Goodbye, General Mattis

[Northern_Piper]

@scr4

Northern Piper, either you dropped a word when you quoted the NY Times or they updated after you copied & pasted it. The article says:

(emphasis mine)

I just cut and pasted. Them damned NYTimes editors, trying to proofread after posting!

[k9bfriender]

@Northern_Piper

Well, you got your wish, k9bfriender: the President has decided that Mattis didn’t resign, he was fired. He’s tweeted that Mattis is out on January 1, not the end of February that Mattis had proposed to ensure continuity and time for the President to choose a successor.

Well, Mattis is a seasoned military commander, strategy is probably his strong suite. Getting to resign with a letter that rebukes (though not as much as I would have liked), and also forcing him to fire him turns out to be the best of both worlds.

I am still very, very concerned that the replacement will be more keen on unquestioningly following Trump’s commands (not that the lawful orders of the head of the civilian govt shouldn’t be followed, but they should not always be followed unquestioningly), and possibly even not giving appropriate pushback against actual illegal orders as well.

I do feel a bit more confident that these actions will, however, get even some of his base to question his fitness for being in a position to issue these commands.

Trump, Angry Over Mattis’s Rebuke, Removes Him 2 Months Early

And, there’s a little dig in the article about the President’s level of reading comprehension:

Mattis’s rebuke was a bit nuanced. Those capable of critical thinking easily grasped it, but those not so inclined to look for deeper understanding may miss it. That Trump didn’t understand the rebuke is why I am concerned that many of his supporters would not either.

A former Boeing executive, Patrick M. Shanahan, is now in charge of the US military.

What do we know about this guy? Not much on his wiki page. I have my doubts as to the wisdom of putting someone from the military industrial complex in charge of the military, and I have an initial distrust of anyone hand picked by Trump, but it is hard to really see what his views on military deployment and engagement are.

[HurricaneDitka]

@iiandyiiii

That Boeing executive has no military experience, by the way. Just another weakening of America, brought to you by Trump and those who voted for him.

Not sure if this is intended as sarcasm. I believe Ash Carter, Mattis’ predecessor under Obama, also did not have any military experience.

When Mattis was selected for the position, I remember various Dopers voicing concern for having a man with a lengthy military career in the position, and stressing the importance of civilian control of the military. Now that a civilian is going to be in the position, the concern seems to have flipped on its head.

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

Not sure if this is intended as sarcasm. I believe Ash Carter, Mattis’ predecessor under Obama, also did not have any military experience.

When Mattis was selected for the position, I remember various Dopers voicing concern for having a man with a lengthy military career in the position, and stressing the importance of civilian control of the military. Now that a civilian is going to be in the position, the concern seems to have flipped on its head.

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?

As far as Carter, from his wiki

He joined the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 1984 and ultimately rose to become chair of the International & Global Affairs faculty and Ford Foundation Professor of Science & International Affairs.[2] He is presently Director of the Belfer Center for Science & International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School.[3] Carter is author or co-author of 11 books and more than 100 articles on physics, technology, national security, and management.

Carter served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy during President Clinton’s first term, from 1993 to 1996, responsible for policy regarding the former Soviet states, strategic affairs, and nuclear weapons policy. During President Obama’s first term, he served first as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and then Deputy Secretary of Defense until December 2013. In February 2015, he replaced Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and served until the end of the Obama administration.[4]

So, not served in the military, but extensive knowledge and experience with the military, its tactics and strategies, the political and military opposition to be encountered, and prior experience in a similar position.

Not having served in the military is not the same as no military experience. Shanahan has neither.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

@HurricaneDitka

Not sure if this is intended as sarcasm. I believe Ash Carter, Mattis’ predecessor under Obama, also did not have any military experience.

When Mattis was selected for the position, I remember various Dopers voicing concern for having a man with a lengthy military career in the position, and stressing the importance of civilian control of the military. Now that a civilian is going to be in the position, the concern seems to have flipped on its head.

While Carter didn’t have prior experience serving in the military, he had previously served in a variety of government posts including as an Assistant Secretary of Defense and as an Under Secretary of Defense. I don’t recall Dopers voicing concern about someone with a lengthy military career in the job but I suppose it could have happened. Any chance you might have a link to share about that?

As far as business types with no military or government experience serving as Secretary of Defense a quick look at previous people in the role seems to indicate the last person with no experience of either type would have been Neil McElroy who served from 10/1957 - 12/1959 under Eisenhower. He had previously been President of Procter and Gamble. Prior to this it wasn’t unusual to have captains of industry head up Defense. McElroy’s predecessor had been CEO of GM.

However, I’m unsure if McElroy is the only one who has been a Satan worshiper.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Huh. Took me a minute.

[iiandyiiii]

@HurricaneDitka

Not sure if this is intended as sarcasm. I believe Ash Carter, Mattis’ predecessor under Obama, also did not have any military experience.

When Mattis was selected for the position, I remember various Dopers voicing concern for having a man with a lengthy military career in the position, and stressing the importance of civilian control of the military. Now that a civilian is going to be in the position, the concern seems to have flipped on its head.

BEEP BEEP BEEP

ATTENTION ALL UNITS: Possible liberal hypocrisy in progress. I repeat, possible liberal hypocrisy in progress. All units report to the Elections forum!

Rookie: Oh my God! I’ve heard about this… What do we do?

Veteran: It’s okay, rook. Just calm down. Follow procedure. What do we do first?

Rookie: Check the cite.

Veteran: Right. Is there a cite?

Rookie: (checks) I don’t see a cite. I don’t see a cite, boss! What do we do?

Veteran: No cite? What kind of bozos we got running this outfit, anyway?

Rookie: I’m scared!

Veteran: Calm down, rook. Just calm down. It’s okay. Check the argument. You know, the logic.

Rookie: … I can’t tell. Seems to be ‘libs are hypocrites, if my memory is right’.

Veteran: … That’s it?

Rookie: That’s it, boss.

Veteran: Alright, alright. Shut it down. You’ll start to get it with time, rook. We get these false alarms all the time. No cites, nothing. Just bare assertion, with no support. Occasionally a weak cite. Usually nothing more. Maybe one time out of ten they actually find something. But forget it, rook. Let’s get some donuts.

[RitterSport]

The NY Times headline should have said “Trump, too stupid to realize he was insulted, finally gets it and fires Mattis.”

I think the important thing is to have a president who loves and respects the military so much that he doesn’t allow any transition period between SecDefs. I’m sure that won’t cause any problems.

[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.

[BobLibDem]

@HurricaneDitka

No, this is what I was thinking of:

Gawrsh, I’m so flattered that you remembered me. I haven’t changed my opinion, civilians must be in control of the military and I wouldn’t be in favor of any more exceptions, no matter how much Mattis is adored now.

Personally, I think Mattis got the benefit of having Donald around to be compared to.

[RTFirefly]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

OK, chapter rather than section. Sorry, but when I Googled ‘18 USC 115’, I got Section 115.

But that’s quite a bit of law. Can you narrow it down to a section? I looked at a couple of the ones that seemed to be closest, and they don’t seem to apply. I’m not going to go through every subsection of every section to see which one you might’ve had in mind, only to discover I’ve guessed wrong.

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

No, this is what I was thinking of:

:dubious:

Well, that is exactly as I said. That he shouldn’t get an exception to having 7 years before he can be appointed. That is what each one of those quotes says.

Care to try again?

If you squint just right, Septimus did not specifically call for time, and may have indicated, with the article he posted, that he would prefer a lifelong civilian. So, lets say that that one is a good cite in your favor. Onish in three isn’t really good, but I’ve seen worse. Now, in order for you to make your charge of hypocrisy stick, then you would actually have to show that a particular poster has changed his position. At very best, the very very best you can claim, is that different posters have different positions.

So, should you really think that this is a legitimate charge of hypocrisy, are you prepared to be responsible for anything and everything that any conservative ever has said?

[Chisquirrel]

@HurricaneDitka

No, this is what I was thinking of:

Huh, and literally EVERY ONE of those discussed how he shouldn’t be Secretary so soon after leaving the military, and should instead wait the required seven years.

How does that fit with your assertion that “I remember various Dopers voicing concern for having a man with a lengthy military career in the position, and stressing the importance of civilian control of the military.”?

[DinoR]

Just to be clear Shanahan is being appointed the acting SECDEF. This is not a nomination. He’s also been serving as Deputy SECDEF since his confirmation to the role in Jan, 2017. That gives him almost two years of experience as the number two in DOD.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Chisquirrel

Huh, and literally EVERY ONE of those discussed how he shouldn’t be Secretary so soon after leaving the military, and should instead wait the required seven years.

How does that fit with your assertion that “I remember various Dopers voicing concern for having a man with a lengthy military career in the position, and stressing the importance of civilian control of the military.”?

If you can’t see how lines like “This nomination for Defense is troubling and a threat to the tradition of civilian control of the military” and “Having a civilian as SecDef provides balance” 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” fit my assertion, I doubt I could find a way to explain it more plainly to you. What, specifically, is it that you think my assertion got wrong?

[Chisquirrel]

@HurricaneDitka

If you can’t see how lines like “This nomination for Defense is troubling and a threat to the tradition of civilian control of the military” and “Having a civilian as SecDef provides balance” 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” fit my assertion, I doubt I could find a way to explain it more plainly to you. What, specifically, is it that you think my assertion got wrong?

You assert that all of your cites argue that no former military should ever be Secretary of Defense. Your cites argue that any former military should wait the legal seven years before serving as Secretary of Defense.

But please, continue your gross misrepresentation of cites that everyone can read. We wait with bated breath.

[BobLibDem]

@HurricaneDitka

If you can’t see how lines like “This nomination for Defense is troubling and a threat to the tradition of civilian control of the military” and “Having a civilian as SecDef provides balance” 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” fit my assertion, I doubt I could find a way to explain it more plainly to you. What, specifically, is it that you think my assertion got wrong?

I don’t know if 7 years is the magic number, but if all you know about life is the military, I don’t think you have the complete picture. I’d rather have a guy with some military experience and some experience in elected office so that he/she can think beyond the military box. Having a guy with only military experience is like having a guy who can only use a hammer and sees every problem as a nail.

[asahi]

@k9bfriender

I would have prefered that he forced Trump to fire him, rather than resign.

In the case that he did resign, I would have prefered that he be a bit less nuanced in his resignation letter that he made public. Rather than, “We don’t see eye to eye” (paraphrased), it should be, “His policies threaten the security of our country, the lives of our troops, and all of our national interests.”

Mattis leaving, and leaving in the way that he did may move some lawmakers over to the anti-trump camp, but will not move many of his supporters. If a highly respected military commander actually points out the danger that Trump’s policies pose to our nation and to our military, then that may actually wake up some of his base to the existential danger that they are currently supporting.

It doesn’t matter.

Mattis figured it out. Trump does - not - listen. Mattis probably figured this out a long time ago: he has no influence. Trump is smarter than the generals, remember? Mattis hoped it was just a Trumpian outburst during one of his attention whoring interviews, but no, come to find out, that’s actually what he believes.

Get this: a guy who was too fucking chickenshit to even serve in the military, couldn’t even stand being in the goddamn rain long enough to pay tribute to dead American soldiers from the Great War, somehow knows more than generals who’ve fought in wars and led teams into battles, and had to look the family members of the war dead at funerals.

Very good brain. Very stable genius.

[asahi]

NM wrong tjread

[DesertDog]

@iiandyiiii

But forget it, rook. Let’s get some donuts.

FTFY

“Forget it, rook. It’s Trumptown.”