Goodbye, General Mattis

[HurricaneDitka]

@k9bfriender

I don’t remember that. I do remember some dopers expressing concern that the rules specifically prevented him from serving serve in the position so soon after leaving the military and so had to have a waiver from congress, and that that rule was there for good reason, maybe that is what you are thinking of?
…

No, this is what I was thinking of:

@septimus

I think there are good reasons to have a civilian mentality overseeing the Pentagon. This article agrees, citing several reasons and providing anecdotal evidence that the law requiring a civilian SecDef is a good idea.

My own opinion matters not — I know very very little about the military. I have become acquainted with fellow retirees including three who are retired American career servicemen. Based on these three examples I’ve surmised that career soldiers have a very different mentality than the rest of us.

Generals and Admirals do run military operations. The Chairman of JCS reports directly to the President. Having a civilian as SecDef provides balance. Yes, an exception was made for the great man who served as Truman’s Secretary of State. I see no need to make an exception for Trump’s Mad Dog.

(ETA: Admittedly, this appointment is one of the least of our worries given the Basket of Deplorables Trump is choosing for the other top positions.)

@BobLibDem

This nomination for Defense is troubling and a threat to the tradition of civilian control of the military. The law requiring ex-generals to be retired for seven years before taking over Defense is a good one and should not be waived again. When George Marshall got a waiver, it was said that it shouldn’t happen again. I don’t care how popular a general is. George McClellan was incredibly popular with his troops, he still sucked major donkey dick as a general and was disrespectful to both Lincoln and Stanton. Douglas MacArthur was popular with the public, he was still a loose cannon and had to be relieved of command. This nomination should be withdrawn.

@BobLibDem

I’m just saying that the popularity of a general is irrelevant to whether he should be Secretary of Defense, as others have implied. I’m also saying that the ban on former uniformed military serving as Secretary of Defense for a prescribed period is in the public interest and should not be waived. Even if Mattis is the second coming of George Washington, the civilian control of the military is too important to waive.

@Czarcasm

I think there is a good point to having a civilian being in ultimate charge of our military, and I have my doubts that anything less than 7 years(although 10 would be preferable for some, in my opinion) is enough to give a military lifer a civilian outlook.