Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lovelyangelgirl t1_j7jnf1q wrote

Reply to comment by felixrojo in FDNY ranks in 'turmoil' after commissioner demotes chiefs, high-ranking officials step down by nyujoe

But I think that’s valid though. You should have some firefighting experience as commissioner.

Imagine the Chief of Defense but with no military background. Makes no sense.

It’s not about gender, it’s about experience.

I feel like she’s projecting on to others.

−16

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j7k5rkf wrote

The secretary of defense of the US many times has not served in the military.

https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2014/12/02/ashton-carter-would-become-7th/

33

Prime_Exposures t1_j7sdz6g wrote

But what would happen if the Secretary of Defense arbitrarily removed senior army generals without conferring with the Sec of Army or the Chief of Staff of the Army?? There’s a chain of command and it works both ways.

1

lovelyangelgirl t1_j7kitnq wrote

Shouldn’t that be a prerequisite though?

−14

hjablowme919 t1_j7kmvxe wrote

Not really. In positions like that, it's about decision making. The people who work for you provide you all of the information they can about a particular issue, or issues, and you use that information to make decisions.

If she was in management in the NYFD for almost a decade, she knows what the problems are and what needs to be addressed. What she needs from the people who work for her and suggestions as to how best to address those issues. From her speech, it doesn't look like she is getting that support.

11

Slggyqo t1_j7k4nf3 wrote

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces. He is not required to be a veteran.

Franklin’s D Roosevelt, one of Americas most famous wartime presidents, did not serve. Most Presidents who did serve were not senior positions, i.e. anything remotely close to being commander in chief.

Biden, Trump, Obama, and Clinton did not serve.

The secretary of defense—basically next in responsibility under the President—must be out of military service for at least seven years to be appointed to the position.

This system of civilian control over the military is the global standard.

“On the ground” experience as a management official in a large organization is just a merit badge to make someone a more appealing candidate. It has little bearing on their actual job, because no senior official can actually have a useful working knowledge of everything their organization does.

It’s not completely pointless—your public image being a pretty important part of being a public figure—but it’s not a critical requirement.

27

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_j7k7ov2 wrote

A school principal who hasn't taught in a classroom has to overcome suspicions of being out of touch from the rank and file. The same is true for a lieutenant in the military. There's a culture in departments. You may not like the fact or the culture in general, but it's true.

−3

Slggyqo t1_j7l065p wrote

There is a culture, but I agree with everything you said but it’s not particularly relevant.

A school principal or lieutenant in the military is a MUCH more tactical role than that of a department commissioner. They are themselves boots on the ground personnel.

The commissioner of the NYFD (and the NYPD) is a civilian administrator, deliberately separate from the department, whose job is set strategic priorities with the advice of their senior officers.

Regarding culture, there are as many reasons to have leadership from outside of the culture as there are to have leadership beholding to the existing culture.

5

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_j7lmc5k wrote

They're about to have no leadership. Top dogs are stepping down and there's no one keen in replacing them according to the article. How is that helping anyone but the egomaniac Commissioner?

−1