The U.S. Department of Defense currently has about 50 positions that must be filled by political appointees who are confirmed by the Senate. The new administration has filled only one of these positions: the secretary of defense. There are a handful of Obama-era appointees who are still on the job and another handful of potential appointees of President Donald Trump moving toward confirmation.

Does this paucity of confirmed political appointees matter? Some critics have asserted that the DoD can accomplish its mission just fine without them. 

I spent 12 years as a Senate-confirmed political appointee at the DoD, including service in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Air Force. I know from personal experience that, even in the absence of political appointees, the DoD has capable military leaders and senior civil servants who can accomplish many tasks. But I also believe that the absence of politicals harms the department. Political appointees are more likely to identify and lead new initiatives, and they can better advocate for the DoD at the White House and in Congress. They also assist the secretary of defense in the important task of asserting civilian control of the military.

Currently, the DoD has a confirmed secretary of defense and a full complement of senior military leaders. They have some able Obama-era political appointees who are still serving, including the deputy secretary of defense. The DoD is also fortunate to have a strong staff of senior civil servants (who, I might add, often get less credit than they deserve for helping the DoD carry out its far-flung responsibilities). Together this team has already delivered a budget amendment for the fiscal 2017 budget. They are no doubt working on a fiscal 2018 budget and many other important policies and tasks.

But the absence of political appointees matters. When I took over as the DoD's comptroller in February 2009, I identified several new initiatives that I felt the department should pursue, including budget changes to hold down costs, a new approach to the audit of financial statements and a certification program for defense financial managers. As a confirmed political appointee, I was able to speak for the administration as I sought support for these initiatives within the Pentagon, at the Office of Management and Budget, and on Capitol Hill. My fellow political appointees were pursuing their own agendas. We all pursued these initiatives with a sense of urgency because we knew that our tenures were limited. This sense of urgency, coupled with the stature accorded political appointees, helps bring about needed change at the DoD. 

Political appointees also support the secretary of defense during debates at the White House, sometimes providing a civilian perspective on critical but sensitive topics like military intervention. It is not appropriate for senior civil servants to fill this role. Similarly, political appointees should take the lead in testifying before Congress on politically charged topics like the size of budget top lines or base closures. It would be awkward and inappropriate to expect military leaders or senior civil servants to lead on such topics.

The secretary of defense also needs support from political appointees on the sensitive issue of civilian control of the military. In my experience, senior civilians and military generally work well together, united by their common goal of providing a strong national defense. Sometimes, however, there are disagreements or difficult situations. One example: Each year, senior congressional leaders ask the military service chiefs for a list of their unfunded budget priorities, which they direct be sent to Congress without being altered by the secretary of defense. In cases like this one, the secretary needs political appointees to discuss issues with senior military leaders, provide counsel to the secretary and occasionally enforce civilian control.

Finally, there is the issue of senior-leader time. The DoD has wide-ranging responsibilities, and it coordinates its actions by holding numerous meetings involving senior leaders. Topics include everything from defense plans and foreign policy to acquisition, personnel and budget. If political appointees are not available to attend these important meetings, then senior civil servants or military subordinates must attend in their place. That leaves these leaders less time to plan and execute responses in their own organizations. Senior-leader time is scarce and valuable at the DoD, and the absence of political appointees robs the department of a critical asset.

For all these reasons, I believe that the Department of Defense needs its senior political appointees. I hope that the new administration and the Senate will do everything possible to get these political appointees into their jobs as soon as possible.

The honorable Robert Hale served from 2009 to 2014 as the Defense Department comptroller and earlier as Air Force comptroller. He is currently a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. The opinions in this article are his own.

Share:
More In Pentagon