> It’s a flippant move by Hegseth.

Care to convert this into a prediction?: are you predicting Hegseth will back down?

> I doubt anyone at the Pentagon is pushing for this.

... what does this mean to you? What comes next? As SecDef/SecWar, Hegseth is the head of the Pentagon. He's pushing for this. Something like 2+ million people are under his authority. Do you think they will push back? Stonewall?

One can view Hegseth as unqualified, even a walking publicity stunt while also taking his power seriously.

▲

JumpCrisscross 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> are you predicting Hegseth will back down?

I think he may be able to cancel Anthropic’s contract. But no more. He won’t back down as much as be overruled.

> As SecDef/SecWar, Hegseth is the head of the Pentagon

On paper. Also, being the de jure head of something doesn’t automatically mean you speak for it as a whole.

> while also taking his power seriously

Authority and power are different. A plane pilot has a lot of authority. They don’t have a lot of power.

▲

tz1490 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It matters because the whole media is selling this as a Pentagon initiative, while probably 75% in the Pentagon think this is snake oil just like the previous Microsoft VR goggles.

If they don't oppose directly, large bureaucracies know how to drag their feet until the midterms at least, if not until 2028. Soldiers literally dragged their feet at the glorious Trump military parade, when they walked disinterested and casually instead of marching.

	▲	xpe an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> If they don't oppose directly, large bureaucracies know how to drag their feet until the midterms at least, if not until 2028. While I grant the spirit of this point, I don't think it applies to this situation. The "bureaucratic resistance" explanation doesn't fit when you think about what would happen next. Here is my educated guess based on some research: - contract termination: Hegseth can direct the relevant contracting officer(s) at the Pentagon to terminate the contract. This could happen within days. Internal stonewalling here might add weeks of delay, but probably not more than that. - supply chain risk designation: Hegseth signs a document, puts it into motion. Then it becomes a bureaucratic process that chugs along. Noncompliant contracting officers probably would be fired, so this happens within weeks or a few months. Substantial delays could come from litigation, to be sure -- but this isn't a case where civil service stonewalling saves us. - Defense Production Act: would require an executive order from Trump. This would go into effect right away, at least on paper. It would very likely lead to litigation and possibly court injunctions. My point is that non-compliant civil servants at the Pentagon probably can't slow it down very much. (I recommend they do what their oath and conscience demands, to be sure!) Hegseth has shown he's willing to fire quickly and aggressively. I admire people who take a stand against Hegseth and Trump -- they are a nasty combination of dangerous and corrupt. At the moment, they appear weaker than ever. Sustained civil pushback is working. Let's "roll this up" back to my original point. I responded to a comment that said "I doubt anyone at the Pentagon is pushing for this.", asking the commenter to explain. I don't think that comment promotes a better understanding of the situation. It is more useful to talk about the components of the situation and some possible cause-effect relationships.

▲

relaxing 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]