Under what circumstances should congress grant a waiver for SecDef?

[SteveRogers]

Seems like a topic worth discussing given Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense. The National Security Act of 1947 requires a person to have been retired from the military for seven years before being appointed Secretary of Defense. The point of this rule is to ensure that there is meaningful civilian oversight of the military. If congress grants General Mattis is granted a waiver to this requirement by an act of congress, it will be only the second time such a waiver has been granted, the first being George Marshall during the Korean War.

Under what circumstances should congress grant such a waiver? Regardless of whether or not you like the Mattis selection, is he a good enough pick to justify throwing out the seven year requirement? Will the limitation on military personnel serving as SecDef mean anything at all going forward if congress just starts ignoring it whenever they feel like it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If we get in something like a Korean War.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

none tbqh

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't know, but it shouldn't grant them for anybody with the nickname and business connections of a Madeleine L'Engle villain.

[Kingpoleon]

If the goal is to ensure civilian oversight, their Chief of Staff and Deputy Secretary should be required to have not been in service in the armed forces for at least fourteen years.