As Mattis’ number two, how different could Shanahan’s thinking be from Mattis’? Will he also tell Trump that the withdrawal is a bad idea or simply follow Trump’s marching orders? Has he made any public statements yet?
That’s unknown. He doesn’t have Mattis’ gravitas and the jury is still out whether he’s willing to take over the responsibility of being the adult in the room.
No. No I did not assert that. I asserted that “I remember various Dopers voicing concern …” (you should know this, you quoted it a few posts prior). I then provided cites of various Dopers voicing concern. In an ironic twist, one of those Dopers even showed up here to re-voice his concerns.
The cites show a few dopers showing concern about appointing a general to Secretary of Defense. They don’t show hypocrisy, as that would require showing those posters have changed their opinion about appointing a general to Sec of Defense.
Concern about Mattis leaving is a different matter. He’s shown restraint and reason, at least as much as any Trump appointee. He’s already there, and shown us how he acts.
But it is true some folks in this thread are now expressing the opposite concern, that someone with “no military experience” is being selected at least temporarily. Although there is some weaseling on the term “military experience”, as usually that means serving, not being a political analyst. Are they the same people in the cites?
All you’ve shown is that liberals have diverse and nuanced opinions on the matter.
I don’t think I’ve accused anyone of “liberal hypocrisy” in this thread. The closest I got (which was not very close) was an observation that “the concern seems to have flipped on its head”. No reference to political affiliations, or “hypocrisy”, or even individual posters. Just a generalized observation that some of those “diverse and nuanced opinions” expressed when Mattis was coming in were quite opposite those being expressed now that he’s on his way out.
I imagine it could be dramatically different. Shanahan has never served in the military; Mattis never worked for Boeing. Mattis’ experience as a career soldier undoubtedly impacted his views and behaviors. Shanahan has been a part of the “industrial” side of the military-industrial complex for his entire career, which has undoubtedly impacted his views and behaviors.
I’m really not sure what your point is in this sub-debate: what purpose does your “general observation” serve, if not to promote a charge of hypocrisy?
I think I can clear up your confusion. Let me preface the explanation by asking your views on the suitability of some of the Cabinet survivors: Wilbur Ross, Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry.
Two years ago, when Trump was picking a Cabinet, there was some hope that he’d pick qualified and conscientious people. In that context, asking for a waiver on the rule about civilian SecDef seemed like unnecessary slippage.
Since then, we’ve learned just how horrid Trump’s selections were. Rick Perry didn’t know what the DoE did, and still doesn’t care. DeVos is using her post to weaken public schools: she has friends in the private school business, some of them fraudsters. Wilbur Ross has used his inside info as SecCom for insider trading to fatten his own pocketbook; that he isn’t on his way to penitentiary just shows how busy Federal prosecutors are in this pigsty of corruption.
And the list of unqualified or corrupt Trump appointees goes on and on and on. By comparison, General Mattis was the most qualified and non-corrupt of the entire Cabinet. He was the Designated Adult, the one that rational Americans pinned their hopes on to protect America from the whims of our childish Leader. Yet it seems like you find it a ‘Gotcha!’ that rational thinkers rue Mattis’ departure. Perhaps if you could imagine yourself in the shoes of a rational centrist, instead of viewing everything through your partisan lens, you’d understand our concerns more clearly.
Capische?