On Friday’s broadcast of C-SPAN’s “Ceasefire,” Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC) said that the departure of Dan Driscoll as Army Secretary in the middle of a conflict is a concern, and “is certainly something that we need to watch, that it doesn’t move from an incipient problem to something that’s larger.” But “this is a little bit overblown in the media, because you have these transitions that happen during administrations.”
Harrigan said, “I think there’s no concern that there’s been a lot of tension at the top between Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Driscoll. I might be the only person on Capitol Hill that has a really strong relationship with both, and I think it is concerning whenever we have a shakeup at the top when we’re actively engaged in a conflict overseas, and…you don’t have any confirmed leadership in the Army. And with the struggles that the Pentagon might have in getting future leaders confirmed into those positions, the Army could be operating without confirmed leadership for a long time, which I think is problematic. That being said, I think that this is a little bit overblown in the media, because you have these transitions that happen during administrations. The average length of service for any service secretary is 22 months. Dan Driscoll has served 18 months, and he was actually kind of confirmed a little bit late in the process. So, I wouldn’t lean too much into what the media has been saying about what this connotates for future impacts to the overall apparatus and operation of the Pentagon. But it is certainly something that we need to watch, that it doesn’t move from an incipient problem to something that’s larger.”
He added that “when you really look at what the problem set is, you’ve got Secretary Hegseth, who believes that we don’t have high enough quality leaders in the military, and then you have Secretary Driscoll, who ultimately believes that, while that may be true in certain circumstances, we actually have a structure problem in the military with combatant commanders, that is leading to the outcome of seemingly weak leadership, it’s not that we actually have weak leadership. The real answer — or question is, which one of those two things is right? And my personal opinion is, both of them are actually a little bit right. So, when I look at this and I say, I think Pete has a lot to offer this country, and I think he’s offered it a lot and I think he’s got a lot more left to offer. I think Dan has a lot more to offer the country and now he’s, unfortunately, stepping away from his role. I think that’s, overall, a loss for the country.”
Harrigan also stated, “We need stability, and we’ve got to get stability at all costs.” And agreed with Hegseth about the politicization of military leadership.
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
Read the full article here