He’s used the call sign “Chaos.” Some people call him “Mad Dog” and others call him “The Warrior Monk.” He spent forty years in the U.S. Marines before retiring in 2013 five months early. He’s got a major bug up his butt about Iran, and now Donald Trump wants to make him our Secretary of Defense. His name is James N. Mattis, and he needs a waiver.
To take the job, Mattis will need Congress to pass legislation to bypass a federal law stating that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years. Congress has granted a similar exemption just once, when Gen. George C. Marshall was appointed to the job in 1950…
…It is unclear whether the legislation required to make Mattis the Pentagon chief will be difficult to obtain from Congress. A 1947 national security law said that a general must wait 10 years from leaving active duty before becoming defense secretary. An exception was granted on a one-time basis for Marshall, with lawmakers saying in special legislation at the time that it was the “sense of the Congress that after General Marshall leaves the office of Secretary of Defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.”
The 10-year rule was in effect between 1947 and 2008. It was then reduced to a 7-year rule. Mattis has currently been a civilian for only three years. The Congress that created the position of Secretary of Defense (supplanting the Secretary of War) in 1947, went out of their way to make sure future generations knew that they did not want any future generals taking the job after Marshall was done implementing his plan.
Donald Trump doesn’t care.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), a member of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on personnel, said Thursday night that she will oppose Mattis becoming Pentagon chief.
“While I deeply respect General Mattis’s service, I will oppose a waiver,” she said. “Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule.”
John McCain doesn’t care.
…Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that he looks forward to beginning the confirmation process “as soon as possible” in the new year.
“General Mattis has a clear understanding of the many challenges facing the Department of Defense, the U.S. military, and our national security,” McCain said. “America will be fortunate to have General Mattis in its service once again.”
Maybe you don’t care either. But there were reasons why Congress put the rule in place. The country had just spent considerable effort destroying fascism and they felt that civilian control of the military (as well as the State Department) was a vital principle to uphold.
Trump has already selected a retired general as his National Security Advisor, and one who almost certainly could not be confirmed by the Senate to anything. He’s been considering another retired general for the State Department despite the fact that he was convicted of being careless with classified information when he served as Director of Central Intelligence and is currently on probation.
Sen. Gillibrand won’t consider Gen. Mattis for Secretary of Defense because of the principle of civilian control. I’m sure that many other senators will take the some position. But I think the Democrats are more opposed to the idea of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III serving as Attorney General, and I don’t know how much fight they have to spread around. I also don’t know if there are any Republicans who are willing to put principle over party. McCain was one possibility, and he’s clearly not on board. Maybe Rand Paul might take a stand?
Yeah, but who would you rather have? A general, or some whack job from a right-wing thing tank? I’ll take the general. At least he has proven competence as part of a large organization.
In the bigger picture, though, I agree that this isn’t a great direction to go in. In fact, I think military rule is a likely endpoint of 40 years of Republican dominance in Washington. Once they trash the rest of the federal government (and most Trump’s other cabinet appointees have no competence to run their departments), the military will be the only organization that still works effectively. In other countries, this has often been the justification for a military coup.
At least he has proven competence as part of a large organization.
You don’t have much experience with the military, do you? 🙂
I’m still opposed in principle)? I think military veterans generally, and especially if they’ve been in combat (disclaimer: I’m neither), at a minimum have some awareness of the costs/downsides of military adventurism.
(Anybody think Trump does? Only hope is that some semi-sane/less-insane are trying to pound some sense of that into him right now. Good luck with that!)
So at least they should be less likely to be caught with their (i.e., our) pants down by the Law of Unintended Consequences, a la dubya.
To his credit, I think Obama remained keenly aware of all that.
It’s called choosing our battles.
Quite honestly, I don’t think I like one person that Trump’s chosen – or is considering – for his cabinet. They’re all pretty uniformly horrible for various and differing reasons, many bc of sheer barking incompetency or with no skills whatsoever for the job at hand or just white supremacist assholes, etc.
Mattis seems like one of the least worst choices so far, albeit, in more “normal” times (whatever that means anymore), I would probably be more opposed to this appointment for the reasons stated.
Why was it reduced to seven years? Considering that the average person lives longer today than they did in 1947, maybe it should have been increased to fourteen years.
What’s needed is more civilian control of the US military, not less. And effective civilian control and not those gangs of military fetishists that have their bottoms planted in seats in Congress and the executive branch.
That said, and considering the recent appointments and the other names that have been floated by the hairball, Can Gen. James Mattis Teach a Draft-Dodging Tax Cheat About War? from The Intercept.
He is a civilian now. And that is problematic.
From Wikipedia:
Yet another alligator in the Trump’s new refilled swamp.
Do I care about civilian control of the military? I care so much that I’ve been harping on revisiting the National Security Act of 1947 pretty much since I started commenting on Booman Tribune. Especially in the leadup and after the NATO Summit in Chicago in 2012.
But even as a civilian, Mattis is disqualified for reason of corruption.
And I don’t expect the Congressional GOP caucus to be anything other than cowards in dealing Trump’s nominations. It’s going to be rubber stamp time.
Moreover, I expect at least 20 Vichy Democrats will roll over in the Tickle-Me-Donald position–reliably. “For the sake of uniting the country after a contentious election…”
And we know what his nomination means. Queueing up the War in Iran for the 2018 Congressional cycle. We just need the manufactured crisis to scare the public into doing that and giving Trump even more power than Obama is leaving him.
Ten years of Democratic political malpractice is now an inescapable judgement. Wish there were some in the DC Democratic establishment who had the courtesy to apologize to the hundreds of thousands who were trying to tell them so on issue after issue.
I dont know how deeply you have dug into Chelsea Clintons good friend Elizabeth Holmes’s company, but she lied and threatened a ton of people including board members their families and friends to keep her failure from coming out.
Great, we hadn’t had any Clinton bashing for at least 5 minutes.
When you run with the hedge fund crowd, you have interesting acquaintances. It is what it is. The Clintons are now politically irrelevant, or better be if Trump is going to be resisted without distractions.
And they no longer need your protection.
A 25-year negative campaign to smear up-and-coming politicians worked. Think of how much money public and private was involved in that success. And how they soon adapted by joining the very people who were financing their demise. Some day someone will write a tragic play about it. Or an opera. A classic example of a tragic flaw undoing a human being.
Rumor has it that Chelsea Clinton is exploring a run for the US House.
An affiliation with Theranos should be a big black mark on the resume of any applicant. And weighed/weighted against everything else on the resume. Senate Democrats should not give Mattis a pass on this, but after full exploration may conclude that his positives outweigh this and other negatives. Chelsea Clinton is a wee bit short on resume positives and therefore, her Theranos affiliation will weigh more heavily against her.
Yeah. He is def not a neocon. Wonder how long he will last.
Depends on whether Trump is the package he presented during the campaign or the package was just wrapped in shiny paper with glitter sprinkled on top to win the nomination and election.
Having proved his point that he could beat all the GOP wannabes and Clinton, he’ll be moving into his presidential legacy mode real soon. As getting re-elected proves nothing new for someone like him and the job will likely bore him within a few months, the only challenge for him now is to gain public approval for what he does. The nutcases that he’s surrounded himself with aren’t going to accomplish that for him.
Which explains the post-campaign rallies. Whipping up the base again.
If Pence is an effective Prime Minister, Trump can do nonstop engagements of rallies interspersed with “negotiating” visits. Pins down the media.
Standard post-purchase marketing tool. Making the sale only retains the customer as long as the product delivers on the promise. Few products are that good. Reinforce the purchase decision as a distraction from the flaws and failures that become obvious as the product is used.
Obama skipped that step and then came the 2010 midterms. OTOH, on average, the rubes on the left side of the aisle aren’t quite as gullible and easily fooled again as those on the right side. So, maybe Obama skipped out on that because post-sale marketing for him would have done more harm than good for his image.
A number of people on the Theranos board were just board in name only so Holmes could use their prestige to push forward. They were not particularly knowledgable AND Holmes lied and threatened people (including a board members grandson) from blowing the whistle.
My point and why I brought up the Clinton daughter, is that you’d have to see the details of how Mattis was in the Theranos/Holmes situation to say whether he was corrupt. Was he duped? Was he helping lie? Was he barely involved? Because–and I cannot repeat this enough–Holmes would go to any lengths to hide her con.
So much that I think she and Shkreli should do a supervillain team up.
Yes, but should anyone that was so easily conned or duped be viewed as suitable for high government office?
Overall, there was no empathy for all those people that were duped into purchasing houses they couldn’t afford. A con that our government is perfectly capable of preventing to protect the vast majority of the public that don’t and can’t be expected to possess the knowledge to see through a financial trick of such major importance to their lives. And therefore, the failure was much less theirs than ours and we collectively failed in our duty either to protect them and after the crash to compensate them.
Looking at the roster of VSPs that a kid like Holmes snookered is evidence that they’re as gullible as the rubes that voted for Trump.
Oh good god, this yabo is on the Theranos board?
Then he’s either a grifter or an idiot. Anybody with a lick of sense (biomedical degree not required) can see that Theranos has been nothing but a huge con game ever since a year or so after its creation, when it became clear that the Theranos technology did not exist, would never exist, and that the principals were frantically scrambling to obfuscate those facts.
Jesus.
C’mon … all barriers have been broken in the past 60 years!!
Eisenhower’s warning for the MIC …. precaution lasted how long .. a few months/years?
Ref.: McNamara’s Vietnam War and all developments in the 21th century since 9/11,
see armaments sales to the autocratic leaders in the Persian Gulf region.
Of course if you want to play the obstruction game .. excellent move! 😉
I agree with first 4 comments!
According to what I’ve read Mattis actually had a point in his Iran views. Anyhow the real question is whether the guy can actually handle beauracracy. He’s a good commander but he hates the desk stuff.
As to civilian control well pick your battles. At least the military sees climate change as a threat.
See –> used to see
I working on a piece about Mattis right now.
Admittedly, I don’t know a lot about the guy, so I’m basically cramming for an exam. But everything I’ve read so far suggests he’s not the worst choice.
Will he need a waiver? yes. Is he likely to get it? yes, I think so.
But according to various sources (Slate, WaPo, Heavy (which had good links)) he seems defensible.
He supports the two-state solution. He has criticized the US bias toward Israel as a problem. He is hawkish on Iran, but doesn’t want to tear up the nuclear deal. He opposes waterboarding and other forms of torture. His tough-guy quotes don’t bother me: they strike me as standard military tough-guy talk. He told the congress that if they were going to cut the state department, they’d better up the budget for bullets, and that he preferred diplomacy.
I mean, I get the violation of civilian control of the military, and it’s deplorable that an ignoramus like Trump is pulling this shit. But oh my god, it could be a LOT worse. It could be Petraeus.
All true, although we should remember the lesson the Republican Senators taught us – drag your feet on EVERYTHING, even renaming post offices.
In practical terms that’s about all we’re going to be able to do for any of Trump’s appointees, since the executive nomination filibuster is gone. Only if three Republicans Senators are willing to go against Trump (and probably McConnell) do we have any chance to stop a nomination.
Will he ask to reverse the inclusion of women and gays in the military?
Is his primary value his thinking about war with Iran?
Does he care at all about the support functions that provide the logistics to the fighting force or is he just focused on killing?
Will he get an audit of the Defense Department done?
Will his involvement with Theranos disqualify him even as a civilian?
It could be McChrystal, who got himself cashiered for insubordination of the President.
First, let me say that I think the act of being a paid member of the Armed Forces for more than one elistment period ought to disqualify you from serving in a cabinet level position … period. The only exception would be the Surgeon General. If you want to make the argument that exceptions should be allowed, fine, get Congress to pass a bill specifically allowing this one person at whatever time.
Now, having said that, most people here know that I served in the Marines from ’70-73. Before Mattis, but not a lot before. Trump is NOT going like this guy.
You don’t get called MadDog for passing out bonbons. That is a type of sobriquet reserved for the best (in a Marine Corps sense). It is not given to many and certainly not the politicos. This man knows the military inside and out and will not back down on matters of principle. There will be no legal cover for military torture under his run. Its not the way real Marines do business. There will be no relaxing of the UCMJ to cover covert military chicanery without direct, written orders from the President. If Trump wants to deal dirty with military boots, he’s going to have to get his own hands dirty.
Marine Corps 4stars are true believers in the Marine Corps and what it stands for. Trump has picked the best (or worst from his point of view) SecDef possible at this time. It will blow up in his orange face.
Bet on it.
BTW, as far as what he has said goes, believe it. He has said this and much, much more with much, much more profane emphasis. So did I. You are taught this (in exactly the words used) during boot camp.
Don’t think for a minute that he doesn’t mean it, he does. So did I in 1970. It comes with volunteering to serve as shock troops.
What it stands for….
Crushing Central American republics and installing US-backed dictators therein? Or is it the shooting up unarmed civilians at a roadblock thingy?
Real easy to throw stones when you’ve never been there. And even easier to blame the sword for the actions of man.
All military actions in the Carribean were ordered by civilians. Marines never crushed any country without orders from the President. Don’t blame Haiti or the Dominican Republic on Chesty Puller, it was ordered by that great progressive Woodrow Wilson. Taft and Coolidge order the invasion of Nicaragua. Teddy R, Ike, and Kennedy all contributed their little bit, also.
In any long term conflict there will be incidents of outrageous misanthropy. The key is to minimize those incidents as much as possible. And yes, the Marines DO teach exactly how to minimize that shit. Doesn’t always work tho. Check out cops in the USA.
I can’t tell if you ever served. I think not, but it doesn’t really matter. If you’ve never been there YOU DON’T KNOW HOW YOU WILL REACT. Haditha should never have happened. Once it did, malefactors should have been punished. The system failed, again. Welcome to the real world.
So yeah, sit back in your easy chair, sip a beer and piss and moan about the guys at the sharp end of the stick. ‘Cause after all, YOU would never, never do such a thing … probably, maybe …