When ⁦ @kjmcinnis1⁩ and I testified about concerns w nominating a recently-retired 4-star as SecDef, we noted ways in which the potential problems could be mitigated. How are things going?
1/ https://apple.news/A5ZTrlWslSpKlAbRB0Wp8_A

I’ve been very imressed with Austin, and I think he’s doing a lot of the things Dr. McInnis and I said would help. He has surrounded himself w competent civilians rather than relying on his military network; he’s not afraid to deal w politicized issues like extremism ...
2/

In this story, @kellymagsamen notes that he and Biden have a good working relationship - one characterized by trust and respect - and the article notes that Austin also has a good active relationship w SecState Blinken and NSA Sullivan. All very healthy.
3/

OTOH, one concern is his continued arms-length relationship w the press. He may just be finding his feet, but it would be a shame if it persisted. Healthy civ-mil relations depend in part on the media’s dual role conveying info to the public and watchdogging our institutions
4/

Another concern comes not from Austin, at all, but from the sentiment expressed by Lindsay Graham: “You can't have the president of the United States saying ‘I stood up to the generals,’” Graham said ...
5/

... “You can't live in a country where the President brags about saying ‘no’ to the military and the military won't tell the Congress, ‘Well, what options did he have?’”
6/

First, it’s actually good when the president can make decisions in which the DOD’s advice has been heard and considered, but ultimately not taken. Not bc the DOD is never right, but bc its perspective is necessarily only part of the big picture
7/

Should a president “brag” about this? No. Bragging is by definition in bad taste. But is it ik for the prez to say in public that he has heard his SecDef’s advice and chosen not to take it? Yes. That reminds the public whose decision and whose responsibility it is.
8/

The only part of Graham’s critique that isn’t outright ridiculous is where he brings up the difficult relationship bt the DOD, Congress, and the president, but even here, he is doing healthy civ-mil norms a disservice...
9/

It’s true that *members of the military ldrship* are in an awkward position: they are members of the executive branch pledged to carry out exec policy even if they disagreed w it; they’re also subject to Congessional oversight, and must testify honestly if called.
10/

This can put them in a position where they have to acknowledge publicly that they disagree w the policy they’re actively implementing, and they know that members of congress may use this info against their boss. Def uncomfortable, but a core part of separation of powers.
11/

The SecDef, as a Senate-confirmed political appointee, is also subject to Congressional oversight and must respond to questions honestly, but equating him with “the military” is unfortunate. There is a reason the CJCS is the military advisor and the SecDef is a civilian ...
12/

... and that’s bc DOD is more than the uniformed services and combatant commands. However, this is a nit in the broader scheme of how problematic Graham’s comment was.
13/

So overall it seems Austin, Biden, Blinken, and Sullivan have a good, respectful relationship, in which no one is over-deferential to anyone else. That’s good. Austin has good ppl around him, and isn’t trying to make his job into a Super-Combatant Command. Good.
14/

What could be better is Austin’s relationship w the press. It would be good for him to cultivate a more open relationship w the media, and show a real shift away from the previous administration’s policy of seriously reducing the info flow to the public.
15/

Also better is if more Americans acknowledged that mil/defense advice is just that: it’s just mil/defense (the prez has to consider many other angles), and it’s just advice. States where all the important decisions are made by the military have a name, and it’s not “republic”