It was such an absurd thing to dispute, in my eyes, that I didn’t think it deserved anything more serious by way of a supporting cite than a 3-panel comic (which, if you would have read the article below the comic, you might have learned a thing or two). It truly is, to me at least, on par with questioning whether Republicans revere Reagan. If you ask for a cite for that, my first response is going to be to laugh out loud. That’s what this is like to me. But since you’re persisting (and I’m fighting my temptation to point you at another Terminal Lance comic or a Breitbart article here), try reading this. I’ll post an excerpt below, but you really should read the whole thing:
Are the qualities one seeks in a SecDef the same as one seeks in a General? Is it clear that MadDog “If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all” Mattis is the right man for the job?
I’m delighted by the nomination. It’s a big country, with lots of people, and lots of opinions, so I don’t think it would be very hard to find someone who disagrees with me. What qualities would you want our next SecDef to have?
One Mattis quote really resonated with me:
“You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”
Heh. I wonder how this guy is going to get along with Bannon.
Being proud of ignorance is an interesting tactic.
Irony ain’t your strong suit, is it?
Listen, when someone says, “I don’t know anything about this guy, is he well regarded”, the best response if you want to be understood is not, “here are some memes and comics. If you don’t accept this as proof you’re an ignorant ass.”
I posted the meme and comic before anyone said anything like “I don’t know anything about this guy, is he well regarded”.
That was a helpful cite. Thank you.
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.)
Mattis seems a relatively decent pick for Sec Def and a hugely important one given Trump’s emotional volatility and deep ignorance about international affairs and national security. The likelihood of a disastrous war has probably dropped significantly.
OK, explained. Couple others, then. Is Pestilence Elect Trump’s assessment of him as another Patton accurate and insightful? Is his cognomen of “Mad Dog” just a bit of whimsey?
Naturally, I approve of his stance regarding making more enemies being a bad idea. I’m troubled that it needed to be said. In light of the blithering insanity that Il Douche is intent on committing, this guy ain’t so bad.
Do call signs reflect a person’s personality as a nickname or moniker, or are they selected pretty much randomly? (question from a civilian…)
Mattis and whimsy aren’t really in the same universe. William Treseder writing for Military1.com called him “the most renowned warrior of our day to the combat initiated” in a piece that also talks a bit about Mattis’s various nicknames, which include “The Warrior Monk”. Army, Navy, Military, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard
The Patron Saint Of Chaos nickname likely refers in part to Mattis’s mastery of John Boyd’s modern military theory involving the OODO Loop, with which one “can disrupt the opponent’s ability to make reality-based decisions if you can continuously change the reality before he has time to react to it.” Military Strategist Explains Why Trump Leads—And Will Fail
And one can enhance one’s fiscal situation if one can monetize life experiences in a pro-active and effective manner.
As someone not ignorant of military culture I can’t think of a better cite for gauging how specifically the Marine Corps feels about an issue than Terminal Lance. And I’m saying that without irony.
Not entirely accurate. The Secretary of Defense is the conduit through which the president controls the military. Of course the president can pick up the phone and talk to any general directly if he wishes but that is the SECDEF’s responsibility.
The Goldwater-Nichols Act changed the command structure of the military. Under the act the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the chief military advisor to the president, National Security Counsel and the Secretary of Defense. The individual service chiefs are also there in an advisory role but they also advise the secretary of their branch. The Joint Chiefs do not have a command role. Under the act individual combatant commanders are under the direct command of the president through the SECDEF. Do not be confused by the term Combatant Command. It doesn’t necessarily mean a command that it is direct combat. CENTCOM is a Combatant Command and covers Afghanistan. So is Northern Command (NORTHCOM) which covers the United States and North America.
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.
Mattis did not suck donkey dick as a general.
Mattis has not been disrespectful.
Mattis was not a loose cannon.
I’m not sure why you bring up irrelevant examples. Mattis may very well not be a good choice but not for any of those reasons.
One thing Mattis will not be is a yes man or sycophant. Whether or not it is him in the position it’s particularly important to have someone in that position who will tell Trump how things are rather than how he wants them to be. If nothing else you can be assured that Mattis will not sugarcoat anything and Trump will get the unvarnished truth.
Personally I would have liked to see Mattis be put in charge of the VA.
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.
Then give him that job…but he cannot legally be Secretary of Defense.