Just to get back to the original subject of the thread, my issue is that this appointment appears to have been motivated by the specific desire to advance a particular social agenda -- or perhaps social agendas plural -- in the military as opposed to simply pushing for military efficiency/effectiveness. My personal preference is that a Service Secretary have served in the military themselves, which Fanning didn't. Otherwise, he's apparently served only in Democratic Administrations (Clinton's and Obama's), and was recently quoted as saying: “I believe that the American people have a right, as we come out of two long wars, to feel that they can spend less, invest less in national security forces,” he said. Given how small the Army currently is, and where the budget is already, I think that's wildly irresponsible.
This guy doesn't read "warfighting" to me at all. He reads social activist/bureaucrat. And sending the message to an Army already suffering morale issues that making gays feel welcome is one of our top priorities seems completely messed up to me. Almost a deliberate sharp stick in the eye to military traditionalists in the Army.
