Hard to say at this point, Stuart, as amateur hour seems to rule equally from the White House, through the departments of DOD, State, Energy, inter alia. Just as the Dept of Homeland Hysteria flubs in its mission, thanks to appointments of the wrong persons to positions, critical positions remaining unmanned for over a year and so forth. An Army general is Chairman of the Jt Chiefs and the usual nonentities are the service chiefs. Their main requirement is to hail the Clown-in-Chief whenever possible, thus their work over the crystal ball of defense strategy, allocation of resources, can be unusually miscast. Dept of State is a disgrace, with few good men remaining; may be the same for Defense. Running it as if it were part of Trump Enterprises remains a scary prospect, however likely.
In all honesty and without a flame war, how was Obama and his choices any different? How was Clinton as Secretary of State any different?
No need for any flame, Rick. Obama had his hands tied with a crashing economy and Republican opposition to voting funds to revive the economy, the opposite of today. Even after Obama managed the recovery from '09 onward, he had by then lost both houses of Congress and had to agree to the sequestering of defense funding [remember?] because the Rep were so fired up against deficit spending [remember that?].
How things change. Somehow things have been so far forgotten in Amerika, that the Clown-in-Chief can get away with bragging about a $58B increase in defense spending as 'restoring' the US armed forces. Nothing could be farther from the truth, which itself seems seldom used. Despite bragging about 'his' generals, he really treats them like dirt.
Not that it's relevant to the topic at hand, but Mrs. Clinton did not drive qualified experts out of State Dept., now largely vacant.
Edited by Ken Estes, 29 March 2020 - 1150 AM.