Update: After this story was published, news broke that President-elect Biden is expected to appoint Lloyd Austin as Secretary of Defense.
President-elect Biden has faced growing opposition from progressives against his rumored secretary of defense pick, Michèle Flournoy. Flournoy has long been the frontrunner for the position. In fact, she was Hillary Clinton’s likely choice to head up the Department of Defense (DoD) had Clinton won the presidency in 2016.
A longtime figure in Washington defense circles, Flournoy’s qualifications are seemingly endless. She served in the previous two Democratic administrations, first as both deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and threat reduction and deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy under President Clinton, then as undersecretary of defense for policy under President Obama.
In a letter supporting Flournoy’s potential nomination, former Obama administration official Jon Wolfsthal argued that the future secretary of defense faces a tough position.
“The agenda here is long and challenging,” he wrote, “including working to reduce nuclear risks with Russia and China, curtailing the emerging arms race, reducing the risk of nuclear escalation and accidents, and making U.S. nuclear weapons modernization both sustainable and in line with our security needs and that of our allies.”
To that end, he argued that Flournoy is “the best candidate for the job” and has a “deep understanding of nuclear weapons policy and budgets, and is highly qualified to lead the Department of Defense on the complex and critical issues of nuclear weapons procurement, deterrence policy and nuclear risk and arms reduction.”
The letter was co-signed by a number of academics, former government officials, nuclear security experts and progressive anti-nuclear weapons advocates from the Ploughshares Fund.
If chosen, Flournoy would be the first woman to serve as secretary of defense.
Despite strong Democratic support, a growing number of progressives have voiced their concerns over Flournoy’s potential nomination. A coalition of progressive groups, including anti-war groups, penned a letter calling for Biden to choose a defense secretarywho is “unencumbered by a history of advocating for bellicose military policies and is free of financial ties to the weapons industry.”
The letter was signed by RootsAction, Code Pink, Our Revolution, Progressive Democrats of America and World Beyond War. Here are some of the reasons why these and other progressive groups are asking Biden to reconsider nominating Flournoy:
A Hawkish record
One of the most frequently cited reasons from those who oppose Flournoy as secretary of defense is her role in shaping past military conflicts.
“Flournoy’s record includes emphatic support for the failed and tragic military surge in Afghanistan, troops on the ground in Syria and military intervention in Libya—policies resulting in geopolitical disasters and tremendous human suffering,” progressive groups said in their statement.
As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Flournoy played a significant role in creating Obama’s strategy in the Afghanistan war. As Vox explains, Flournoy was part of a team that reviewed America’s Afghanistan strategy, which recommended sending more U.S. troops into Afghanistan. The Obama administration ultimately sent in 30,000 more service members—far more than the team’s recommended 4,000—a move that Flournoy supported.
To some, this is a sign of Flournoy’s decisiveness and ability to make tough decisions; to others, it’s an omen that she will push the U.S. into more war. Flournoy also supported U.S. intervention in Libya, citing humanitarian grounds.
“What we did is, we provided the backbone,” she said regarding Libya. “We provided the intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, the command and control, the strategic lift, the aerial refueling, the sort of critical and unique capabilities that were the backbone around which the rest of the coalition could form and really contribute. To me, that’s the lesson of Libya that should be taken forward.”
Critics, however, have argued that the intervention in Libya was “arguably Obama’s greatest foreign policy blunder.”
In a statement released through RootsAction, Matthew Hoh, a former State Department official who resigned in protest of the Afghanistan war, said, “Michèle Flournoy has been integral in the failed, counterproductive and catastrophic wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Libya and across Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa. Flournoy’s record is indisputably one of failure and folly, and ‘the experience’ touted in her favor is experience that benefits solely the Pentagon and the weapons industry and not the American people.”
Opposition to Saudi Arabia weapons ban
In a separate letter, detractors pointed out Flournoy’s opposition to banning arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which has been in conflict with Yemen since early 2015.
During one of the Democratic primary debates last year, Biden asserted that, should he win the presidency, his administration would ban weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.
“I would make it very clear we were not going to, in fact, sell more weapons to them… I would end... subsidies that we have, end the sale of material to the Saudis where they’re going in and murdering children, and they’re murdering innocent people. And so they have to be held accountable,” he said.
Flournoy, however, has signaled that she opposes the weapon sales ban. According to the American Prospect, during last year’s Foreign Policy for America meeting, Flournoy “tried to persuade the group that an outright ban on arms sales to Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be a good idea.”
The progressive-penned letter states, “Ms. Flournoy reportedly tried to influence a strategy discussion by more than 50 liberal national security groups and former Obama Administration officials in January 2019, urging them not to call for a ban on U.S. arms deals with the Saudi regime. Flournoy argued that calling for such a ban would antagonize Pentagon contractors.”
The statement was signed by several groups, including the Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation, the Yememi Alliance Committee and Veterans for Peace.
Private sector work
In addition to her work in the U.S. Department of Defense, Flournoy has also worked extensively in the private sector. Since many former government officials, including Flournoy, transitioned to private work and are now poised to transition back into the government, numerous progressive groups have raised questions about transparency and conflicts of interest.
In their statement, progressive groups argued that “the revolving-door aspects of Flournoy’s career have raised additional concerns.” These concerns largely amount to whether or not Flournoy would offer preferential treatment to private firms she previously worked with and how much corporate influence could be exerted over her.
In 2007, Flournoy co-founded the think tank Center for New American Security (CNAS), where she currently serves on the board of directors. After leaving office in 2012, she joined the defense and management consulting firm Boston Consulting Group as a senior advisor. According to the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), the firm’s defense contracts increased after hiring Flournoy, from $1.6 million in 2013 to $32 million in 2016.
Flournoy also co-founded WestExec Advisors with several former Obama officials, including Biden’s pick for Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. In 2018, she joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton.
In their letter, progressives argued, “In the interests of national and world security, we must close the revolving door that enables military contractors with close ties to government officials to propel us further into a costly, unnecessary and dangerous high-tech arms race.”
Approach to China
Progressives have also cited Flournoy’s approach to China as a major reason for their opposition. Flournoy has both written and spoken about China extensively. In an interview with NBC News, she said that the U.S. needs to make significant military investments to deter China from asserting greater global power.
“As someone who’s spent a lot of time in the Pentagon, what worries me the most there is that I don’t think we are using the resources that are given to the Defense Department in the smartest way possible,” said Flournoy. “And if we don’t change the way we’re making investments, we will risk losing our military-technological edge, you know, within a decade or so. And if we lose that edge, we will not be able to deter Chinese aggression effectively, and we’ll open ourselves to a much higher risk of miscalculating that could lead to conflict between two nuclear powers.”
“What I’m saying is that if you just stay on the path that we’re on, with the plan, force and budget, and you make no changes, 10 years from now, giving what China’s investing in technologically, we could lose—that balance could shift in a way that might embolden China,” Flournoy added.
She cited investments in cyberwarfare and unmanned systems as making a difference in the future, and expressed serious concern over cutting the defense budget, which currently sits at more than $700 billion.
The statement signed by progressive groups argued that “Flournoy’s approach to China is potentially catastrophic.”
“At a time when we must work with China to fight the coronavirus and save the planet from an existential climate crisis, Flournoy’s approach would undermine such efforts by preparing for war with China,” the letter added.
More war
Ultimately, the biggest concern for progressives is that Flournoy will lead the U.S. into more wars. Given her past history in pushing for U.S. involvement in military conflicts, her statements regarding China and her advocacy for increasing military spending, many progressive groups believe Flournoy will continue to push for more military operations.
RootsAction co-founder Norman Solomon said, “I think that in the realm of militarism that one of the crucial areas where progressives — and people who may not call themselves progressives — have the imperative and often the desire to move the U.S. government out of the clutches of the military-industrial complex.”
In an op-ed published in CommonDreams, Solomon argued that while some progressives have backed Flournoy’s potential nomination, the results of her leading the DoD would be dangerous.
RootsAction warned that it is ready to launch a large-scale grassroots campaign to stop Flournoy’s confirmation if she is nominated for defense secretary.
“The people of the United States need a secretary of defense who is untethered to the weapons industry and committed to ending the arms race,” the letter from progressives states. “Michèle Flournoy should not be put in charge of the Pentagon, and neither should anyone else failing to meet those qualifications.”
