Last month’s debate over whether to grant retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin a waiver to serve as defense secretary may result in Congress considering whether the seven-year waiting period ought to be shortened, according to the top GOP member of the House Armed Services Committee.
“Seven years is kind of arbitrary to me. I don’t see the difference between seven and six or five or whatever,” said Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers, the committee’s ranking Republican, in an interview with the Washington Examiner. “There is some possibility we might take that up and this year in [the National Defense Authorization Act] and see if there’s a more appropriate time frame.”
In order to ensure civilian control of the military, under the National Security Act of 1947, Congress prohibited anyone from serving as defense secretary within 10 years of active duty service as a commissioned officer in the armed forces. That was shortened to seven years with an amendment in 2008.
The provision had been waived only once in 67 years, when Congress granted Gen. George Marshall an exemption in 1950.
Then in 2017, retired Marine Corps Gen. Jim Mattis was granted a waiver so he could serve as President Donald Trump’s first defense secretary, and a third waiver was granted in January for Austin.
After a spirited debate in which some Democrats and Republicans expressed worries that routine waivers would erode the U.S. military’s bedrock principle of civilian oversight, Austin’s waiver was approved 69-27 in the Senate and 326-78 in the House.
“We made it very clear that, if you’re going to do it for a Republican president and a Democrat president comes right behind him, well, it seems unfair, if in fact the candidate’s very qualified, to not show the same opportunity,” said Rogers, adding both he and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith have agreed it’s time to draw the line.
“We’ve done it for a Republican. We’ve done it for a Democrat. Don’t send another one to us if it doesn’t meet the criteria,” Rogers told the Washington Examiner.
The question is, how many years does it take for a career military officer to adopt a civilian mindset?
At a January Armed Services Committee hearing, senators heard from experts on national security law that no other government agencies bar recently former generals and admirals from serving as department heads.
“There is no analogy. Recently retired military officers are not barred from holding other positions, nor are recently retired foreign service officers barred from the State Department,” said Lindsay Cohn, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College.
In fact, 12 presidents previously served as generals in the armed forces, and there was no cooling off period before they could become commander in chief.
The danger, Cohn testified, is thinking only someone with extensive military experience is qualified to run the Pentagon.
“It’s never bad for people to have different kinds of experience,” she said. “The problem is when we start thinking that only people with extensive military experience and backgrounds really understand the issues at stake.”
But the HASC’s top Republican signaled he would prefer commanders in chief pick Pentagon bosses from the civilian sector.
“I will not vote for another waiver in the foreseeable future, probably during my tenure at the top of the Armed Services Committee for Republicans,” said Rogers. “Simply because we’ve done it twice, just as a matter of equity, it’s not a good practice. Plus, there’s just tons of civilians out there that are very qualified.”
The full interview with Rogers appears in the next edition of the Washington Examiner magazine.
