be like war.

Posted by: Tim at November 21, 2008 11:02 AM

If you survive your 1st hour in combat, you find you have learned more than you could in 240 hours of classroom study. Forgeting that hour is almost impossible. Forgeting classroom lessons is easy. Ask someone with a silver star, if you can get him or her to talk about it.

Classroom study and simulations can condition your response, but it does not prepare your for the smell, the shock and the real finality of making a mistake.

Posted by: Warpuck at November 21, 2008 10:53 AM

Keep Gates as Sec Def!

Posted by: Wes at November 21, 2008 10:45 AM

Her qualifications are heavy on theory, light on experience.

I would prefer a SecDef more closely tied to Obama's withdrawal no policy agenda.

Posted by: Cedric Gifford at November 21, 2008 10:17 AM

I have no problem with a woman being SEC/DEF, having said that there are plenty of RETIRED MILITARY women who cold do the job.

Also remember that Les Aspin who was a SEC/DEF and several others where not former military men either.

Also I would like to see a Senior NCO as SEC/DEF there has never been one and I thinnk a person who actually lead from the bottom of the chain would take a more "Common Sense" approach.

Posted by: Jere Smith at November 21, 2008 10:00 AM

It is truly painful how divided we as a nation seem to be sitting in safehaven when democrat and republican commanders as well as soldiers daily push aside their liberal and conservative viewpoints and pursue the mission at hand.

Politics are absolutely essential. However, we should never allow them to deterioate to the current level, which is a total embarrassment to this country.

It reminds one of two parents arguing over whose child should be on the ball team starting line up, slashing about with hurtful remarks when all along the two kids have no problem at all with the situation.

Posted by: John Hollis Sr. at November 21, 2008 09:57 AM

Really? A woman for Sec Def? No military experience to speak of? I'm brimming with optimism. There is a reason women are not in combat arms. A goddamned good one. Biology has unfairly worked against women with regards to combat, both mentally and physically. Anyone who denies that fact is most likely the same type of person who thinks 9/11 wasn't an act inspired largely by Islam.

Posted by: Spike Spiegel at November 21, 2008 03:27 AM

I'm sorry, but I have a huge problem with people who have never seen combat, or even been in the military, becoming SECDEF. I'd really like to see someone who has at least some military experience, and preferably with some command experience, be tapped for the job.

Posted by: C4Casey at November 20, 2008 09:36 PM

"Another exclusive (vs. elite)Ivy League liberal arts grad." (posted by soonergrunt at 8:03am)

So you are saying you would prefer someone with a worse education to take the post? Perhaps someone who went to community college or didn't go at all? I don't understand how over the past few years there has been this huge backlash against higher education. So she went to two of the best schools in the world... HANG HER!

Posted by: marc at November 20, 2008 10:00 AM"

Marc, noone is saying education is bad. People really have different ideas of what higher education teaches a person and some people can go thru the most expensive schools and still come out morons.

In this I don't see where she had time to go to two of the best schools in the world after she attended Harvard and Oxford.

Which schools were they?

Posted by: sam at November 20, 2008 09:01 PM

I used to read this blog a year or two ago, though I never got much into the comments. What strikes me now that I've visited a couple of times again is that the main posts are a lot more partisan than they used to me. Maybe my memory is wrong, but I don't think things like Obama's ideological "withdraw now, regardless" would have appeared on this site before.

It's too bad, I can get partisan sniping on a lot of different blogs. Here, at least, I'd like to see some real news.

Posted by: tomeck at November 20, 2008 08:24 PM

Political grandstanding from both the Iraqi and U.S. governments, it will be necessary for the U.S. to maintain at least 50,000 troops in Iraq for at least another 10 years. Anything less is too dangerous for Iraq and the region.

Posted by: CSI at November 20, 2008 02:58 PM

I can only think "That's a freakin' huge chin!"

Posted by: Vitor at November 20, 2008 12:16 PM

No matter who the Secretary of Defense might be. I'd have the same questions...

1. Have they served in the military (Officer or Enlisted)?
2. Have they ever made decisions that placed people in harms way? If so, how?
3. What roles have they played in active military operations?
4. What experience do they have experience managing defense acquisition programs?
5. In their opinion, what is the greatest threat to the United States?
6. What is their opinion of the Posse Comitatus Act, and should it be revised?

I'm sorry, but the vid below is just funny.

"Interviews With Obama Voters"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

Posted by: Camp at November 20, 2008 11:36 AM

geedeck: it is no mis-representation to say that Obama completely refuses to affirm that the Surge has worked. He refuses to admit he was dead wrong.

Hubris

Posted by: Wes at November 20, 2008 11:13 AM

I think the editorial mis-representation of President-Elect Obama is obnoxious. If you do more than listen to knee-jerk "he's a red socialist" information, you would know he's in favor of a phased and realistic withdrawal. Is this reporting or crabby factually berift blogging?

Posted by: geedeck at November 20, 2008 10:36 AM

"Another exclusive (vs. elite)Ivy League liberal arts grad." (posted by soonergrunt at 8:03am)

So you are saying you would prefer someone with a worse education to take the post? Perhaps someone who went to community college or didn't go at all? I don't understand how over the past few years there has been this huge backlash against higher education. So she went to two of the best schools in the world... HANG HER!

Posted by: marc at November 20, 2008 10:00 AM

Obama for Change. How is it change when you hire DC insiders who have been around the same corrupt processes for the past 20+ years. Bush did it too so I'm not saying either party is better. I'm just ready for something to happen that will clean this crap up. I'm tired of these career politicians.

Posted by: JEFF at November 20, 2008 09:52 AM

"Obama's ideological 'withdraw now, regardless' plan." That was actually Hillary Clinton's plan. Obama's was more reasonable, which is to begin withdrawing troops within 16 months. Wether 16 months is 'now' is up to you to decide. I mean really, the american people want out, the Iraqis want us out, what's the problem? Iraq is supposed to be their own country, we can't babysit them forever. Especially considering how much money it is costing us.
Maybe the argument can be made that more troops and resources in Afghanistan won't necessarily win the day, but keeping our resources divided between to theaters certainly can't be helping.
I don't see Obama as an ideologue. Considering the campaign, he has been awfully well respectful of Bush, and even of McCain, both of which he has met. I don't see why the detractors are so negative all the time.

Posted by: Hibbidyhai at November 20, 2008 09:20 AM

That "Obama's ideological 'withdraw now, regardless' plan" of which you speak--that's the plan that the majority of the American people want. Have you heard of the American people--the people who are actually in charge? They're convinced that they were lied to by Bush and his administration to get us into this pointless, profitless war while letting the people who actually attacked us get away.
So the American people, who want us out of Iraq as soon as possible, voted for the candidate who promised that instead of the candidate who promised to keep us there for a hundred years.
That's the way the American system works. Since there is nothing in Iraq worth the lives of my soldiers, and i looked for two extended tours, I'm all for it.

Posted by: soonergrunt at November 20, 2008 08:03 AM

Pffft.
Just what the DoD needs. Another exclusive (vs. elite)Ivy League liberal arts grad. If Mr. Change is going to keep tapping Clinton retreads, he should pick Sheila Widnall. The only Clinton selection that was half worth a da**.
Color me skeptical.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at November 20, 2008 03:11 AM

the easily perturbed, zealous faction of the Democratic base

Really think so? Democrats didn't throw a fit when Rahm Emmanuel - an enthusiastic
Iraq war hawk - got tapped to be White House chief of staff. He even pushed fellow party members around until they agreed with him. I think nominating Flournoy would actually raise fewer hackles.

I also haven't noticed any Democrats being easily irritated zealots yet, they seem to be basking in the glow of the win still...

Posted by: Mang at November 20, 2008 12:26 AM