Explanation Found

The Washington Post frets over Trump’s appointment of three former military men to senior positions in his administration (emphasis mine):

Trump’s heavy reliance on military leaders marks a departure from the previous three presidents, who tapped a few generals for the highest jobs with mixed success and relied mostly on people who had spent decades in civilian service, as politicians or academics or lawyers.

And doesn’t that just about sum up everything that was wrong with the previous three administrations?

Trump, for better or worse, was elected as an agent of change: at least he appears to be living up to those expectations, for now.

(H/T Bayou Renaissance Man)


8 thoughts on “Explanation Found

  1. Two of the previous three administrations were headed by men who had dodged the Vietnam War.

    Mind you, John Kerry hadn’t dodged it, and was so inept a politician that he managed to turn this into a liability.

    Then again Ike proved an excellent president. Then again again he was that odd thing, a Supreme Commander who had never himself seen action. (Mind you again, Admiral Tirpitz had never heard naval guns fired in action.)

    We need the Wisdom of St Maggie here: it’s a funny old world.

  2. decades in civilian service

    Interesting use of the word ‘service’, describing politicians and lawyers.

  3. George W. Bush ‘dodged’ the Vietnam War by flying F102 interceptors, a plane that had a ‘peacetime’ casualty rate of 25%.

  4. Yep, but it was still a dodge. Much more comfortable than Vietnam, I dare say.

    P.S. 25% per what? Per annum? Per plane life?

    And “casualty” in what sense? The plane? The pilot?

    And how often did he fly the things anyway?

  5. I want to know how the newly appointed Quartermaster General is, in order that I can write him a congratulatory note and send him a gift of a bottle of the best vintage Penfolds Grange.

  6. “Yep, but it was still a dodge. Much more comfortable than Vietnam, I dare say. P.S. 25% per what? Per annum? Per plane life?”
    25% of all F102s crashed. I don’t know the percentage of pilots killed, probably less, but not a lot less. “More comfortable” than Vietnam? Sure. More dangerous? Depends on the job you had there. Not as dangerous as a rifle platoon; a lot more dangerous than a staff position. Taking a one-in-four chance of being killed is hardly a “dodge”

  7. But it’s not a one-in-four chance, is it? Not even close. Are you really saying that the Air National Guard lost 25% of its F102 pilots in training? Inconceivable!

    Say the average F102 flew A hours in its lifetime. Say Bush flew a total of B hours in F102s. Assume that his flying was of average danger. Assume that no pilots ever bailed out successfully. Then his probability of crashing in an F102 is 0.25B/A, which is a bloody sight less than 25%.

  8. ZT,

    I’m glad you brought that up: I used to get quite fed up having to explain to people that Bush really couldn’t be as thick as they thought he was if he could fly the F102. See the comments by Billy Beck in this thread.

Comments are closed.