Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Razin” Caine is Controversial New Chairman of Joint Chiefs
As we watch President Trump and DOD Secretary Pete Hegseth slash away at the pathetic impact of DEI, we can now celebrate that they’ve taken a shot at one of the highest levels: the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Instead of taking the traditional route to the appointment, Trump and Hegseth wanted to make sure that they chose a warrior in line with the administration’s goals:
In a 60-25 bipartisan vote, the U.S. Senate voted early Friday morning to confirm retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan ‘Razin’ Caine as the next chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All ‘no’ votes came from Democrats, with 15 senators not voting. For him to assume the position, the Senate also agreed to promote Caine and reinstate him to active service.
‘Congratulations to Dan ‘Razin’ Caine on his confirmation in the Senate as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,’ Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a statement. ‘Your leadership will be a welcomed/vital part of ensuring we return the Dept. of Defense back to the American warfighter.’
What was so unconventional about selecting General Caine? First, he was brought back from retirement to serve; only John Kennedy had taken a similar action in selecting a Chairman. Second, he was only a three-star general (heaven forbid!). Third, he had not served as a member of the Joint Chiefs. Third, opponents pointed to his “lack of experience,” which might have pointed to his previous service time:
Caine is a decorated F-16 combat pilot who served in leadership in multiple special operations commands, in some of the Pentagon’s most classified programs and in the CIA. But he does not meet prerequisites for the job set out in a 1986 law, such as being a combatant commander or service chief. Those requirements can be waived by the president if there is a determination that ‘such action is necessary in the national interest.’
Finally, he made it very clear that he would not continue to espouse the DEI agenda:
During his April 1 confirmation hearing before the SASC, Caine spoke of his lengthy military career and the challenges facing the force moving forward. He further noted the importance of maintaining a strong national defense to promote stability throughout the world.
‘We can never forget that our number one job is to create peace through overwhelming strength, and if need be, fight and win our nation’s wars,’ Caine said.
It was clear early on that Hegseth would fire the incumbent Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Charles Q. Brown, who was a major proponent of the DEI program. Hegseth made it clear that DEI was no longer acceptable, and he had to make the appropriate changes:
‘First of all, you’ve got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs,’ Hegseth said during a November podcast appearance. ‘But any general that was involved — general, admiral, whatever — that was involved in any of the DEI woke s‑‑‑ has got to go. Either you’re in for warfighting, and that’s it. That’s the only litmus test we care about.’
It’s about time that we staff the military with tough, fearless soldiers, and General Caine will help lead the way.
Published in Military
In 2018, most of the US generals told Trump that it would take years to defeat the ISIS Caliphate. Caine told him it would take weeks. Trump told Caine to do it. It took weeks.
Who would you pick? A fussbudget like Milley obsessing over “white rage”, or the guy who says it then does it?
I don’t know a thing about this guy but I hope he is the real deal. Trump has been picking too many “yeas men” and democrats instead of competent people this time around.
Twaddle. Trump picked many establishment folks that actively worked against his agenda in his first term. This time he has picked folks that he can work with and will move forward with that agenda. That’s not the same as being a “yes” man but is what you expect from those nominated from any other president.
Who do you think the yes men are who aren’t competent? It’s possible to be both
John Pershing was promoted from Captain to Brigadier General. He was promoted over 862 more senior officers in a much smaller army in 1906. The notion that this current promotion is unprecedented is false.
Source
To start with, Robert Kennedy Junior. He needs no explanation. Then there was Matt Gaetz. The lady in charge of labor relations who advocates for Unions for public workers. Pete Hegseth, Michael Waltz, and Tulsi Gabbard have demonstrated that they will not be accountable for mistakes and instead shifted the blame to others in the Signalgate scandal. Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick, and Peter Navarro are life-long democrats, like Kennedy and Gabbard, and have driven this tariff war against the world just as badly as Trump has. They seem to have little knowledge or even detrimental knowledge about economics.
Every single one of these people are “yes men” in that they would never dare to suggest a correction to Trump or stand up for what they think is right if it contradicts Trump. The only one who I saw stand up for what he believed against Trump’s wishes, was Kash Patel, who in his confirmation hearing said he did not agree with Trump pardoning the violent offenders from the January 6th riot.
Twaddle again. There have been talks between different players including Navarro and Bessent with some friction between them. Trump weighed these arguments and settled on tariff moves with the most recent being a delay of implementation on most except China. You like to cherry pick things that support your twaddle and that’s understandable. Not honest but understandable. No, they aren’t all just”yes Men”. They all have political priorities which they favor and will argue for with the president like every cabinet ever.
Calling it Twaddle doesn’t make it Twaddle.
Stapling “-gate” to a word doesn’t make it a scandal, either.
I didn’t just call it twaddle.
What does that have to do with their economic incompetence that I pointed out?
He didn’t delay the tariffs because of arguments between his advisors. I’m not aware that there are even arguments between them unless you are right about some friction between Navarro and Bessent. He delayed the tariffs because the Stock Market was crashing and especially the Bond Market. If the Bond Market goes, then we are cooked because we will not be able to borrow money anymore to pay the Trillion-Dollar deficit spending that Trump wants.
Can you point out a single time any of the people I mentioned argued with the President or even suggested a minor change in course?
I have to intervene here, Steve. It’s entirely possible that any disagreements they have they keep behind the scenes. It’s really bad form to disagree publicly. I assume they argue at times, but ultimately the President gets his say. He has said many times that he likes to listen to all views and then he decides.
For those who would like to know a bit about General Caine, below is an excellent interview on the Afterburner Podcast. Pretty amazing career and comes across as a guy I would like to have a conversation with and could see myself following where he leads. The man has a good grip on himself and comes across as as very genuine. It is an hour an a half long but worth the time, in my opinion(loaded with fighter pilot speak, though) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrBimj67RBQ
I dunno, I thought he made a good run at demonstrating the twaddlitude.
This. It might not be the Jerry Springer style entertainment the left is used to, but this is how a competent and focused administration behaves.
That is a fair point, but all the disagreements between Trump and his people in his first term were brought right out into the open for the public to see. Perhaps he is doing a better job of keeping things under wraps this time?
Trump picks people he can trust, not “ yes men.” There is a difference. Kevin Hassett, in his The Drift, said that Trump likes people who disagree. He watches them argue in staff meetings to see who has the better argument. That is the “chaos” some whiners complained about. Last time, the “no” men worked behind his back to thwart him. This time, he is picking people who ultimately will remember who is the boss.
My comments embedded in bold above.
They’d already served up to 4 years.
Yes, but maybe not in the way you are thinking. In his first term anonymous leaks of dissension were a tactic to undermine Trump’s agenda. And some of those leaks were by people hoping the publication of the disagreement would put pressure on Trump to concede to their advice. This time around it looks like he has people who bought into the agenda and are not seeking to make it difficult/impossible for Trump to set the marching orders. They may have different strategies or tactics in mind but are not intent on scuppering the project.
But Trump also contributed to the public display of bickering. He publicly humiliated his first Attorney General Jess Sessions. He said his first Secretary of State Rex Tillerson “didn’t have the mental capacity and was dumb as a rock, as well as lazy.” He mocked John Bolton the day after he resigned. He didn’t have to do these things.
It was the same when Biden was president – except the advisors did the deciding.
You must have been on your high school debating team, RH! Seriously, your counterarguments are excellent. Thank you for your excellent addition to the post!
Ah, but now we are into, “if Trump would just not be Trump.” That train has left. And now he has been much more courteous and measured in his comments. Not always, but more often.
Did he serve on any of the boards of defense contractor? that would be a disqualifier
Food fight!
But he wasn’t lying and his comments weren’t near as harmful as their actions and comments. I have met Sessions and like him. He didn’t diss Trump. I suspect he was blindsided by the perfidy back then and thought he was doing the good, benign thing. He was gracious so I didn’t blindside him by asking questions that would put him on the spot. To be fair, 8 years later many on our side still don’t see the perfidy.
I was “too quiet and shy” (per my HS English teacher) to engage in oral debate back then.
Sessions did what appeared to him to be the prudent thing by recusing himself. He didn’t suspect that the FBI was engaged in a conspiracy to concoct a “Russian election interference” fairy tale out of Christopher Steele’s third-rate espionage novel.
I wouldn’t have either, but that was before the Gretchen Whitmer “kidnapping plot,” holding that parents who got uppity at school board meetings be investigated as domestic terrorists, undercover investigation of Latin-rite Catholics for extremism, and knowing that the laptop was 100% legitimate in 2019 yet playing along with the “Russian disinformation” disinformation. Had Sessions known any of that, he may have stood his ground.
I think most of us recognized that Trump 47 > than Trump 45 in large part because he learned so much during his first term and the intervening wilderness years. His hero’s journey has led him to be a wiser and more disciplined leader than he was before. He is surrounding himself with better talent and, specifically with respect to Susie Wiles, better gatekeepers. Also, for the record, I think Gabbard, Kennedy, Hegseth, etc. are doing a fantastic job. I didn’t just vote for Trump. I voted for this team of people who would execute his polices with vigor and efficiency.