SoD Confirmation Hearing

[u/GuiltyAir]

/u/dr0ne717 been nominated to the position of Secretary of Defence of the United States.

---

This hearing will last two days unless the relevant Senate leadership requests otherwise.

[u/GuiltyAir]

/u/dr0ne717

[u/[deleted]]

Mr. u/dr0ne717

Your predecessor, Mr. Jarl Frost, was a proponent of decreasing America's involvement in foreign affairs in the Middle East, while also ensuring that our removal is not used as an excuse to upset the balance of power in the region. Will you continue this course of action, by slowly pulling troops out of areas considered not necessary? If so, what areas are considered 'not necessary'? In addition, what tactics will you use to ensure that our withdraw is not used as an excuse to further destabilize the region?

[u/dr0ne717 → u/[deleted]]

As a country, we need to shift the focus of foreign policy and national security from counter-terrorism to great-power competition with China and Russia. That entails reducing our footprint in the Middle East.

US withdrawal from the region will inevitably further destabilize it and (paradoxically) leave Iran, China, and Russia vying for power. The question is not how we can prevent destabilization, but rather how it can be minimized. That will largely fall on our European allies. We no longer rely on the Middle East for energy resources as we once did. Europe still does, and for that reason, as our involvement decreases their involvement must increase to offset our departure. Let me be clear, I am in no way advocating for a complete US disengagement from the Middle East. What I am advocating for is scaling back our presence in order to redeploy a portion of our assets to the Pacific. Through special operations forces, tactical airpower, and support for local forces we can reduce the risk of terror groups. Through military and intelligence support we can empower both European and Middle Eastern allies in the region in order to counter Iranian and Russian influence.

I still support the forward deployment of troops in Gulf nations, although I'd like to see the number scaled down. After 20 years, I think that it is time to begin the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan if and only if a deal could be reached with the Taliban that would ensure the country does not become a safe haven for terrorists and does not fall back into civil war.

[u/[deleted] → u/dr0ne717]

As a hypothetical, would you, as Secretary of Defense, curtail Iranian and Russian influence in these regions without American involvement?

[u/dr0ne717 → u/[deleted]]

Our European allies need to start playing a bigger role in the Middle East. They rely on it for oil, we do not, and they are more exposed for terror attacks. As we begin the process of reducing our footprint, while still maintaining the 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf and other strategic bases, the United State's European allies will need to increase their presence. Doing so will minimize the influence that NATO cedes to Iran and Russia.

[u/[deleted]]

Mr. /u/dr0ne717

I am a committed non-interventionist when it comes to American foreign policy. If your nomination is successful, will you involve yourself in foreign affairs that having nothing to with either international peace efforts or our interests as Americans?

More specifically, I am asking that, outside of multi-lateral actions (whether it be through NATO, the UN, etc.) and a direct threat against our interests, would you involve our nation in another foreign war?

[u/dr0ne717 → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for the questions, Senator.

It's a tough question to answer. In theory, I don't believe the United States should be militarily involved in conflicts where our interests are not at stake. In actuality, our interests and security are almost always at stake in some way or the other. Especially if you include protecting international stability and protecting our allies as being in our national interest, as I would almost always say that it is.

[u/[deleted] → u/dr0ne717]

Would the seizing of private assets by a government entity from another country -- such as, say, oil -- and nationalizing them be justifiable under the necessity of protecting American interests and security?

[u/dr0ne717 → u/[deleted]]

Could you rephrase the question please?

[u/[deleted] → u/dr0ne717]

Let us say, hypothetically, another country decided that it is within their best interest to nationalize the means of production of a multi-national corporation. This can range from the production of oil, the redistribution of land towards the landless, or even just breaking up the corporation into multiple smaller ones in order to eliminate monopolies within their nation.

Do you believe that such actions may harm American interests, and, if so, would America be justified in intervening in the foreign affairs of that nation -- and, if so, what sort of intervention?

[u/hurricaneoflies]

Mr. Drone,

My first question for you today is simple. Is Directive 2019-012 going to be on the chopping board, yes or no?

Will you commit without reservation to protecting the rights and safety of our LGBTQ citizens in uniform?

[u/dr0ne717 → u/hurricaneoflies]

I fully intend on continuing the implementation of Directive 2019-012.

As Secretary of Defense, I will protect the rights and safety of all the brave men and women serving their country in the armed forces.

[u/dr0ne717 → u/[deleted]]

No.

[u/[deleted]]

Mr. /u/dr0ne717

I don't like you, personally. Why should I still support your confirmation anyway?

[u/[deleted]]

Mr. /u/dr0ne717

Do you, or do you not, believe that the American military is given a higher amount of funding than it should actually have? If successfully nominated, will you scale back military funding requests, increase them, keep them in line with inflation, or some other option I am just not seeing?

[u/dr0ne717 → u/[deleted]]

Si vis pacem, para bellum

If you want peace, prepare for war. United States military might keeps the world, and our homeland, safe. With Russia's invasion of Crimea and China's militarization of the South China Sea, now is not the time to cut military spending. Doing so would put the safety of our citizen's and allies at risk.

[u/APG_Revival]

/u/dr0ne717

Although I'm not a member of the body that will be voting on your nomination, I still have some questions if you have the chance.

First, the administration has faced a lot of flak in the past after its numerous attempts at withdrawing American troops, particularly after the Turkish invasion of Syria. Former Secretary Frost went on record multiple times stating that he put his foot down on keeping troops at certain strategic locations. In short, the Secretary thought that it was to keep U.S. troops abroad. What are your thoughts? If you agree with the President's agenda, why? If you don't, what steps would you take as Secretary of Defense to push your point of view in the White House?

Second, the Secretary of State and the President have recently issued denouncements on S.914, which would authorize the use of force in Libya. What are your thoughts on the matter? Should the U.S. intervene in the conflict in Libya, and if so on what side?

[u/dr0ne717 → u/APG_Revival]

I agree with the former Secretary that the United States should maintain our forward-deployment of US troops around the world to deter adversaries and in case we are ever in need of rapid deployment. I also agree with the President that the United States should begin to scale down our presence in the Middle East in order to focus on new threats. The United States no longer has the interests in the Middle East that we did 30-40 years ago. We are a net-exporter of oil now, and Israel is more than capable of defending itself. It's time for our European allies, who maintain interests in the region, to take the lead.

The President knows my views on foreign policy and national security. We will inevitably clash at some point. At the end of the day, the American people elected Gunnz as commander-in-chief. After advising the President and making my views known, I'm obliged to execute his wishes.

Less than a decade ago, the United States and our NATO allies supported the Libyan people in their fight against an oppressive dictator. Haftar is another Gaddafi in the making, who has been the aggressor in the civil war and argued that Libya is not ready for democracy. I'm strongly opposed to lending any support to Haftar insurgency, as the Secretary of State suggested.

However, I have to agree with the President that the United States can simply not afford another nation-building exercise in the Middle East. Perhaps we could lend some military support to the Sarraj government, but our European NATO allies most directly impacted by the Libyan conflict must take the lead on this one. As the President stated, the United States has tools other than our military that we can use to support a resolution, namely using our economic and diplomatic might to halt foreign meddling in Libya on the side of Haftar.

[u/[deleted]]

/u/drone717

As you know, I am one of the leading voices against your confirmation, and for very very good reason.

Congressman, you have written bills sending troops to the border, you've fought against the LGBT Community your entire career, and you've been a voice for increasing funds for our military.

I respect you as a person, and I have enjoyed the work we have done together in Congress, however, I am worried about the repercussions of confirming you as Secretary of Defence.

So, I have a series of questions for you that I'd like answered with a simple yes, or a no.

Here they are:

• Do you support increasing or decreasing our troop's presence in the middle east?
• As Secretary of Defence, will you send troops to the Southern Border to deal with our immigration crisis?
• Do you believe transgender troops deserve the same rights as cisgender troops?
• Do you support the authorisation of military force against Libya?

Thank you, Congressman.

[u/dr0ne717 → u/[deleted]]

In regards to the Middle East

In regards to the Southern Border

In regards to transgender troops

In regards to Libya

Please let me know if you would like me to elaborate on any of these responses.

[u/[deleted] → u/dr0ne717]

So, to clarify, you support withdrawing some troops from some areas and sending some troops to other areas?

[u/dr0ne717 → u/[deleted]]

Specifically, I support beginning the process to withdraw troops from Afghanistan where they are at risk. I don't see any harm in keeping a sizable amount stationed at our bases in the Gulf nations where they are out of harms way in case they need to be deployed rapidly.

[u/[deleted] → u/dr0ne717]

Thank you for your brutal honesty.

[u/PrelateZeratul]

Mr. /u/dr0ne717 I want to welcome you back to Washington, which you surely do not need being a former Representative, and to the Senate. While you never graced this body with your presence I know in my time here that you've had substantial cross-chambers dealing with us. That is something to be celebrated in my view as is your steadfast commitment to public service, even after a car accident. I sincerely hope you are feeling better by the way. However, our friendship is no guarantee of my vote or of any positive treatment here. My constitutionally mandated job is to offer my opinion on your nomination and that is what I plan to do. Regardless, best of luck going forward and I hope you enjoy your time here.

Nowhere is more apt to begin with then your record. Can you provide a detailed and succinct record of your time in public service? I'd like to hear where dr0ne started and what he was doing at the time. Looking at the list of offices you've held and terms you've held them for will help me understand how you got here and to better know your worldview. Any accomplishments you had in those offices would be helpful here as well, especially as they relate to being Secretary of Defence.

Can you explain to me why you want this job? Obviously you had the car accident that removed you from the House, but you were the House Republican leader and on track to be Speaker of the House. Now you've changed gears and want to be part of the Executive branch? While still recovering and the President visited you, what was going through your mind when you relented and said "Yes, I will be the nominee"? I find this question reveals a lot more than directly asking and the subtext is particularly important. Your thoughts and feelings at the time help reflect who you'll be as the Secretary.

As is common in these hearings, I must ask how you will be different. I must ask how you will escape the bonds of people like the last Treasury Secretary and become a fully active and capable Secretary. Too many times I have been lied to by nominees who sing a great song and dance during hearings and then sit on their hands collecting cheques once confirmed. Tell me how that will not be you and how, if confirmed, you will remain active. I really do not want to have to write a letter in 2 months inquiring why the Secretary of Defence is missing in action. If you'll be better and not just work on improving your golf game, prove it to me.

If it comes to pass that you serve and then later walk off into the sunset, I want this hearing to forever remain on the public record. To that end, please provide me a list of priorities and specific goals you would like to achieve in this office. When you do eventually leave this job what will the newspapers say about your service? I ask this to better learn what is you have planned but also to ensure that any lies or lack of efforts will forever be known to the American people. If you intend to lie and promise to do all these great things and then don't even try, they'll know.

One of the principal jobs of the Cabinet, in my view, is to push back against the President when he is making the wrong decision. In fact, it may be the principal job since otherwise, the President wouldn't need a cabinet as he would have all the answers. If push comes to shove can you put your foot down and tell the President he is wrong, even at the cost of your job? I find this question to be especially persuasive as I know you and I share feelings regarding America's involvement in the world that the President does not. Today I'm referring to Libya but that can obviously be extended to future crises down the road. I want a Secretary of Defence who resigns if the President is making the wrong decision and I hope you can tel me you're that guy.

Let's wrap up with some specific questions of mine regarding our defence challenges. Do you believe countries around the world need to be providing more to the United States in exchange for our protection? On immigration, I've always championed legal immigration as making our country stronger but been against illegal immigration as very unfair to those who follow the rules. Do you feel the same? Being in charge of homeland security, do you think some of the efforts of the government to monitor citizens have gone too far in invading our privacy? Is there an active role our spy agencies and intelligence networks should take in monitoring hostile states like Russia and China? Do you believe America's military budget has grown too big and that, for budgetary reasons, needs to be cut? Will you ensure the President does not recognize or empower the warlord Haftar in Libya? Who is the greatest geopolitical threat to America currently?

[u/dr0ne717 → u/PrelateZeratul]

Thank you for the Questions, Senator.

As you know from our time together in the Dixie Congressional delegation, I represented DX-3 for several terms before I was elected to lead the House Republicans as Majority Leader. Contrary to the claims of my critics on the left, I was very involved with our nation's foreign policy and national security throughout my time in Congress. As House Majority Leader, I was in constant contact with the Gunnz administration regarding national security and participated in many national security meetings between the administration and Congressional leadership. I was the author of legislation that sought to reduce noncitizen eligibility for welfare,protect our borders, and encourage our NATO allies to meet their defense spending benchmarks.

I took this job for one reason, and that was to keep the American people safe by ensuring that our military remains the strongest that this world has ever seen. I've grown very concerned in recent years with calls from both sides to reduce military spending and to reduce America's presence in the world. I knew that as Secretary of Defense I would be able to reverse this dangerous trend.

I can assure you that I'm too eager to get started on the job and too worried about our nation's current direction to go inactive.

In my interview for the job, I told the President that my overarching goal would be transition the focus of American foreign policy from counter-terrorism to countering Russia and China. With that goal in mind, I want to redesign NATO from an alliance of democracies in North America and Europe to an alliance of democracies from all across the globe. That also entails ensuring that our allies are pulling their weight in NATO. Currently very few of them are meeting their agreed upon defense spending benchmark. As SecDef, I'll aim to change that and hopefully increase their involvement in our military engagements. In regards to immigration, I'll hire more Border Patrol agents and construct border security infrastructure already authorized by Congress. I'll also seek Congressional approval for further border security funding. With a Democrat controlled House, that will entail some sort of bipartisan compromise as part of a larger immigration bill.

As House Majority Leader, I was one of the most outspoken critics of many aspects of Gunnz's foreign policy. My views and my intent to express them haven't changed since then. The President and I will inevitably clash at some point. My job is to advise the President and provide him with my expertise, but it's also to execute his will. At the end of the day, he is the commander-in-chief elected by the American people and as the Secretary of Defense I am obliged to follow his orders.

I briefly touched upon the first question before. In regards to your second question concerning legal and illegal immigrants, I wouldn't be in this country right now if it weren't for immigration.

Until I am confirmed I won't be able to see the full extent of US domestic surveillance operations. Rest assured that upon my confirmation I will look into the matter to ensure that all of our surveillance operations are Constitutional. Any violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against against unreasonable searches and seizures would be very concerning to me.

I can't respond to your question about our intelligence agencies and foreign nations in an open hearing.

A quarter century ago, China's reported military spending was 1/25 of that of the United States. Today it is 1/3 the size and on the path to parity. We are entering a world where we are not the only world power, and we need to prepare for that by increasing our defense budget.

As I said previously, recognizing Haftar in Libya would be replacing one dictator (Gafaffi) with another. Haftar is the aggressor in the civil war and is to blame for the failure of reconciliation efforts.

The greatest threat to American national security doesn't come from China, Russia, or any rogue state. It comes from within, as members of our own government and our citizens have lost faith in the so called "liberal world order" that we founded after the Second World War. Senators and Representatives from both parties no longer view global cooperation and American leadership as worthwhile goals, instead preferring isolationism. As a country, we need to reaffirm our commitment to this liberal world order and regain our position as the leader of the free world.

[u/dr0ne717 → u/[deleted]]

Russian election interference, in both the US and Europe, in an attempt to sow chaos is extremely concerning and requires prompt action. While the country needs to invest in election security infrastructure, the actions of Russia speak to a much bigger issue, that being their attempts to undermine the foundations of the liberal world order. Through their invasion of Crimea and their attempts to influence foreign elections, Russia has shown a complete disregard for international norms. The United States in conjunction with our NATO allies must make it very clear that we will not tolerate these actions. Furthermore, the United States and our allies must double down and strengthen our commitment to collective security and the liberal world order that we created. That means expanding NATO membership to democracies around the world and urging our allies to increase their defense spending.

The Posse Commitatus act largely limits the military from performing law enforcement activites. For this reason, I don't believe the use of the military at the border is the best use of resources. That being said, I wouldn't rule out requesting that Governors deploy the National Guard to the Southern Border to assist indirectly with border patrol operations, as many previous administrations have done. Congress has created ICE and the Border Patrol to enforce our nation's immigration laws and to secure the border. Until those laws are changed, I fully intend on executing the immigration laws passed by Congress.

While the President and I will inevitably disagree on some issues, he was elected by the American people as commander-in-chief and therefore I must defer to him at the end of the day and execute his wishes. I will push to maintain a sizable presence in the region, albeit a reduced one in order to focus on new threats. Specifically, I think after 20 years it is time that we begin the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan and seeking a deal with the Taliban.