home

Trump Picks Defense Secretary, Retired Gen. Mattis

I haven't followed the news about Retired Gen. James Mattis. In reading he was chosen by Donald Trump to be Defense Secretary, I read a few things today.

  • He and Trump likely get on famously. They both make appalling comments. Mattis is famous for this quote:
  • “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys that slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” he said in 2005. “So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

  • NBC reports on a former special services member who claims Mattis left his troop to die in Afghanistan. (The question apparently not whether he did, but whether he was justified in doing so. The incident was also referred to in a book, The Only Thing Worth Dying for.)
  • He serves on the board of a controversial blood-testing company.
  • Congress would have to pass a law before confirming him because he's only been retired from the military for 3 years.

More...]

Does he know anything about life other than war? He led a batallion invading Afghanistan in 2001, led a Marine battalion in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, led a command into Iraq in 2004 to retake Fallujah, and served as head of the United States Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, from 2010 to 2013.

Why he shouldn't be confirmed:

General Mattis would be the first former ranking general to assume the post of defense secretary since George Marshall in 1950-51. He would need a special congressional waiver to serve as defense secretary. He retired from the Marines in 2013, and federal law stipulates that the Pentagon chief be out of uniform for seven years.

Republicans just assume the law prohibiting him from serving is a "technicality" they can exclude him from before confirmation. It is not. It's an important check and balance intended to preserve civilian control over the military.

Here's how Democrats could (but probably won't) block him.

< Trump: The Slippery Slope of Compromise | New Europol Report on ISIS Warns of More Attacks in Europe >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    rough around the edges (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by pitachips on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 10:22:26 AM EST
    But he seems eminently more reasonable and qualified then any other appointment Trump has made.

    The National Security Act (none / 0) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 04:32:59 PM EST
    of 1947, says that the Secretary of DOD must be a civilian and may not be appointed Secretary within seven years after relief from active duty (General Mattis retired 3 years ago).

     A Congressional waiver was granted for General George Marshall, the iconic military leader of WWII and Army Chief of Staff until 1947.  That waiver specifically stated: "the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approved by the Congress of continuing appointments of military men in the office of DOD in the future."

    The 66-year old retired general has a very distinguished, albeit controversial, career earning him the nicknames of "Mad Dog" and "The Warrior Monk,_ the later stemming from his being a life-long bachelor, never married and no children. Devoted all his time to his troops and reading.

     General Mattis is described as being urbane and polished with an intellectual persona.  He has a personal library of over 7,000 books.  He required troops under his command to read widely about cultural norms and the history of the area they were sent to, as he himself did.

    General Mattis, it is not surprising, has views differing from those of Trump's, depending on the time of day and who the last person he spoke with.  For example, the General stated that Trump's views on Russia were ill-informed; torture does not work (not known if being illegal is a consideration); the Iran agreement needs to be recognized as an imperfect arms control agreement, being a pause, not a nuclear halt (as a military historian he might have observed that time is often on his side--as he also notes, if nothing else, we will have better targeting data from inspections).  

    With a cabinet and advisors of white nationalists and robber barons, the General shines.  Perhaps a low bar, given his own relationships with Theranos, and its blood testing nostrum (Theranos is under criminal investigation, although, as we all know being under investigation does not mean there is criminal activity, and we should not go by innuendo counter to Comey's thinking).  Perhaps, the general will be in a better position to oversee DOD than a Trump civilian appointee, such as Newt or Palin. After Tom Price at HHS, anything can happen. And, besides, Mattis can read.

    Nothing Congress said in a 1947 enactment (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 08:37:00 PM EST
    is binding on Congress in 2017. Or even in 1948. Particularly not in what lawyers call "precatory language."

    Parent
    Interesting take (none / 0) (#17)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 06:13:15 AM EST
    But most likely will not come down to it.

    http://tinyurl.com/zk7j44v

    On its face, this law means that Congress will have to enact a statutory exception to permit General Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense, something it apparently has only done once in the case of George Marshall in 1950.  At that time, Congress also noted "the sense" of the lawmakers that "no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved." This statutory limitation on the president's power to appoint officers of his choosing is almost certainly unconstitutional.  The constitution vests the President with the sole authority to nominate executive officers of his choosing.  The only constitutional limitation is the incompatability clause - which prevents a member of Congress from serving in any "Office of the United States."


    Parent
    Yes, the waiver (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 11:01:53 AM EST
    given for General Marshall is not binding on Congress in 2017. The language presents a case-by-case legislative consideration for future approval(s) rather than reliance on the Marshall precedent.  Moreover, the federal law does not impose a ban on "military men" from serving as Secretary of Defense, but rather a specified time period (seven years) must have passed since retirement from the military.

    Parent
    Why Does He Want ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by RickyJim on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 04:48:57 PM EST
    the US to do more than it is doing now about ISIS?  He really thinks it is a threat to the US.  But he the why is obvious.  Is ISIS really more a threat to us than the other players in that area?

    I wonder how The Warrior Monk (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 06:52:13 PM EST
    and student of Marcus Aurelius felt about Trump announcing the "Mad Dog" appointment to the crowd like he was Vince McMahon awarding the WWF championship belt to Haystacks Calhoun.

    It's hard to believe anyone would really respect, in any way other than fearfully and grudgingly, the authority of anybody named Mad Dog, or Slavering Beast, or Mindless Quadreped..

    But then, maybe the nickname is a good metaphor for what the Marine Corps does to so many young people's consciousness.


    He doesn't like the nickname (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 07:09:57 PM EST
    He's been accused (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 08:18:40 PM EST
    of delaying help to wounded soldiers. Do you know anything about that?

    Parent
    There is no dispute of it (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 08:47:35 PM EST
    Even from himself. He chose to not rescue a group of Green Berets along with a CIA operative and Afghan forces who had been hit by an American bomb, friendly fire, in December 2001 in Afghanistan. His helicopters were a mile away. The Air Force was three miles away,and they rescued them. Because of his refusal, the wounded missed what the military calls "the golden hour". If they can get wounded treated within an hour the mortality rate plummets. A Green Beret died on the way to the hospital, those who served with him remain livid.

    Parent
    So different from how Mattis (none / 0) (#13)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 10:00:41 PM EST
    is being presented by the mainstream press. They are talking about Mattis' absolute devotion to the troops, and how the soldiers love him for it.

    Why did he refused to rescue those Green Berets and others?

    Parent

    He is also beloved by many (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 11:18:48 PM EST
    He never issued himself a family. He was completely devoted to the Marines. Things were different during the Bush administration too. The branches were not well united in mission and aiding each other. Obama changed that. What he chose to do at that time was considered his right. Those needing rescued were after all Army.

    There was more than one incident in Afghanistan where a certain branch mission was in big trouble and other branches nearby refused to assist.

    Parent

    He has also been accussed (none / 0) (#6)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 08:33:37 PM EST
    Of, after forced early retirement,

    Travelling cross country to visit the families of soldiers that died under his command

    Parent

    Yes, early this morning (none / 0) (#9)
    by fishcamp on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 08:39:44 PM EST
    I read in Google news that back in 2001 in Kandahar, Afghanistan, when Mattis was a one star general, some nearby American troops were hit by friendly fire, and Mattie initially refused to send helicopters to rescue them.  Naturally that article is gone from the news.  Maybe Tracy knows more about this event.

    Parent
    Stars and Stripes (none / 0) (#10)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 08:44:23 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/jf32fsl

    Retired Lt. Col. Jason Amerine, in a Facebook post, said a delay by Mattis in sending rescue aircraft from a nearby base might have led to the deaths of Staff Sgt. Brian Cody Prosser and at least two Afghans after they were hit by a U.S. bomb outside of Kandahar.

    "He was indecisive and betrayed his duty to us, leaving my men to die during the golden hour when he could have reached us," wrote Amerine, who is a future of war fellow at the New America think tank in Washington, D.C.



    Parent
    He never sent them (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 08:51:40 PM EST
    And an officer argued with him about it and was thrown out of his office.

    The Air Force answered their call though when Mattis refused. Wounded died though because they missed the golden hour :(

    Parent

    A real Benghazi (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 10:48:23 AM EST
    scandal.

    Hillary gets falsely blamed for not helping those at the Benghazi outpost.

    Mattis actually does what everyone accused Hillary of, and it is no big deal.  More evidence of renowned GOP hypocrisy.

    Parent

    There were many incidents like this (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 02:45:55 AM EST
    This one gets listened to because the special forces soldiers speak out about this sort of thing more than anyone else when it happened to them.

    After Obama though some of the walls between the branches were brought down. And the importance of the golden hour became doctrine for everyone.

    Petraeus was likely responsible for starting that, McChrystal finished it. It was too hard for everyone to stay on the same page in COIN if they considered themselves separate. And in Afghanistan we had other nations too, that didn't always work smoothly but they worked together. The U.K., France, and Canada were obvious players but my husband worked with soldiers from Poland, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Germany, Denmark.

    We made so much headway in uniting under Obama. I think that's why Mattis is willing to buck the seven years rule. I think he wants to protect the military and as much of the gains we have made as he can.

    In 2001, everyone in the military was so different, stupid, they believed their own press. Mattis believes that when you are in a fight, you don't hold back. But you don't go looking for fights. You don't stupidly and arrogantly do damage to the peace we have.

    Parent

    That would be a welcome change (none / 0) (#47)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 06:13:31 AM EST
    . Mattis believes that when you are in a fight, you don't hold back.

    Why do we send these young men into hotspots and then tie their hands with "rules of engagement" that puts their lives on the line.

    Mattis was also "retired" early by Obama due to his persistent questions regarding policy. His questions regarding the Iran deal were spot on, and remain unanswered, by the Obama administration.
    So you possibly delay nuclear capability of Iran, and give them oodles of money, what are your plans    when Iran destabilizes the region using their new found wealth.

    Seeing that The Donald is speaking with Mattis, Petraeus, Gates is a bit reassuring, but I also expect faux pas as the one with Taiwan to be a feature of this Administration, at least until they get a team fully in place.

    Parent

    You are gonig (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 06:27:51 AM EST
    to continue to have problems every day as long as Donald is at the helm. He has no boundaries and no one is going to be able to "control" him. The GOP tried for 18 months and it didn't work. You have enabled a mentally unstable person into the presidency. You Republicans created the monster and you guys are the ones responsible and you guys are the ones that are going to have to deal with the problem.

    Republicans have been steaming over Iran since the late 1970's and have wanted a war with them. Remember George W Bush's next stop was Iran after Iraq. Republicans are so patriotic that they are willing to send their neighbor's children to die for their own causes.

    Parent

    Let me help you (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 08:19:17 AM EST
    Iran attacked the US embassy on 11/4/1979.

    They have made close passes at our ships on a regular basis.

    They have collected a huge ransom in cash.

    The only time they have shown an ability to do what they should is when Reagan was elected.

    Installing fear of us seems to be the proper way to responds to a terrorist state.

    Parent

    Complete nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 09:25:03 AM EST
    If you want to go back to 1979, the fall of the Shah, you do realize who installed the Shah in the first place?  Who put in that dictator?  It was us in 1953.  Talk about who fired the first shot, it was us.

    1979 was just righting the ship as far as the Iranians were concerned.

    And, no Reagan had nothing to do with release of the hostages.  In spite of what Giuliani and others may say.  The release date was done to slam Carter because he accepted the Shah.

    Huge cash in ransom.  You do realize the money Iran got was its own money that had been frozen--mainly in European accounts.  We didn't pay any  of our money to them.  It didn't largely even come from accounts in U.S.

    But, heh, bomb, bomb, bomb,...bomb Iran is your favorite song.

    Parent

    I remember an Iran under the (1.00 / 2) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    Shah that blocked Soviet expansion in the gulf and was an ally that was becoming westernized.

    And the radical islamists who replaced them installed a democracy??

    1979 was just righting the ship as far as the Iranians were concerned.

    Your defense of an enemey's actions is discouraging.

    BTW - You do understand that Japan didn't like our foreign policy in '41?

    And wherever the money came from we delivered it...

    Parent

    I remember an Iran under the Shah (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    in which the majority of the Iranian didn't see it that way.

    They saw, more-or-less accurately, a paranoid puppet regime propped up by Ugly Americans, in which thousands of political prisoners were detained on scanty evidence and then tortured and murdered.

    But, I guess nothing good lasts forever. Eh, Jim?

    Parent

    What an offensive, stupid (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 01:39:16 PM EST
    ill-informed post.

    First, you overturn a country's government, a country might look to the Soviets.  But you don't get that, do you.

    Second, my "defense of an enemy's action?" What an offensive and stupid thing to say. You did read that I said from their point of view?  And take your McCarthy red-baiting and stick it up your arse.

    Third, just go away.  I am glad jondee got rid of you for awhile.  Your offensive stupidity just ruins this site.

    And, Fourth, if you supported the overthrow of the Iranian government, I assume you supported the CIA overthrow of the Guatemalan government in 1954, true?

     

    Parent

    I remember an Iran under the Shah ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 02:29:17 PM EST
    ... in which its own people chafed under the autocratic rule of an American-backed despot. Looking at what subsequently happened in that country exclusively through a Cold War-era prism is only going to offer you a very warped and misleading perspective of conditions and events which ultimately led to his downfall.

    Your rather silly if otherwise understandable observation about the Shah "westernizing the country" only further underscores that point. Had the Shah and his so-called "reform" of Iran been at all popular with his country's people, then he would have never had to resort to violently repressive tactics in order to maintain his authority, nor would his regime have been so inherently vulnerable to the nascent appeal of a cultural revolution led by an elderly and reactionary Shi'ite cleric.

    Persian civilization long pre-dates that of the west, which further contributes to the folly and futility of trying to define Iran and its people in strictly East-West terms. Our attempt to do so in August 1953 with the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh's democratically-elected government, and the subsequent imposition of absolute monarchical rule by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, only set the stage for our own country to meet with some very serious grief 25 years later when the Shah's regime was undermined and ousted in a populist uprising.

    It should further be remembered that the leaders of the 1979 Islamic revolution were just as adamantly hostile to the Soviet Union as they were to the United States. Attempts by Soviet officials to reach out to the Islamic Republic of Iran were consistently and sternly rebuffed by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who told Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev in no uncertain terms in early 1989 that "Communism was dead," and further suggested that the Soviet leader instead study the Koran.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    MKS, are you saying that this (none / 0) (#89)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 11:39:51 PM EST
    justified Iran attacking the US Embassy? My uncle/aunt and some of their family were in Iran during these years, and they would disagree with you on some of this. Think uncle and his son were on the group of 747's that took out US citizens. Uncle might have come out a bit later. Lost everything they had there. My sister taught English there in 1977. They all have had interesting stories of Iran in those years.


    Parent
    As far as I can tell, MKS said no such thing. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 11:49:05 PM EST
    Green26: "MKS, are you saying that this justified Iran attacking the US Embassy? My uncle/aunt and some of their family were in Iran during these years, and they would disagree with you on some of this."

    Please don't put words in other people's mouths.

    Parent

    MKS was delineating (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 02:54:27 PM EST
    the historical chain of cause and effect.

    People are living in a mist of self-delusion if they really believe there won't be some kind of equal and opposite reaction  within a country in response to other countries violating their sovereignty.

    Parent

    No, of course, I didn't say that (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:06:40 AM EST
    In 1979, the Iranian people on the whole were not happy with the dictator the U.S. installed and were not happy with "Westernization."

    1953 laid the predicate.   1979 was the blowback.

    Parent

    1979 also saw (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:08:49 AM EST
    blowback in Central America with the ouster of Somoza, and 1980 saw Guatemala embroiled even more in a civil war.

    Parent
    You call the blowing up of 241 (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 02:52:32 PM EST
    Marines in Lebanon, "doing what they should do"?

    And then Reagan committed the ultimate sin in talk-radio-head land: he "cut and ran."

    Cut and ran.

    That's how Reagan scared the Iranians into behaving themselves.

    The moral: when reality doesn't jibe with conservative fantasies, just turn into magic-realism fiction.

    Parent

    "Help"? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 09:25:46 PM EST
    How is repeating silly, conservative myths "help"?

    Parent
    China has issued a formal complaint (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 08:11:40 AM EST
    We should issue a formal, "Sorry about that!"

    Parent
    More idiocy (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 09:26:55 AM EST
    Bumbling into a accidental insult of China...for no gain.  Stupid.

    Or maybe not so stupid, as a Trump son was visiting Taiwan on business as part of his crony capitalism.

    Parent

    Remember the good ol' days (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 09:30:14 AM EST
    when "pay to play" meant a prominent public official getting a meeting with Hillary?  After a contribution to an actual charity giving AIDs medicine to kids.

    Now, we have "pay to play" in the form of changing decades of foreign policy to assist a Trump business deal in Taiwan.  

    Parent

    The real point of all of this is that (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 04:31:30 PM EST
    Mattis, as Trevor pointed out, believes in not holding back.

    That is not what the alt-Left wants. They prefer to "see the other sides viewpoint," as MKS commented.

    And attacking the Shah without noting the people killed inside Iran by the radical islamists, the support of terrorists attacking US troops by Iran and the obvious plans of Iran to support a Middle East that is governed by Sharia Law is well...the height of willful ignoring the facts.

    But then Obama did ignore Iran's students attempt to reform. So nothing in this is surprising.

    There is a reason Iran, spurred on by the Surrender Party in DC, is making passes at our ships. They want to be seen as the leader who will defeat The Great Satan.

    Ignoring that, just as Europe ignored Hitler's plans and actions, will lead to war or surrender.

    You can cry and claim that Iran can be dealt with but they can't.

    Mattis is here at a needful. The Left will do anything to block him.

    And Trump's aides say his company has no plans to invest in Taiwan.

    Parent

    And if Mattis doesn't act out all (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 04:56:37 PM EST
    the armchair warrior's fantasies, and he probably won't, it'll be because "the Left blocked him."

    But then, you're the fantasist who claims Iran was too afraid to do anything to Americans while the wmd-dealing Reagan was President.

    Meanwhile the Real World is still waiting for you to check in.

    Parent

    Just want to say thanks (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    for taking one for the team in getting Jim out of here for a while.  A necessary but appreciated sacrifice.

    Parent
    It gave him time to expand his horizen (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 05:27:03 PM EST
    and mine the right blogosphere for a new word: "Alt-Left."

    Parent
    "The Surrender Party"? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 09:32:52 PM EST
    You mean the party full of armchair warriors who never fought?  You mean the party that keeps nominating fake "warriors" who got deferments or enlisted in safe units to avoid fighting?  You mean the party who's leader insults actual POWs who were imprisoned while he was getting deferments and got reclassified due to "heel spurs".

    Heh.

    Parent

    "The Surrender Party"? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 09:33:21 PM EST
    You mean the party full of armchair warriors who never fought?  You mean the party that keeps nominating fake "warriors" who got deferments or enlisted in safe units to avoid fighting?  You mean the party who's leader insults actual POWs who were imprisoned while he was getting deferments and got reclassified due to "heel spurs"?

    Heh.

    Parent

    The Surrender Party.. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:51:23 AM EST
    is an expression thrown around by chicken hawks in The Deferment Party when their rectal cysts start painfully acting up.

    Interesting that these folks keep insisting that Iran can't possibly be "dealt with" (whatever that means), but they have no problem negotiating in good faith with countries like the equally backward Saudi Arabia.

    Parent

    I don't really expect Mattis to get (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    Along swimmingly with Trump. I doubt Trump understands that either. He idolizes Mattis though and Mattis will use that to the best of his ability to keep us out of as much trouble as he can. Mattis has no family or children that can be harmed in this. Soldiers are his children. No matter how stressful, insane, or terrible this all becomes he is free to burn himself to the ground.

    Before you get all excited about a Mattis that's going to place our soldiers into a meat grinder again you should know that No, he's not. He does believe a soldiers hands are never "untied". Soldiers are tied to all sorts of responsibilities simultaneously especially when they are in combat. He's not daily a big risk taker. That is why he refused to rescue the Green Berets, he didn't want to take the risk.

    I remain surprised reading Conservative comments about Mattis, people acting like he's going to gargle blood in the arena for them. I don't think they have a notion of who Mattis is. I think like Donald Trump, all they can focus on is this Mad Dog nickname and then they project onto him whatever bizarre murderousness intentions they have for the world onto him.

    And nobody in the military is the same person they were in 2001. Especially not Mattis because he has dedicated his life to learning from his mistakes. Mattis fought the second battle for Fallujah. What good did that do anyone? You would be remiss to believe he didn't learn something about certain kinds of futility.

    Parent

    I would expect (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 11:58:08 AM EST
    it would be the same story as with Iraq. Trump starts a war with Iran. The generals start resigning but it makes no difference. Soldiers have to obey orders even if they come from someone mentally unstable.

    Parent
    Trump isn't going to start a war with Iran (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    but he understands all too well the pure theatre and noisy blustering that makes the Jim's of the world feel psychologically validated.

    That's why these folks voted Trump in in the first place.

    Iran is a well-armed country with treacherous, mountainous terrain, at least TWICE the size of Iraq. Any fantasized bombing campaign short of nuking would do nothing but engender the destabilizing mother-of-all-Jihads chain reaction in the region with no light at the end of the tunnel..

    And, it goes without saying, Russia would be drawn in..

    Parent

    Why are you so sure he won't? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    I mean seriously. He's said a lot of things none of which ended up being true. He said he wouldn't touch Medicare and Social Security and they're the first ones on the chopping block. And you're acting like he's rational which I'm not sure he is.

    Parent
    Generals have a long long (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 01:17:15 PM EST
    history of putting up with nuts only up to a point.

    And all the higher ups in the Pentagon aren't as divorced from reality as Trump and his dumbass fans are.

    Parent

    Certainly (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 02:03:57 PM EST
    however I just remember Iraq and there were plenty of people at the pentagon who didn't buy into the reality of a three week war and thought it would destabilize the middle east and yet it was all for moot.

    Parent
    Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 04:41:55 PM EST
    ... was summarily sacked by the Bush administration prior to the invasion of Iraq, after he had publicly (and none too diplomatically) suggested that Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld's logistical planning would prove wholly inadequate to the task of securing firm control over Iraq, once the invasion had succeeded in its immediate objective and Saddam Hussein was ousted from power.

    That Shinseki was subsequently proved right by events in Iraq as they unfolded in 2003-05, provided little or solace to those who lost loved ones as a direct consequence of Rumsfeld's failure to plan for the aftermath. And it certainly matters little or not at all to white wingbats who prefer to reside in a parallel universe. They still labor under the delusion that the so-called "surge" under Gen. Petreaus worked to establish U.S. military hegemony, when Petreaus was actually attempting to create conditions that would be favorable for rapid U.S. disengagement and withdrawal.

    If history can teach us anything about war, aside from its inherent folly, it's that the initial clarion call to arms is a lot easier to invoke than to rescind, once all doubts are set aside and the die cast. Further, the utmost test of a military commander's qualities lies not in his ability to conquer and hold enemy territory but rather, rests in his capacities to both cope with adversity and improvise in the face of immediate setback.

    That's why Gen. Oliver Smith, USMC, who (almost miraculously) managed to extricate his 1st Marine Division from its untenable position at the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War, when his entire command was being surrounded by hostile Chinese forces which outnumbered his own by a 6:1 ratio, proved himself the be a much better leader than did his superior, Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

    It was MacArthur who had so recklessly and carelessly placed Smith's division in harm's way by ordering it forward to the Chinese frontier, without first ensuring that the Marines' advance had adequate support on either of their flanks. As it was, Smith's innate caution in hostile territory and wariness under the circumstances likely saved his command when the Chinese attacked with overwhelming force, because it afforded him the opportunity to repel repeated efforts by the Chinese to cut off his only line of retreat.

    "Retreat, hell! We're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction."
    - Gen. Oliver P. Smith, USMC (1893-1977), Battle of Chosin Reservoir (Dec. 1950)

    While the Battle of Chosin Reservoir was a strategic victory for the Chinese, in the sense that Gen. Smith's tactical withdrawal allowed them to recover all of northeastern Korea, it was a decidedly pyrrhic one. By their own admission, the Marines had exacted a fearsome toll on their own attacking forces during that fighting retreat, with some 40% of Chinese units engaged at Chosin either being disabled significantly or destroyed outright.

    Through his own capacity to improvise quickly in the face of serious adversity, and by his own personal ability to inspire his troops' confidence in his leadership and decision making, Gen. Smith turned what otherwise could have been an unmitigated military disaster, into one of the truly great epics in the hallowed annals of U.S. Marine Corps lore.

    But as Gen. Smith himself offered later in life, he would've much rather preferred to have never been tested so severely like that, and it would have been far wiser for his own superiors in Korea to have avoided placing him and his Marines in such a potentially dire situation in the first place.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    If he tries to start a war with Iran (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    He'll do it without Mattis. Mattis will quit after he throws the biggest fit anyone has ever seen.

    If Iran doesn't openly attack, Mattis isn't going to advocate war with Iran. And even if Iran did attack us, I would expect surgical retaliation. We won't be spending trillions of dollars to load tanks onto freighters again. That turned out to be stupid and destructive and mostly an act of evil and "the oil" did not pay for it.

    Parent

    Rules of engagement are what (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peter G on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    separate war -- to the extent that it can be considered a legitimate instrument of national policy and defense, under international law -- from uncontrolled, mutually self-destructive, murderous violence. Save me the scare quotes.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#71)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    separate war -- to the extent that it can be considered a legitimate instrument of national policy and defense, under international law -- from uncontrolled, mutually self-destructive, murderous violence

    But it is anything but a scare quote.

    If the rules of engagement are written in stone, and never changing, yes. But they change according to the flavor of the day, much to the detriment of the US soldier. I am not for putting young soldiers lives at risk by changing the "rules of engagement" for some politician.

    http://tinyurl.com/ycufrqj   NPR 2009

    http://tinyurl.com/29jmsby  2010  The Hill

    http://tinyurl.com/ln85xqy  2013 Wsh Times

    http://tinyurl.com/zlu46k4  2015  Defense news

    It has been a ongoing conversation once they were changed.
    If a politician wants to change the rules of engagement, putting American soldiers at greater risk, have the courage to pull them out entirely. Then you will have no problems with civilian casualties, well, just only those the Taliban and ISIS inflict upon civilians.


    Parent

    I have heard this ROE baloney (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    Since Petraeus' COIN mission began. General McChrystal who at one time I didn't care a fig for, came to be even more strict in what constituted a US soldier needing to kill someone. Both men spent significant time bathed in blood and war...they learned terrible lessons through body counts. The ROE you easily dismiss came with years of lessons learned by them and were paid for in blood.

    Parent
    maybe it's time to stop! (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by linea on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    stop the entire notion of young men "bathed in blood and war." it's just wrong. as they say, everything is a nail when you are a hammer. the military solution is wrong.

    stop bombing and stop sending money and stop sending high-tech weapons and stop sending special-operations "advisors" to instruct the "moderate" fundamentalist zealots on how to kill this week's "un-moderates."

    Parent

    Whether the military ever deploys (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 10:55:11 PM EST
    Again or not. It will always have to have a doctrine. Like all institutions it is a struggle to remember what the lessons decades before were.

    Parent
    I do not easily dismiss (none / 0) (#81)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 08:01:13 PM EST
    Anything.

    I just do not like when ROE's are changed, to the detriment of the safety of the US soldier.

    Our soldiers do not use civilian shields, as our enemy is wont to do.

    If the choice is to place our soldiers in increased jeopardy by having them fight with one arm tied, then I would prefer we not go in at all.
    Pull them out. Those are young American lives and I would prefer that they get out alive or not go in at all.

    The one article I linked to described spotters watching men set up roadside bombs, but they could not engage them them , due to ROE.

    Knowing that those men could very well place a roadside bomb that kills them the next week.

    Very good for morale, among other things

    Parent

    Fact Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 11:00:49 PM EST
    You don't know what the rules of engagement are in any area we are in right now because they are now classified. All you know is what you hear at what looks like fake news sites.

    Mattis operated under the existing ROE. His soldiers adore him. If there was a true problem with our ROE there would be so many leaks you'd think it was a drip line.

    Fact, our existing military is full strength. We have no retention issues. When soldiers die for no good reason retention issues follow.

    Parent

    Smallest Army (none / 0) (#92)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 05:48:20 AM EST
    The Army's latest headcount shows that nearly 2,600 soldiers departed active service in March without being replaced, an action that plunges manning to its lowest level since before World War II.

    During the past year the size of the active force has been reduced by 16,548 soldiers, the rough equivalent of three brigades.

    Endstrength for March was 479,172 soldiers, which is 154 fewer troopers than were on active duty when the Army halted the post-Cold War drawdown in 1999 with 479,424 soldiers, the smallest force since 1940, when the active component numbered 269,023 soldiers.

    Barring unexpected delays, the Army is well-positioned to achieve, or exceed, its budgeted end-strength of 475,000 soldiers by Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2016.

    Without congressional or Defense Department intervention, the drawdown will continue for two more years, with endstrength hitting 460,000 soldiers in 2017, and 450,000 in 2018.

    Well, they have downsized significantly in the Obama era. Although The Donald has said he will reverse that trend, and eliminate the sequestration cuts to the military.

    And you must take off the tin foil. Those ROE articles were from 2008 through 2015. Those complaints were valid then , and still are. Please provide ANY hint that any of these links are "Russian controlled"  Lol

    http://tinyurl.com/ycufrqj   NPR 2009

    http://tinyurl.com/29jmsby  2010  The Hill

    http://tinyurl.com/ln85xqy  2013 Wsh Times

    http://tinyurl.com/zlu46k4  2015  Defense news

    Parent

    Technology has replaced (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:18:16 AM EST
    Bodies, the numbers are by design. The joint chiefs are behind the design of our numbers and as my husband says, the Army doesn't employ rock painters anymore.

    And any solder will tell you as well as a discount store that people complain. When you kill innocents and create an insurgency and all your friends get killed, people complain about that too.

    As I said before, when we have real problems we have retention problems because being dead for no good reason Trumps being hungry.

    Parent

    AND rules of engagement (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 11:09:44 PM EST
    Change for Jesus fecks sake all the time for all sorts of reasons but especially when areas become secure or functional or sovereign or whatever descriptor is most applicable. Otherwise once a combat zone always a combat zone. This black and white insane Conservative bull$hit is tiresome. AND IT DOESN'T WORK EVER!

    And a competent soldier is capable of operating on whatever ROE the CIC and command say. That's called being in the Army or being a Marine or an Airman. It isn't a democracy in the military. They just protect one.

    Parent

    And my former Ranger son and his buds (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 11:26:05 PM EST
    say the rules of engagement were sometimes too restrictive, and tied their hands unduly. In my view, unduly tying the hands of the soldiers in combat can sometimes put them further in harms way. I understand civilian control of the military, but Obama was way too cautious and timid, and that probably has led to overly hamstringing the military.

    On the subject of Obama, I read an article recently that quoted Henry Kissinger and he also believes Obama has been too timid.

    Parent

    I'm not interested in what he has (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:20:12 AM EST
    To say. He was there and gone. Didn't stick around. Not career and responsible for the lives of others.

    Parent
    ... run the Pentagon. Rules of engagement are a policy call and not a tactical decision made on the ground. Oftentimes, it's what keeps conflicts from spreading or escalating unnecessarily, especially when you represent the invading and occupying power, and your goal is to suppress resistance and not further inflame a sullen and resentful populace to open and armed hostility.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#93)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 05:57:57 AM EST
    ... run the Pentagon. Rules of engagement are a policy call and not a tactical decision made on the ground

    And maybe we should!  You prefer to trust the damn politicians, sitting in Washington, myself, I would prefer to protect the youth that enlisted in our armed services.

    your goal is to suppress resistance and not further inflame a sullen and resentful populace to open and armed hostility.

    I suppose the sullen and resentful populace prefers ISIS and the Taliban. If so, grant them their wish. But if the majority do not prefer them, perhaps it is only the Taliban and ISIS supporters that are sullen and resentful that they cannot continue their extreme and totalitarian control over the people.

    Parent

    Petraeus changed them...Remember? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:25:29 AM EST
    Remember how under the OLD ROE Iraq was on fire and generals kept quitting? Remember how we were losing everything and the people who tried to destroy David Petraeus' career had to call him at Leavenworth and ask him to come save them?

    Remember how our troop strength placed our nation at risk before he took over? Remember how everyone quit after what the old ROE had done to their ability to survive? They were going back into that dumpster fire, remember?

    Parent

    The sullen and resentful populace ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 12:04:26 PM EST
    ... more than likely wishes that everyone else would not decide on their behalf what's best for them, mind their own business and leave them alone. Once again, Trevor, you have no idea what you're talking about. MT's husband is career military. I'm an experienced policy analyst. You're neither. Please stop pretending that you're some sort of expert in everything. You're just another loudmouthed white wingbat with a baseless and ignorant opinion.

    Parent
    Once again (none / 0) (#103)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 04:38:42 PM EST
    Donald , you reinforce the idea that you have no idea what you are talking about, so you figure to blind them with verbal diarrhea. If you don't know what you are talking about, confuse with tomes until their eyes glaze over.

    I suppose the sullen and resentful populace prefers ISIS and the Taliban. If so, grant them their wish. But if the majority do not prefer them, perhaps it is only the Taliban and ISIS supporters that are sullen and resentful that they cannot continue their extreme and totalitarian control over the people.

    I agreed with you, if the populace is sullen and resentful, we pack and leave and let ISIS and The Taliban deal with the sullen and resentful. But if the sullen and resentful are a vocal minority, do not put our troops in more jeopardy to placate the sullen and resentful minority.

     

    Parent

    Mad Dog Mattis (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    Said however you defund the State Department, you might as well take all that money and buy bullets. Your choices...diplomacy or bullets. There are no perfect solutions, diplomacy or death

    Are you saying Mad Dog is wrong? When was the last time Henry Kissinger was an infantryman? When was the last time Henry Kissinger couldn't tell why a car would not stop as it approached him? So he had to blow a whole family away?

    Snort...Henry Kissinger

    Parent

    Probably didn't like it (none / 0) (#7)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 08:35:17 PM EST
    But looks as it as more service to his country to help this political neophyte over the next 4 years

    Parent
    doesnt it (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by linea on Fri Dec 02, 2016 at 10:07:00 PM EST

    seem backwards to have a "mad dog" military general, who thinks it's a hell of a lot of fun to kill people, serving as the moderating voice between (intrinsically pro-military) generals and the president?


    Parent
    Not from what I read (none / 0) (#16)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 05:39:09 AM EST
    I am comfortable with 'Mad Dog" But don't call him that unless you have served with him!!!

    http://tinyurl.com/z38dhdv

    America knows Gen. James Mattis as a character, Mad Dog Mattis, the font of funny quotes and Chuck Norris-caliber memes. Those of us who served with him know that he is a caring, erudite, warfighting general. We also know that there is a reason he uses the call-sign Chaos: he is a lifelong student of his profession, a devotee of maneuver warfare and Sun Tzu, the sort of guy who wants to win without fighting--to cause chaos among those he would oppose.


    Parent
    Yes, let's link (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 07:57:20 AM EST
    to Putin propaganda to make your point.

    Parent
    Beginning to worry (none / 0) (#19)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 08:59:01 AM EST
    For you.

    I fear the election of The Donald might very well be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

    Putin is not all pleased with The Donalds's advisors, especially not Mattis.

    From the notorious Putin aligned propaganda website, the eeevil   VOX!!!

    http://tinyurl.com/z4guvoc

    Mattis, echoing the assessments of most of the Pentagon's top brass, has a sharply different assessment of Putin, whom he sees as a clear threat to both the US and many of Washington's closest European allies.

    According to an article by the US Naval Institute, Mattis used a speech to a conservative think tank last May to warn that Russia's annexation of Crimea and continued meddling in eastern Ukraine was a "severe" and "serious" threat that was being underestimated by the Obama administration.

    Putin, Mattis concluded, was trying to "break NATO apart."



    Parent
    I gotta tell you Trevor (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 10:43:29 AM EST
    Call sign Chaos would not appreciate you linking to any of that Russia bull$hit. Fer real, not kidding

    Parent
    I am not quite sure (none / 0) (#28)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 11:16:15 AM EST
    Which link you are referring to?

    I haven't found any Russia bull$shitt link among my posts.

    The article on Vox? A liberal  "news explaining site?

    Or the article written by Stanton Coerr, who served under General Mattis?

    Stanton S. Coerr was a Marine officer and is a veteran of the war in Iraq. He holds degrees from Duke, Harvard, and the Naval War College, and now lives and works in Washington DC.


    Parent
    The federalist (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 11:21:45 AM EST
    is BS site with pro-Putin propaganda. How much do you think Putin would love to take out Iran because they don't like the competition for oil and have that oil market for himself?

    Parent
    Just to be clear (none / 0) (#31)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 11:49:27 AM EST
    You are claiming that the author of the article, Stanton Coerr, who served under General Mattis, is a Putin propagandist and stooge?

    Because that is who wrote the artice, someone who had the honor of serving under General Mattis and wrote about his experience.

    Stanton S. Coerr was a Marine officer and is a veteran of the war in Iraq. He holds degrees from Duke, Harvard, and the Naval War College, and now lives and works in Washington DC.


    Parent
    I'm talking (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 12:01:48 PM EST
    about the website. Why would someone publish their opinion of him on a fake news site is my question?

    Parent
    Call sign Chaos probably has something (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    To discuss with him working for a media outlet aligned with Russian propaganda too. I'm really not kidding here. If I connected any of our computers or devices to any of it my husband's head would come off. I won't even connect to or read the Intercept because they did it too.

    Parent
    I can't believe (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    anybody reads the intercept or believes anything that comes from there.

    Parent
    Lol (none / 0) (#36)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 02:47:03 PM EST
    I am really not kidding here, there is no website aligned with Russian propaganda.
    It was a reprint of a article written by an officer that served under the general.

    Where are you getting your information regarding Russian propaganda websites?

    Sounds very tinfoily to me.

    I am really thinking that the election of The Donald has caused some issues with critical thinking and reality.

    A article written by a junior officer that served under General Mattis is not Russian propaganda, and anyone claiming that needs to loosen their tinfoil hat as well.

    Parent

    Here (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 03:03:08 PM EST
    is the website prop or not.

    However this has been reported in places like the Washington Post and other media sources about Putin's attempt to influence our media and then there's Trump Jr's meeting with the Kremlin before the election which was reported in the Wall Street Journal. Instead of relying on the alt-right Putin sources you should actually research this for yourself.

    Parent

    The New Yorker (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by linea on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    has an article about your website titled:

    THE PROPAGANDA ABOUT RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 04:48:28 PM EST
    Prop or Not is a sad excuse ,

    http://tinyurl.com/zdb9qdd

    Every journalist has mocked the Washington Post for running that zero sourced article.

    Even the bastion of journalism, The Rolling Stone (Yes, lol, but it is a Taibbi article) skewered the article and its content, or lack of.

    The meat of the story relied on a report by unnamed analysts from a single mysterious "organization" called PropOrNot - we don't know if it's one person or, as it claims, over 30 - a "group" that seems to have been in existence for just a few months.
    It was PropOrNot's report that identified what it calls "the list" of 200 offending sites. Outlets as diverse as AntiWar.com, LewRockwell.com and the Ron Paul Institute were described as either knowingly directed by Russian intelligence, or "useful idiots" who unwittingly did the bidding of foreign masters.
    Forget that the Post offered no information about the "PropOrNot" group beyond that they were "a collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds."
    Forget also that the group offered zero concrete evidence of coordination with Russian intelligence agencies, even offering this remarkable disclaimer about its analytic methods:


    Parent
    Trevor the NSA (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 06:58:32 PM EST
    even said it was Russians hacking and that they had hacked some of the voting machines. You really need to keep up more. Here's an editorial that lays out all the facts  link

    This is not a new story. Trump even asked the Russians to interfere on his behalf and his son met with the Kremlin link

    I know you're okay with all this Russian propaganda because it seems to help Trump but you need to really face the facts.

    Parent

    Perhaps we need to (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 08:29:16 AM EST
    bring HUAC back.

    "Are you now or have you ever been a supporter of Trump?"

    I mean the Left did support the hunt for communists, didn't it?

    Parent

    The fact that you're (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 11:55:37 AM EST
    a Trump supporter is going to be all on you and your selfishness. You don't understand that those questions were designed to indict innocent people. The GOP is still about about indicting innocent people and denying people a trial.

    Parent
    The fact that you are a truth denier (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 01:07:54 PM EST
    is going to be all on you.

    Senator McCarthy was right.

    There were communists in the government.

    Parent

    You're the one (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 01:15:21 PM EST
    that is a truther Jim. Remember Trump shopped the lie for years that Obama was born in Kenya and even lied to you guys that he was in Hawaii looking for Obama's birth certificate.

    You are responsible for Trump not me. I'm proudly one of the millions more that voted for Hillary. You chose a con man. That's your choice and you're the one that has to take responsibility along with the GOP who enabled him.

    And quit attempting to gas light people here. We deal in facts not conspiracy theories like you and Trump do and you could care less about any McCarthy anything since you support a Putin stooge.

    Parent

    Glad to see that you have (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    learned a new word.

    Now, if you want to discuss something of importance regarding Russian influence, go to the Open Thread and let's talk.

    Otherwise it is off topic and Obama's birthplace well...

    What difference does it matter now??

    lol

    Parent

    McCarthy Was Right (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    yet another wild-swinging gloss on reality that the wild-eyed Trump quarter specializes in.

    If it caint fit on a bumpersticker, and ain't worth sayin'..

    "McCarthy was right" probably about as much as Cotton Mather and Ayatollah were right about witches and apostates.

    Parent

    If this website spread Russian hacking lies (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 04:25:40 PM EST
    Mattis is a purist about allegiance to this nation first. And he knows who our enemies are and Russia is on his list Trevor.

    And he crosses all political lines. Clinton has a relationship with him too. Both campaigns attempted to garner the Mattis seal of approval and he wasn't giving it. Profesional military leaders do not endorse candidates even after they retire...that's a purist.

    Parent

    Please (none / 0) (#41)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 04:50:06 PM EST
    Just read the article about Mattis, or both actually, that I posted earlier.

    There are no Russian propaganda sites, it is as real as the Babadook!!

    Parent

    NO! Not on a website like that (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 05:58:41 PM EST
    Already read one from someone who served with him anyhow at Esquire. Esquire did not spread Russian Hacking fake news. It has an editorial board and fact checkers and fact requirements that must be met before they publish anything

    Parent
    I am buying stock (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 08:00:39 PM EST
    In any company that makes tin foil

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 04, 2016 at 05:56:05 AM EST
    be sure to wrap your head in it daily for your messages from the GOP.

    Parent
    And quit (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 11:13:52 AM EST
    attempting to gas light posters here. It is abusive and remember this Trevor. Facts are freedom and you have chosen to be fact free. You can choose to be a slave to GOP/Putin propaganda but you do not have the right to attempt to gas light the rest of us into accepting your propaganda.  

    Parent
    Trevor (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    what you linked to has been identified as a fake news site. And yes, Putin was celebrating when Trump was gerrymandered in. I'm sure Putin is not happy that Trump is in 2nd place though.

    Mattis will have to obey whatever Trump wants done regardless of his own thoughts.

    Are you now itching for a massive ground war in Iran?

    Parent

    you missed my point? (none / 0) (#24)
    by linea on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 10:59:48 AM EST

    I am comfortable with 'Mad Dog" But don't call him that unless you have served with him!!!

    i did not invent a disparaging nickname. i googled and sites such as conservative review (et alia) are pridefully using that appellation.

    i feel you are missing my point. i am not critcizing a military general for behaving like a military general.

    isnt it the role of the (civilian) Secretary of Defense to act as a moderating infuence between the intrinsically militaristic generals and the president?

    isn't this essentually like appointing Mattis (a general) the Joint Chief of Staff (of generals) and eliminating the Secretary of Defense position?

    Parent

    Did you read the articles? (none / 0) (#26)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 11:10:32 AM EST
    From what I read, he would choose not to use military force when given the option,
    And he quite plainly makes that option clear,

    But if the resulting decision is for war, he is also the best prepared to do so.

    Parent

    isn't it actually (none / 0) (#32)
    by linea on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 11:50:57 AM EST
    the role of the JCS and the generals of the pentagon to make battle plans for war? it's not really the SoD's role is it?

    you do realize the military dropping bombs in the desert won't actually eliminate fundamentalist zealots from going on religiously-motivated murderous killing sprees in paris and new york don't you?

    unless trump and mattis are going to actually follow the sage advice of [the unnamed one^] to carpet-bomb their cities, invade their counties, and convert them to christianity; non-military options should be considered... in my opinion.

    ^ who by the way, looks amazing at 54. being six foot tall, beautifully thin, and a multi-millionaire doesn't hurt either. lol

    Parent

    No, the Secof Degense is not (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 03, 2016 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    a moderating force.

    The Sec manages the armed forces. He is its CEO.

    Parent

    Jim would like a return (none / 0) (#94)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:02:16 AM EST
    to days of yore, when the DoD was called the "War Department."

    Parent
    ... by Congress after the Second World War in 1947, when the U.S. Army Air Corps was allowed to become its own separate and autonomous branch of military service as the Department of the Air Force, the Department of War was properly renamed the Department of the Army, and both were further merged with the Department of the Navy to become the National Military Establishment (NME). The NME was formally renamed the Dept. of Defense in Aug. 1949, as an amendment to the original 1947 law which first created the NME.

    While the U.S. Marine Corps is its own recognized and separate branch of service, it remains subordinate along with the U.S. Navy itself to the Department of the Navy. Additionally, four separate national intelligence services operate independently of the military branches and are directly subordinate to the Department of Defense -- the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

    Traditionally, the Secretary of War had authority only over the U.S. Army and after the First World War, the U.S. Army Air Corps as well. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy were both separate and equal members of the President's cabinet. After the Second World War, it was determined that a more efficient coordination of mutual effort could be best be achieved by subordinating both those positions under a unified civilian command, which became the NME, rather than continue to have both the Army and Navy answer directly but separately to the President himself. That why there's no more Department of War.

    Aloha.

    Parent