The next secretary of defense: What should his top priorities be?

After less than two years at the helm of the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel resigned. Some observers say he was pressured to leave because he disagreed with the administration’s strategy toward Iraq and Syria. Others argue he was charged with downsizing the military and completing the president’s “pivot” to Asia but was distracted by emerging national security threats he was unprepared to manage. Given the changing international security environment, what should be the top priorities of his successor?

The new secretary of defense should be someone with military experience or at least someone who has worked in the defense industry in a variety of roles.

This is a complex issue in today’s environment and requires real-world knowledge and not just a political lackey espousing the president’s position.

This should be a well-thought-out process and is critical to the stability of our free world.

— Walter H. Delashmit,

Justin

Jon Shultz, an Iraq War veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, and most veterans felt Secretary Chuck Hagel, a decorated war veteran, was a good choice, but evidently President Obama and his national security team want to micromanage the Pentagon

Many of us believe President Obama is making the mistake President Bush made in Iraq. This step makes Sen. John McCain and those who want more troops sent to Iraq happy.

I hope the top priority of a successor is less involvement in world conflicts.

This involvement will simply result in more of our soldiers killed and disabled, as I and so many others are, and there will be more veterans not getting adequate medical care.

— Edward V. Harris,

Hugo, Okla.

The president, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, is the ultimate authority for military operations but currently no one wants to accept the job of secretary of defense where their expertise and management skills are continually marginalized.

It’s somewhat analogous to the Cowboys, where Jerry Jones allows no one to perform their intended duties without his guidance — you know where that’s gotten us over the last 10 years.

Consider the casualties and all of the wounded veterans we’ve caused along with the $5 trillion we spent since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began.

Can any of us honestly say it resulted in something good? Maybe we should re-evaluate our priorities and encourage our new secretary of defense to make his No. 1 priority simply to keep us out of any war that does not threaten our land and/or that of our U.S. territories.

— Patrick Jenkins,

Arlington

The top priority for any secretary of defense is in his title: Defense, security and safety of the U.S.

To achieve this, the size of the budget is of great concern. We need to stop trying to police many other countries and getting involved in their wars.

Also, stop trying to democratize with money and certain military aid. We have tried to do so and have had unsuccessful results.

Many have had corrupt leaders financially enhancing themselves with our aid and even turning against the U.S.

In addition to all this and our own internal financial affairs, we may be on the verge of bankruptcy.

— George J. Anthony,

Fort Worth

The top priority of Hagel’s successor as defense secretary should be to restore America’s ability to deter future conflicts rather than respond to them.

To do this, he/she must convince the Congress that reducing the deficit, while important, should not be done by gutting the defense budget.

The Budget Control Act has created automatic spending limits which are intended to reduce the deficit. Nearly 50 percent of those limits are in the defense budget, which represents only roughly 30 percent of federal spending.

This situation, combined with a declaration by the president (in a speech at West Point) that we will no longer be the world’s policeman, have emboldened people like Putin and the Islamic State leadership.

This is a failure of deterrence, and we are again discovering that effective deterrence requires a robust capability and the will to use it when necessary.

Deterrence is expensive, but it is far less expensive than war.

— Dave Dietsch,

Arlington

This story was originally published December 5, 2014 at 6:32 PM with the headline "The next secretary of defense: What should his top priorities be?."