# General Mattis is our new SECDEF



## Teufel (Dec 1, 2016)

Reports: Trump picks Mattis for Defense secretary


----------



## Teufel (Dec 1, 2016)




----------



## WarMachine504 (Dec 1, 2016)

F N A


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 1, 2016)

SEMPER FIRST FUCK YEAH!!

MATTIS APPROVES!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 1, 2016)

*Fuck'ing aye'!
*


----------



## Dame (Dec 1, 2016)

Holy shit. Just holy shit. I haven't had a smile this big on my face since...

well, just holy shit!


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 1, 2016)

#gamechangerboysandgirls


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 1, 2016)

maybe....Congress will need to get him through some hoops first. 

Are they up to the challenge?  Hope so.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 1, 2016)

Shit just got real...


----------



## Scubadew (Dec 1, 2016)

Yut


----------



## Teufel (Dec 1, 2016)

It's a Christmas miracle!


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 1, 2016)

The Second Coming has arrived.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 1, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> The Second Coming has arrived.



You too?  :-"

#freedom_boner


----------



## Jay_Pew (Dec 1, 2016)

Literally this is everything I could have asked for, a Commander in Chief and a SecDef that will actually have our backs out there and set us up for success. Gives me so much more confidence for the future.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 1, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> maybe....Congress will need to get him through some hoops first.
> 
> Are they up to the challenge?  Hope so.



There is no hoop that can stop Chaos 6


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 1, 2016)

So I don't know much about this guy other than that it seems like he was a pretty awesome and well regarded Marine. 

So on that note, why do you guys think he will be a great SecDef?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 1, 2016)

I've met him before, read some of his work, and heard him speak.  Setting aside the whole "cult of personality" thing, Mattis is well-spoken, clear-thinking, and highly professional.  He also knows the very human cost of sending America's men and women into harm's way.  Assuming he gets confirmed, I think he'll be a great SECDEF.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 1, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I've met him before, read some of his work, and heard him speak.  Setting aside the whole "cult of personality" thing, Mattis is well-spoken, clear-thinking, and highly professional.  He also knows the very human cost of sending America's men and women into harm's way.  Assuming he gets confirmed, I think he'll be a great SECDEF.



He is also extremely well read, highly educated and has more combat experience than 90% of the General officers in the DOD.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 1, 2016)

Won't he have to get a waiver?  He just retired in 2013....hope it won't be an issue.

"A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force."
10 U.S. Code § 113 - Secretary of Defense

EDIT: sorry, didn't see at first in the article Teufel put up....was too excited I guess


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 1, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Won't he have to get a waiver?  He just retired in 2013....hope it won't be an issue.
> 
> "A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force."
> 10 U.S. Code § 113 - Secretary of Defense
> ...



 I know that's a rule, but IMO it's completely arbitrary and unnecessary.  Why seven years?  Why not 2, or 3, or 10?  I don't think there's any restriction at all for former GOs who want to run for President.  So you can be Commander in Chief right after you hang up the uniform, but not SECDEF?


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 1, 2016)

It is odd, wonder what the history is behind it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 1, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I know that's a rule, but IMO it's completely arbitrary and unnecessary.  Why seven years?  Why not 2, or 3, or 10?  I don't think there's any restriction at all for former GOs who want to run for President.  So you can be Commander in Chief right after you hang up the uniform, but not SECDEF?



Simple speculation - but it would seem to me that the rule is in place to prevent a General from making certain decisions while in command, "knowing" that upon retirement he would be named as SecDef, and thereby walking into a situation that somehow benefits him more than it would were he to take the position x amount of years after his influence.  (ie:  paying back favors or grudges from his new position that were still very fresh in his mind)


----------



## AWP (Dec 1, 2016)

I think he's a great choice. Smart, educated, utterly dedicated to this country, highly experienced in the arena that matters (combat and not the halls of Congress), and seemingly unconcerned about a legacy. He's served through the good and the bad and witnessed what a poor budget does to front-line units. Career GS' and whoever we decide to kill should be upset with this choice, everyone else should cheer the decision. He may even become Trump's best cabinet pick.


----------



## racing_kitty (Dec 1, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Why seven years?  Why not 2, or 3, or 10?


I was discussing this with someone earlier, and he said it was to give the officer time to think more like a civilian again, and not like a gung ho soldier in a civilian leadership post. I don't know where he got the information that allowed him to draw that conclusion, so I'm undecided as to how much merit I'd give that reason. Some retirees never really return to thinking like a civilian at all, and most will always have a soldierly outlook mixed in, no matter how slight. 

To answer your question, @SpitfireV, GEN Mattis is also known as the Warrior Monk. He devoted his entire life to the profession of arms, and educated himself in more than just how to kill people. He has a better understanding than most of the impact war has on his subordinates and their families; supposedly he paid visits to all of the Gold Star Families of Marines that fell under his command after he retired from military service, and did it without news coverage. I can't name an Army flag O that would do the same thing. Part of the cult of personality comes from his Marines knowing that he knows his shit, and would not waste his Marines and their efforts. 

Not just weapons knowledge, or the love of fighting, but philosophy and the understanding of the gravity of things when war becomes certain are character traits that are lacking in wholesale quantities in most of our senior military leaders, both civilian and uniformed. Mattis is a fighter, but he's not one to blindly say "We're gonna nuke err'body!" That's why I believe he would make a great SECDEF, and many others believe the same.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 2, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I know that's a rule, but IMO it's completely arbitrary and unnecessary.  Why seven years?  Why not 2, or 3, or 10?  I don't think there's any restriction at all for former GOs who want to run for President.  So you can be Commander in Chief right after you hang up the uniform, but not SECDEF?



Conflict of interest issues.  SecDef has a say in weapons development and procurement.  & years is assumed long enough to no longer have insider info.


----------



## Muppet (Dec 2, 2016)

I am fucking stoked. I posted this on facebook earlier. I had a dude, know him through a facebook 82nd. page, says something to the effect of "bad choice, the lower rank troops love him but the higher up's say he does not know how to run a war". From what I hear, I have never heard anything like this. From reading here, it's obvious he is the best pick. I wonder why some dude would say this. Every Marine I know is giddy with laughter. 

M.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 2, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Conflict of interest issues.  SecDef has a say in weapons development and procurement.  & years is assumed long enough to no longer have insider info.



I believe when Marshal was tapped as SoS the rationale of the 7-year rule was to mitigate the appearance of a military-run government, to give time and distance to ensure a clean break from the military.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 2, 2016)

Mattis is a fabulous choice.  He is well-liked by NATO, he understands Congress and maneuver warfare (as it relates to Congress), he understands budget and procurement, he is respected (if not liked) by Congress, he has worn the uniform so understands the implications of policy.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 2, 2016)




----------



## AWP (Dec 2, 2016)

Muppet said:


> I am fucking stoked. I posted this on facebook earlier. I had a dude, know him through a facebook 82nd. page, says something to the effect of "bad choice, the lower rank troops love him but the higher up's say he does not know how to run a war". From what I hear, I have never heard anything like this. From reading here, it's obvious he is the best pick. I wonder why some dude would say this. Every Marine I know is giddy with laughter.
> 
> M.



There was some bad blood between the Corps and the 82nd over Fallujah. I don't remember the details or have a dog in the fight, but I've heard the complaints from both sides. Mattis was the 1st Marine Division CG at the time. Maybe that has nothing to do with it, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And the opposition begins. Let's see if it gains steam:
Gillibrand says she won't vote for Mattis waiver


> Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) on Thursday said she plans to vote against the waiver required for retired Marine Gen. James Mattis to serve as Donald Trump’s defense secretary.
> 
> “While I deeply respect General Mattis’s service, I will oppose a waiver," Gillibrand said in a statement. "Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule.”



I guess she doesn't understand what "retirement" means?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> There was some bad blood between the Corps and the 82nd over Fallujah. I don't remember the details or have a dog in the fight, but I've heard the complaints from both sides. Mattis was the 1st Marine Division CG at the time. Maybe that has nothing to do with it, but it wouldn't surprise me.



One reason the Armed Services have trouble operating jointly is that they have very different meanings for the same terms.  

The Joint Chiefs once told the Navy to "secure a building," to which they responded by turning off the lights and locking the doors. 

The Joint Chiefs then instructed Army personnel to "secure the building," and they occupied the building so no one could enter. 

Upon receiving the exact same order, the Marines assaulted the building, captured it, and set up defenses with suppressive fire and amphibious assault vehicles, established reconnaissance and communications channels, and prepared for close hand-to-hand combat if the situation arose. 

But the Air Force, on the other hand, acted most swiftly on the command, and took out a three-year lease with an option to buy.


----------



## Northerner1012 (Dec 2, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> But the Air Force, on the other hand, acted most swiftly on the command, and took out a three-year lease with an option to buy.




It's definitely a fixer upper, but I think I could flip it for profit off some new A1C.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 2, 2016)

Never has this clip been more appropriate


----------



## Muppet (Dec 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> There was some bad blood between the Corps and the 82nd over Fallujah. I don't remember the details or have a dog in the fight, but I've heard the complaints from both sides. Mattis was the 1st Marine Division CG at the time. Maybe that has nothing to do with it, but it wouldn't surprise me.
> 
> And the opposition begins. Let's see if it gains steam:
> Gillibrand says she won't vote for Mattis waiver
> ...



Ah. He mentioned something over Fallujah. I kinda just scrolled past. Can't make everybody happy. I am happy over the choice of Mattis.

M.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> ...
> And the opposition begins. Let's see if it gains steam:
> Gillibrand says she won't vote for Mattis waiver
> ...


And the media begins to weigh in as well (currently top story on NBC News):
Trump's defense pick accused of leaving men to die


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 2, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> And the media begins to weigh in as well (currently top story on NBC News):
> Trump's defense pick accused of leaving men to die



Wait, so this is 'the media' doing shit?  Don't we have another thread on the actual SF dude making these accusations.  Maybe consider a little of the responsibility on the dude making accusations vs the people reporting it.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 2, 2016)

T


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 2, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> Wait, so this is 'the media' doing shit?  Don't we have another thread on the actual SF dude making these accusations.  Maybe consider a little of the responsibility on the dude making accusations vs the people reporting it.



@Il Duce does make a good point, Eric Blehm first made this accusation in his book "The Only Thing Worth Dying For", which was favorably discussed (the book ) on this site.  Today he reposted his claim on Facebook and it's been picked up by various media.  When I saw his name I thought it familiar and searched the forum, there was no specific thread about him that I could find, but his writing has been mentioned more than once, and quite favorably.

As Far as I can tell, General Mattis has never publicly commented on the allegation, but I did find this article that was written back in June and explores in more detail what Blehm claims -

This may have been legendary Marine Corps General Mattis' one mistake in battle


----------



## Teufel (Dec 2, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> And the media begins to weigh in as well (currently top story on NBC News):
> Trump's defense pick accused of leaving men to die



I heard about that.  I was not there and all my information comes second or third hand.  The way I understand it, a Special Forces team was hit by friendly CAS after a GPS coordinate mix up.  A neighboring SF unit or element received a request for medevac but did not have many if any details about what happened.  A Major went to ask General Mattis for support and told him that he needed air support to recover wounded but didn't know how they were wounded, if they were still in contact or anything.  Mattis only had 4 cobras, 4 CH-46s and 4 CH-53s.  The Marine Corps trains a platoon to conduct Tactical Recovery of Aviation Personnel but these forces need to be staged and prepared for execution.  Normally it's the 81mm mortar platoon from an infantry battalion.  It's not exactly an Army Ranger company or team of PJs.  Marine Corps pilots are good but they don't get anywhere near the number of flight hours that an Army warrant officer pilot or 160th sky ninja gets.  It's important not to confuse enthusiasm for capability.  General Mattis wasn't comfortable sending an ad hoc team into an unknown situation, especially to perform a task they had not have been trained to do.  Lone Survivor later showed us that improperly planned personnel recovery missions can be disastrous.  AFSOC forces were farther away but their training, equipment and caliber of personnel make them best suited for this mission.  In hindsight the Marine Corps could have accomplished this task because enemy contact had ceased long before the mission was requested.  General Mattis did not have this information and he made a tough decision.  I am glad that I did not have to make that decision.

War is imperfect and at times we have to make decisions that may cost our subordinates or our brothers their lives.  General Mattis certainly did not callously disregard this Special Forces team's call for help.  He was simply unwilling to risk sending his force into an unknown situation that they were potentially not trained or equipped to handle.  He said that he could comply with the request if there was fixed wing on station or under the cover of darkness. I have served with General Mattis and I can tell you that he personally feels the loss of every service member he has lost in battle.  He has visited many of their families after he retired.  I have no doubt that he carries the deaths of these men with him as well.  It's easy to pick apart decisions after the fact.  I  don't think any less of him for what he did.

Semper Fi ODA 574, you are not forgotten.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 2, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> Wait, so this is 'the media' doing shit?  Don't we have another thread on the actual SF dude making these accusations.  Maybe consider a little of the responsibility on the dude making accusations vs the people reporting it.


The media, NBC specifically, made a decision to place this as their most prominent news story.  They also chose the title.   What other stories could they choose to tell about the General?  They chose to go with this one, at least for today, based on one persons account/viewpoint.  How else would you describe it? 

I didn't see any other threads on this topic.   I'm simply saying, they've weighed in with their story.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 2, 2016)

WSJ editorial on General Mattis. Sorry to post the whole thing, but WSJ is "subscription only", and I know not everyone does. 







James N. Mattis, a retired Marine general has been chosen by President-elect Trump to be the next secretary of defense. PHOTO: REUTERS

Donald Trump rewarded loyalists with posts at Treasury and Commerce, but the President-elect has chosen a Defense Secretary on the merits. Retired Marine General James Mattis is Mr. Trump’s nominee to run the Pentagon, which is good news for global order, as well as for the health of a military that for eight years has been treated like a political football.

A retired four-star who enlisted in the Marines in 1969, Gen. Mattis commanded a division during the 2003 Iraq invasion and later ran U.S. Central Command. He’s known as a steely warrior with a seemingly infinite library of books and memorable remarks, including the motto: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

He shows similar candor on threats to freedom abroad, and he has called the Iranian regime “the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East,” which is true. Gen. Mattis is more skeptical about Vladimir Putin than Mr. Trump is, and on Russia the general will be a useful counterweight to National Security AdviserMichael Flynn. U.S. adversaries looking to test the new President may think twice with Gen. Mattis aboard.

The general is also among the most revered military officers of his generation, and his former charges are floating stories of his leadership. He once volunteered to stand duty on Christmas Day so a young major could spend the holiday with his family; he crisscrossed the country to visit Gold Star mothers. 

That sense of shared service would be welcome in a military that needs a boost. You’re probably read about the pilot who flies the same B-52 as his grandfather, or maintenance crews who dig up airplane parts in a museum. Polls of active-duty soldiers reveal a “morale crisis.” A Mattis appointment would raise confidence in the ranks that the Pentagon’s political leadership knows what it’s like to be in a foxhole—and will give troops the equipment to succeed. 

Too often the Obama Administration has tried to use the military as a political or cultural bludgeon. Earlier this year the Defense Department circulated a memo about defeating House Speaker Paul Ryan’s defense bill. Mr. Ryan wanted to _increase _military spending without breaking budget caps. The memo called for a veto as a “weapon” to leverage more domestic spending.

Congress will have to pass a law to exempt Gen. Mattis from the restriction that a military officer must be retired for at least seven years before becoming the Pentagon’s civilian leader. On Thursday evening New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrandsaid she won’t support the waiver. Maybe she’s starting her 2020 presidential campaign early, but she’s going to need a better platform. The principle of civilian leadership is important, but Gen. Mattis has the knowledge and experience to deserve the dispensation. He will advocate for the entire military, not merely the Marines. 

Are Democrats who say they’re terrified of Donald Trump as Commander in Chief going to deny him the advice of a Pentagon counselor as seasoned as Jim Mattis due to a legal technicality? Perhaps they’d prefer Sarah Palin so they can really frighten themselves.

Gen. Mattis has seen the cost of wars enough to want to deter them, but he also knows that if you fight them you need to do so with the force and will to win. As he said in a letter to a colleague: “‘Winging it’ and filling body bags as we sort out what works reminds us of the moral dictates and the cost of competence in our profession.” Mr. Trump has made a reassuring choice.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 3, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> I was discussing this with someone earlier, and he said it was to give the officer time to think more like a civilian again, and not like a gung ho soldier in a civilian leadership post. I don't know where he got the information that allowed him to draw that conclusion, so I'm undecided as to how much merit I'd give that reason. Some retirees never really return to thinking like a civilian at all, and most will always have a soldierly outlook mixed in, no matter how slight.
> 
> To answer your question, @SpitfireV, GEN Mattis is also known as the Warrior Monk. He devoted his entire life to the profession of arms, and educated himself in more than just how to kill people. He has a better understanding than most of the impact war has on his subordinates and their families; supposedly he paid visits to all of the Gold Star Families of Marines that fell under his command after he retired from military service, and did it without news coverage. I can't name an Army flag O that would do the same thing. Part of the cult of personality comes from his Marines knowing that he knows his shit, and would not waste his Marines and their efforts.
> 
> Not just weapons knowledge, or the love of fighting, but philosophy and the understanding of the gravity of things when war becomes certain are character traits that are lacking in wholesale quantities in most of our senior military leaders, both civilian and uniformed. Mattis is a fighter, but he's not one to blindly say "We're gonna nuke err'body!" That's why I believe he would make a great SECDEF, and many others believe the same.


I would put Generals Miller and McMaster out there as the Army's current equivalent to General Mattis.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 4, 2016)

@Ocoka One – here’s my ‘disagree’ justification.  Not coming after you, just reading this thread and feeling a very contrarian view coming on.

I don’t think civilian control of the military is a principle to be scorned.  I think in this case we’re seeing what we typically see on SECDEF appointments – politicians with strong interest in DoD policies seeking to be courted.  It’s natural for the strongest resistance to come from senators with the safest seats.  In SEN Gillibrand’s case she’s been a leading advocate for greater gender equality in the military and I think it’s a fair worry a Trump administration takes a pretty revanchist view of most of those changes.

In a more general sense I don’t see the excitement on this pick – other than to say he is significantly more qualified and with a better reputation than any of PE Trump’s other cabinet picks – but that’s not exactly a high bar.

Number one, what is it a SECDEF really does?  By and large we’re talking about big-picture budget, personnel, and structure decisions that take significant time to implement – and acting as another (possibly influential) voice at meetings on national security policy.  I can think of two SECDEFs who had major impacts on the DoD in the modern era – Rumsfeld and McNamara – neither one particularly revered for their changes (and neither having made changes that outlived them for too long).  I’m not sure what the expectation is for GEN Mattis to shift, change, or implement but given the excitement over his appointment I think he’s virtually guaranteed to disappoint.

The second thing that really strikes me with the excitement on this appointment is the cult of personality we as Americans or members of the military love to impart on people.  I think it’s a mistake and does nothing but tribalize us and/or set us up for disappointment.  Both GEN Patraeus and GEN McChrystal benefitted from the same thing – a press narrative that said these guys were the greatest, with shit that smelled like brown sugar, and would solve all our problems.  The truth most of the time is these guys are as fallible as anyone else.  They may be great leaders in some circumstances but in others rise to a level they handle very poorly.  Some might be able to turn things around – I’ve read a lot that GEN Odierno was a bad Division CDR for Iraq but learned enough to be a good Corps and MNCI CDR.  Still, since we’ve lost both Iraq and Afghanistan it’s tough to try and identify too many saviors.  I think if you look back historically plenty of our ‘savior’ generals made a shit-ton of mistakes, were bad at some stuff, and may have been ill-suited to some jobs.  I think we make a serious mistake in our thinking when we put people into categories of hero or villain – and I think we all fall into that trap often with military and political leaders.

Bottom line, I think if you’re a USMC partisan you should be very excited.  The USMC will be swinging more political weight in the Trump administration DoD than they have in 200 years.  Other than that I’d consider carefully what you want the DoD to do under the Trump administration before dropping panties for GEN Mattis – or any appointees for that matter.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 4, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> @Ocoka One – here’s my ‘disagree’ justification.  Not coming after you, just reading this thread and feeling a very contrarian view coming on.
> 
> I don’t think civilian control of the military is a principle to be scorned.  I think in this case we’re seeing what we typically see on SECDEF appointments – politicians with strong interest in DoD policies seeking to be courted.  It’s natural for the strongest resistance to come from senators with the safest seats.  In SEN Gillibrand’s case she’s been a leading advocate for greater gender equality in the military and I think it’s a fair worry a Trump administration takes a pretty revanchist view of most of those changes.
> 
> ...






I deleted my one-liner post about Kirsten Gellibrand going to fuck herself. That was squad bay default mode.

I thought Rumsfeld was a smarmy, arrogant, armchair general who failed to grasp the significant differences between the fight in Afghanistan and that in Iraq...although I credit him as a proponent and driving force behind the ascendency of SOF in many realms of asymmetric warfare. McNamara was clever, brilliant in many ways, but in my opinion he will always have some blood on his hands, that of my friends and counterparts.

As I've posted elsewhere on SS, Mattis is an iconic character, one of those legendary Marines who epitomizes the tough and feared reputation of the service to which he dedicated his life. He is and will always be respected and admired by fighting men. But, as your thoughtful post points out, gung ho enthusiasm aside, an outspoken fighting general may not be the best choice for a civilian administrative cabinet member.

I am still so much a Marine, and will be to my dying day, that the Mattis appointment--pending approval--stirs the EGA of my heart because I know at least that a real man will be overseeing our military. Naive and emotional as that response is, it is, nevertheless, how I feel. Mattis has a reputation of being extremely responsive and caring to the needs of his men. I like that quality in a person who has to oversee the military. Our current SECDEF, Ashton Carter, never served his country in uniform, never put his life on the line, never saw casualties, never saw men blown to bits or burned beyond recognition by IEDs.

Maybe Mattis won't be the best SECDEF ever. But considering his predecessors, I can't see the harm in appointing him and I truly believe he will always have the people on the sharp edge foremost in his mind.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 4, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I am still so much a Marine, and will be to my dying day, that the Mattis appointment--pending approval--stirs the EGA of my heart because I know at least that a real man will be overseeing our military. Naive and emotional as that response is, it is, nevertheless, how I feel. Mattis has a reputation of being extremely responsive and caring to the needs of his men. I like that quality in a person who has to oversee the military. Our current SECDEF, Ashton Carter, never served his country in uniform, never put his life on the line, never saw casualties, never saw men blown to bits or burned beyond recognition by IEDs



I agree so hard on every single word you wrote in this paragraph.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 4, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> The second thing that really strikes me with the excitement on this appointment is the cult of personality we as Americans or members of the military love to impart on people.  I think it’s a mistake and does nothing but tribalize us and/or set us up for disappointment.  Both GEN Patraeus and GEN McChrystal benefitted from the same thing – a press narrative that said these guys were the greatest, with shit that smelled like brown sugar, and would solve all our problems.  The truth most of the time is these guys are as fallible as anyone else.  They may be great leaders in some circumstances but in others rise to a level they handle very poorly.  Some might be able to turn things around – I’ve read a lot that GEN Odierno was a bad Division CDR for Iraq but learned enough to be a good Corps and MNCI CDR.  Still, since we’ve lost both Iraq and Afghanistan it’s tough to try and identify too many saviors.  I think if you look back historically plenty of our ‘savior’ generals made a shit-ton of mistakes, were bad at some stuff, and may have been ill-suited to some jobs.  I think we make a serious mistake in our thinking when we put people into categories of hero or villain – and I think we all fall into that trap often with military and political leaders.



If I may- and I sincerely hope I don't offend anyone with this- but my own observations that would seem to be an overall American cultural trait. Zero Sum seems to be ingrained in your culture- someone or something is either absolutely the best thing on earth or the worst. It doesn't always leave a lot of room for nuanced assessment.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 4, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> If I may- and I sincerely hope I don't offend anyone with this- but my own observations that would seem to be an overall American cultural trait. Zero Sum seems to be ingrained in your culture- someone or something is either absolutely the best thing on earth or the worst. It doesn't always leave a lot of room for nuanced assessment.



You do have a point.


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 4, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> If I may- and I sincerely hope I don't offend anyone with this- but my own observations that would seem to be an overall American cultural trait. Zero Sum seems to be ingrained in your culture- someone or something is either absolutely the best thing on earth or the worst. It doesn't always leave a lot of room for nuanced assessment.



I think there's an tendency (at least in our culture) to want to paint things as either a white knight coming to save the day or as evil incarnate, and people get really thrown when someone turns out to have a little bit of both.  It kinda short-circuits some people's brains when someone they've been mentally painting as one (of the two) displays traits of the other (which happens a LOT).  To a lot of people, an anti-hero is something that only exists in Hollywood, and fundamentally is one of the other when the film reel ends.  It's certainly not something or somebody you'll have to deal with in the real world .


----------



## AWP (Dec 4, 2016)

I think the DoD in general has languished under SecDef's and Sec(Insert Branch Here) who don't have the best grasp on what the military needs (I'm looking at you SecAF James and Rumsfeld and...). I also think those people were done a disservice by service chiefs with their own agendas and the civilian leadership was either too weak, naïve, or perhaps out of their depth to understand the ramifications of their decisions.

Can Mattis reverse this or live up to the hype? There's only one way to find out. When it is over we can armchair QB his appt. as SecDef the same as the rest, but we won't know until we try. Considering he's one of the most revered generals out of the last two decades, and how Petraeus and McChrystal ended up, he can either confirm or reverse the trend. In a sense a lot is riding on his appt. because if he fails the establishment won't view retired 4 stars in the same light for years to come. He'll be the last version of Omar Bradley in several generations.

We're due a change in mentality and he's the guy who can change it the most.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 5, 2016)

I do not think Mattis is part of a Zero Sum equation.  There are many logical reasons to endorse him; his "Marinism" just icing on the cake.  He understands policy, he understand Congress, he is well-respected in NATO (contentious with Trump), he understand the role in the broader context of the Executive (branch), and not lastly, because he was so well-liked/well-respected within the Marines (specifically), he would start day 1 with street cred.  Of course, almost any general could satisfy almost all of these conditions, but there is something to be said for having a man who once commanded Americans in harm's way when it comes to advising a president to do the same thing.  An inherent pause button.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 6, 2016)

If GEN Mattis and the Trump administration want to make their mark on the DoD for generations and keep some campaign promises on cleaning up government this would be a great place to start: Pentagon buries evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste

I'm sure like all big problems there is a lot of nuance, complicated 2nd and 3rd order effects to these decisions but I think the gist of this study is right.  I'd be a lot more willing to listen to conservative desires to close or downsize parts of government if this type of shit was on their radar.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 6, 2016)

Last night my buddy thought he had a better location for the projector in the living room. Put up a shelf then totally failed to note the ceiling fan cords; this is a big ass projector so there really is no correcting this. (Sadly, he's also a trained observer)

We figured out the best location for the projector, then on with life but not before coming up with an idea for the shelf that is awkwardly more elevated than anything else in the room.

"We're going to frame a picture of Mattis" he says softly.

"F*ck yea we are! We're going to use the Patron Saint of Chaos picture!"

"Mattis will watch over this house..." he concludes.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 6, 2016)

Viewing the reader-comments make me want to gouge my own eyes out....

Some Call This Mattis' One Mistake In Battle — A Legendary Marine Says Otherwise

(Edited to change my opinion on reader comments)


----------



## Grunt (Dec 6, 2016)

One thing I feel relatively sure about is that General Mattis can't do any worse of a job than we have had in the recent past. 

Personally, I'll be glad for him to take over and begin to move forward!


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 6, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> For once reading the reader-comments after an article did not make me want to gouge my own eyes out....
> 
> Some Call This Mattis' One Mistake In Battle — A Legendary Marine Says Otherwise



I think Bing West summed it up perfectly responding to the fact that there is no wrong-side in this scenario. The ODA Commander was screaming for his guys while Mattis had no clue what was going on in the area and had to take his assets into consideration before prompting a rescue tasker. It was a shit sandwich clearly; the author's capstone about the Red Wings rescue was a perfect example of what happens to assets when security is weak in a hot zone.


----------



## CDG (Dec 6, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> For once reading the reader-comments after an article did not make me want to gouge my own eyes out....
> 
> Some Call This Mattis' One Mistake In Battle — A Legendary Marine Says Otherwise



IDK.  The comments were so ignorant.  "Bullshit!  You send everyone available when Americans are dying!!  It's what we fight for !!!  RAWWRRRRR!!"  Makes for a good bumper sticker, but the reality is that decisions have to be made based on the information available at the time, and the tactical risk assessment that fits that information.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 6, 2016)

CDG said:


> IDK.  The comments were so ignorant.  "Bullshit!  You send everyone available when Americans are dying!!  It's what we fight for !!!  RAWWRRRRR!!"  Makes for a good bumper sticker, but the reality is that decisions have to be made based on the information available at the time, and the tactical risk assessment that fits that information.



In truth if the situation was flipped and it was me & my guys on the ground that day I'd probably feel the same way so I sympathize. Like I said - shit sandwich.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 6, 2016)

CDG said:


> IDK.  The comments were so ignorant.  "Bullshit!  You send everyone available when Americans are dying!!  It's what we fight for !!!  RAWWRRRRR!!"  Makes for a good bumper sticker, but the reality is that decisions have to be made based on the information available at the time, and the tactical risk assessment that fits that information.



There were only 7 comments when I read the story, most pretty well thought out. Forgive me, I momentarily forgot that this is the Internet and will turn into a shit-sandwich at a moments notice.


----------



## AWP (Dec 6, 2016)

The Hate Ape said:


> I think Bing West summed it up perfectly responding to the fact that there is no wrong-side in this scenario. The ODA Commander was screaming for his guys while Mattis had no clue what was going on in the area and had to take his assets into consideration before prompting a rescue tasker. It was a shit sandwich clearly; the author's capstone about the Red Wings rescue was a perfect example of what happens to assets when security is weak in a hot zone.



If he sends in his helos and one or more are shot down then he's vilified for that decision. The poor bastard was in a lose-lose situation with a Win happening maybe 5% of the time? Nothing short of everyone coming home intact prevents this from being a story.

And let's forget the other gazillion years of his career and focus on one bad day with the clarity of hindsight.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 6, 2016)

The Hate Ape said:


> In truth if the situation was flipped and it was me & my guys on the ground that day I'd probably feel the same way so I sympathize. Like I said - shit sandwich.



Unfortunately, many "bad decisions" are made when dealing with war-time operations that can end in very bad ways -- including the death of American Warriors. I sincerely hate the fact that it happens, but unfortunately it does. It's within the nature of war.

With all that said, the man had a 44 year career in the Corps. Anyone operating in any environment for that amount of time will make some decisions that were costly -- albeit maybe not as costly as human lives -- but, they will make mistakes nonetheless.

I hope there is more to that incident than meets the eye. I -- for one -- am willing to give him a shot at SecDef based on his overall history and his love for our nation.


----------



## CDG (Dec 6, 2016)

The Hate Ape said:


> In truth if the situation was flipped and it was me & my guys on the ground that day I'd probably feel the same way so I sympathize. Like I said - shit sandwich.



Absolutely.  Anyone who was on the ground would feel that way.  I would like to think that after the emotions had settled, I would be able to look at everything as objectively as possible and understand why the decision was made.  I am not knocking MAJ Amerine at all. He believes the TRA should have landed on the other side of the coin and is making that argument. I am knocking the people commenting on an Internet article with the blustering nonsense. Unless you were there, or knew someone who was, there's no reason for such an emotion based response.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 6, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Unfortunately, many "bad decisions" are made when dealing with war-time operations can end in very bad ways -- including the death of American Warriors. I sincerely hate the fact that it happens, but unfortunately it does. It's within the nature of war.
> 
> With all that said, the man had a 44 year career in the Corps. Anyone operating in any environment for that amount of time will make some decisions that were costly -- albeit maybe not as costly as human lives -- but, they will make mistakes nonetheless.
> 
> I hope there is more to that incident than meets the eye. I -- for one -- am willing to give him a shot at SecDef based on his overall history and his love for our nation.



I don't see the "more than meets the eye" statement. Seems pretty clear cut - guys on ground call evac and Mattis held his assets until he knew what was going on security wise. That shit happened a lot and it came down to two things:
- GFC/RTO paints a clear picture of the situation
-Assets deploy and follow LZ Procedures (hot LZ is cleared by security element assets otherwise the evac bird lands while security loiters)

The only real reason this is being brought up is because it is associated with Mattis. Unlike a lot of situations one could draw up that are otherwise, unknown outside of those involved, this one seems more clear cut than most situations. Had nothing to do with civcas or supporting fires, had nothing to do with sourcing closer assets or a dipshit commander. Mattis didn't want his birds shot down because he got trigger happy on issuing a rescue command.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 6, 2016)

The Hate Ape said:


> I don't see the "more than meets the eye" statement. Seems pretty clear cut - guys on ground call evac and Mattis held his assets until he knew what was going on security wise. That shit happened a lot and it came down to two things:
> - GFC/RTO paints a clear picture of the situation
> -Assets deploy and follow LZ Procedures (hot LZ is cleared by security element assets otherwise the evac bird lands while security loiters)
> 
> The only real reason this is being brought up is because it is associated with Mattis. Unlike a lot of situations one could draw up that are otherwise, unknown outside of those involved, this one seems more clear cut than most situations. Had nothing to do with civcas or supporting fires, had nothing to do with sourcing closer assets or a dipshit commander. Mattis didn't want his birds shot down because he got trigger happy on issuing a rescue command.


Disagree, the long knives would have come out regardless of who got nominated for SecDef.
We have a guy who (for a GO) is relatively "squeaky clean" and this appears to be the best that anyone can come up with.
That said; the image a guy with Mad Dog as a nickname has with the general population is not one of a think first, act second mentality.  So those who think he should have gone off half cocked may not have a lot of experience.
We also don't know what was happening inside the TOC, the book makes it sound like the Marines were totally inept when receiving the casualties, what happened and why should be openly addressed. 

The only other knife being drawn is by a Retired Colonel, who complained that the Marines essentially told the 82nd they were too hard in their dealings with the locals (RIP TOA) and the Marines were going to be more hearts and minds oriented, he then referenced the two subsequent Fallujah ops the Marines had to conduct as a result of "misguided policy".  Again, this can be addressed during his confirmation hearings.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Dec 6, 2016)

In case you gentlemen thought I was bullshitting:


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 7, 2016)




----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 7, 2016)

Question - 

Does the new Sec of Def have the authority to put a stop to this insanity?

If he does, will he?

Naval Academy Hosting ‘Transgender 101’ Training for Midshipmen

_The U.S. Naval Academy is bringing in Google employees to provide voluntary “Transgender 101” training to midshipmen this week as part of an ongoing “safe space” training series.
Midshipmen and staff who take the training course will get the opportunity to display cards outside their door that show they are allies of the LGBT community._


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 7, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Question -
> 
> Does the new Sec of Def have the authority to put a stop to this insanity?
> 
> ...



Not hating you, wanted you to know that.  Hate the utter living fuck out of that article.  What bullshit.  We are trying to teach people how to be warriors and leaders; instead we co-opt Google to help teach touchy-feely 101, enabling the next crew of the _USS Harvey Milk_.

Nimitz...Halsey...Dewey...Davey Fucking Jones....all are spinning in their graves at this madness....


----------



## Gunz (Dec 7, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Question -
> 
> Does the new Sec of Def have the authority to put a stop to this insanity?
> 
> ...





This is just the biggest bunch of horseshit I've ever heard, and I'm glad in retrospect that my son Chris got turned down by USNA (because now he's talking about joining the Corps after he graduates from FSU).

I don't think Mattis will be able to stop this fucking train wreck of pussification that's infected the country and the military but he might be able to muffle the celebration of sexual freedom that seems to be resounding at USNA and other military institutions. You know, hey guys, let's just tone it the fuck down a little so our enemies don't think we all have to sit down to piss.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 7, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Question -
> 
> Does the new Sec of Def have the authority to put a stop to this insanity?
> 
> ...



To add - 

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...training-webinars-new-transgender-policy.html

Not that many years ago both of these articles would have been DuffleBlog stories - especially the Academy story with the displayable placards.  That said, what's done is done.  Truth be told, there are plenty of roles within all the services that can happily take well educated and patriotic Americans who might not want to pick up a rifle and ruck a pack, but can be pretty badass on the other end of a keyboard, or logistics, or assessing intel, or....whatever.

Pandora is out of the closet <sorry> and I cannot imagine a scenario where anything reverts back;  if that's the case, you might as well educate yourself so that you don't blow your career over some type of hazing/discrimination/etc  you didn't even know existed.

My only hope/expectation from the new Secretary is that he draws the line at "standards" for specific jobs, and halts the needs for leaders to spend more time defending their course requirements, than they do training those under their leadership.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 7, 2016)

If I'm up shit alley I don't give a damn who or what you're screwing if you're hands are on the cyclic and collective and you're coming to give me firepower or save my wounded...but it's _what you do _not who you screw that's gonna earn my respect.


----------



## AWP (Dec 8, 2016)

I work with an AF NCO who lives up to pretty much every homosexual stereotype we've seen. I hate the guy. I don't hate the guy because he's gay, I hate him because he's a fucking douchebag with the social skills of a turd. With that said, the asshole knows his job and he knows it cold. The little shit is very good at what he does.

We don't need classes on how to treat gay or whatever people, we need classes on "is the motherfucker good at his job" and how to go from there. I don't give a damn where you think a dick goes, what can you do to help us kill people? You wear a pink feather boa when not in uniform? Right, Mate, whatever, let's help kill people.

I hope Mattis refreshifies the DoD's memory on why it exists.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 8, 2016)

Yep...bring back the War Department and the Secretary of War!


----------



## Viper1 (Dec 11, 2016)

Looks like someone leaked Mattis's intro memo to the DoD

General Mattis's First Memo To The DoD Leaked To Article 107 News » Article 107 News


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 11, 2016)

Oh hell, it's on now!


----------



## AWP (Dec 12, 2016)

Viper1 said:


> Looks like some leaked Mattis's intro memo to the DoD
> 
> General Mattis's First Memo To The DoD Leaked To Article 107 News » Article 107 News





> Defense is a beta term.  We’re alpha now.



That might be the best hidden gem in the article.


----------



## Dame (Dec 12, 2016)

LOL. It used to be that anyway, right?


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 12, 2016)

It's entertaining but I do not think Mattis wrote that.  It does not read likes he speaks.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 12, 2016)

What makes you think Mattis didn't write that piece?  Would someone post it here if it weren't true?  IKIS


----------



## CDG (Dec 12, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> It's entertaining but I do not think Mattis wrote that.  It does not read likes he speaks.


I think they were probably just paraphrasing him for journalistic effect.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 12, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> It's entertaining but I do not think Mattis wrote that.  It does not read likes he speaks.



God wrote it and gave it to Mattis.


----------



## AWP (Dec 12, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> God wrote it and gave it to Mattis.



Might as well, Mattis probably writes stuff and gives it to God.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

Any chances he'll role back any of the last 24 years of using the military for a social experimentation laboratory, resulting in open homosexuality and women Rangers?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 12, 2016)

82DABN43E1P said:


> Any chances he'll role back any of the last 24 years of using the military for a social experimentation laboratory, resulting in open homosexuality and women Rangers?



Nope.

To add - lots of conversation about those topics in this thread:

Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion


----------



## Gunz (Dec 12, 2016)

82DABN43E1P said:


> Any chances he'll role back any of the last 24 years of using the military for a social experimentation laboratory, resulting in open homosexuality and women Rangers?




What's done is done. He might be able to draw the line on it for a while, at least until the next "progressive" administration comes in and blows the lid off...but he won't be able to reverse any of this shit no matter how much he may want to privately.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> What's done is done. He might be able to draw the line on it for a while, at least until the next "progressive" administration comes in and blows the lid off...but he won't be able to reverse any of this shit no matter how much he may want to privately.



What's fucked can never be unfucked? That's depressing. Hope springs eternal.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 12, 2016)

82DABN43E1P said:


> What's fucked can never be unfucked? That's depressing. Hope springs eternal.


I don't consider letting gay men and women serve openly as things being fucked. I would say that's actually in the "unfucked" category.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

DasBoot said:


> I don't consider letting gay men and women serve openly as things being fucked. I would say that's actually in the "unfucked" category.



Certainly would make the trenches more interesting. Talk about your foxhole conversions.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 12, 2016)

DasBoot said:


> I don't consider letting gay men and women serve openly as things being fucked. I would say that's actually in the "unfucked" category.


As long as they meet the standard.
I am not convinced of that just yet.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> As long as they meet the standard.
> I am not convinced of that just yet.



The thing no-one wants to say, because it isn't PC, is that the complications to unit cohesion go far beyond women being smaller, weaker, and slower: if Jessica Alba can carry a wounded 200 lb man (+her gear&his), for 5 miles, across rough terrain, in 30 minutes, while shooting 50 bad guys through the eye socket, having her deploy with your team isn't going to cause complications with your wife, with the locals, and among your team members? Bullshit!

The PR nightmare when she's captured would be a national crisis, a 24/7 news cycle, hand-wringing, teeth-gnashing ratings bonanza! The manpower and resources committed to her recovery would be immeasurable, and incomparable to what would be expended for a male counterpart.

You can tell yourself that a woman who looked like Janet Reno, instead, would mesh with the team as well as a man, but that's Bullshit, too. What happens when Janet develops a crush on a team member? How does that detract from unit effectiveness?

Maybe it's okay if Janet's a lesbian? Okay, then, what happens when another female is introduced to the team?

See, all this stuff about women being smaller, weaker, and slower(all true) is just whistling past the grave yard. No-one wants to talk about the real shit, because it isn't PC.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 12, 2016)

@82DABN43E1P 

Your arguments would be much more readable if you would drop they tired homosexual stereotypes and weak women shots.  I was going to take the time to give you specific examples, but I'll let these two paragraphs speak for themselves. 



82DABN43E1P said:


> You can tell yourself that a woman who looked like Janet Reno, instead, would mesh with the team as well as a man, but that's Bullshit, too. What happens when Janet develops a crush on a team member? How does that detract from unit effectiveness?
> 
> Maybe it's okay if Janet's a lesbian? Okay, then, what happens when another female is introduced to the team?


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @82DABN43E1P
> 
> Your arguments would be much more readable if you would drop they tired homosexual stereotypes and weak women shots.  I was going to take the time to give you specific examples, but I'll let these two paragraphs speak for themselves.



I didn't think I was taking a shot at weak women. If anything, I was taking a shot a people who say, "women are too small, weak, slow..." as if that were the real issue.

As far as homosexual stereotypes, if you mean that I implied that open homosexuality can present the same challenges to unit cohesion as male-female sexual politics, then I plead guilty to being an unreconstructed anachronism. Shot me.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 12, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> As long as they meet the standard.
> I am not convinced of that just yet.



I know you have been out a while, but I know at least 3 guys in SOF that are gay. They were serving closeted before and were able to come out and be themselves. Gay men and women were serving just fine before, just not openly. There is no different standard for gay people.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I know you have been out a while, but I know at least 3 guys in SOF that are gay. They were serving closeted before and were able to come out and be themselves. Gay men and women were serving just fine before, just not openly. There is no different standard for gay people.



I don't think there should be different physical standards (if that's what you mean). I knew a couple of soldiers I suspected might be gay, back in the dinosaur days. I didn't care. It was their business. 

However, I believe fraternization has gotten out of control. And, if the male on male fraternization has or can escalate to the level of the male on female fraternization, then we're on our way to going full Rome.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I know you have been out a while, but I know at least 3 guys in SOF that are gay. They were serving closeted before and were able to come out and be themselves. Gay men and women were serving just fine before, just not openly. There is no different standard for gay people.



To expound...I had a roommate in the service who used to tell me things that he did to his girlfriend that made my skin crawl. I had to ask him to stop talking about it. It was disgusting. Likewise, I worked with a gay guy, who was way too open about his lifestyle. I had to remind him that he was at work, not a disco, and that I didn't want to hear graphic details of his exploits. 

When straight people engage in freaky deeds or overshare, is it okay for me to tell them I don't wanna hear about it? Then, why is it "homophobic" of me to expect the same courtesy of a gay guy? Am I really a dinosaur, or has the PC world just lost its damn mind? You already know what I think?


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 12, 2016)

82DABN43E1P said:


> I don't think there should be different physical standards (if that's what you mean). I knew a couple of soldiers I suspected might be gay, back in the dinosaur days. I didn't care. It was their business.
> 
> However, I believe fraternization has gotten out of control. And, if the male on male fraternization has or can escalate to the level of the male on female fraternization, then we're on our way to going full Rome.



What? 

It isn't like it is common. Being around gay dudes doesn't make straight guys gay. It isn't contagious.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 12, 2016)

82DABN43E1P said:


> To expound...I had a roommate in the service who used to tell me things that he did to his girlfriend that made my skin crawl. I had to ask him to stop talking about it. It was disgusting. Likewise, I worked with a gay guy, who was way too open about his lifestyle. I had to remind him that he was at work, not a disco, and that I didn't want to hear graphic details of his exploits.
> 
> When straight people engage in freaky deeds or overshare, is it okay for me to tell them I don't wanna hear about it? Then, why is it "homophobic" of me to expect the same courtesy of a gay guy? Am I really a dinosaur, or has the PC world just lost its damn mind? You already know what I think?



What are you talking about man?


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 12, 2016)

This is all off topic for Mattis being SECDEF anyways. We can talk about gays in the military somewhere else if you want to start a new thread.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> What?
> 
> It isn't like it is common. Being around gay dudes doesn't make straight guys gay. It isn't contagious.



That isn't exactly what I meant. But, should everyone wear an armband, indicating their sexual preference? Or, should sexuality just be completely removed from the equation? If soldiers aren't permitted to date, marry each other, or engage in any form of sexual congress with fellow service members, then their sexual preferences are moot.


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> This is all off topic for Mattis being SECDEF anyways. We can talk about gays in the military somewhere else if you want to start a new thread.



I guess it's strayed a little, but originally, I was responding to the speculation of some commentators that, seeing as the Marines has been most reluctant of the services to cave into pressure to adapt to progressive political whims, having a crusty old-school Marine general as SecDef would halt, or possibly even reverse some of the recent social experiments in the services. I apologize if my query derailed the thread.


[footnote about me: I take very little personally, and have a much better sense of humor than it may appear, when I'm off on a rant]


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> What are you talking about man?



Thought it was obvious: if I tell a straight couple I don't want to see home movies of their children being born (or made), that's okay, but if I tell my gay neighbors I don't want to see slides from their couples naked yoga class, I'm the asshole.

[lighten up. even Harvey Fierstein thought that was funny]


----------



## AWP (Dec 12, 2016)

This thread is about Mattis as SECDEF. Let's get back on topic.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 13, 2016)

Back on track...


----------



## Gunz (Dec 13, 2016)

Look, Mattis may be a Warrior Monk, but he's not a caveman. He's served with NATO, he was CENTCOM commander, he's had plenty of sophisticated leadership roles that demanded some measure of toleration and political finesse. He's got to be professionally in line with all the directives handed down over the past 8 years. He's had plenty of time to come to terms with the repeal of DADT and other changes.

I'm betting he'll figure out how best to integrate those changes without a degradation of combat readiness. If anybody can do that, he can.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 13, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Look, Mattis may be a Warrior Monk, but he's not a caveman. He's served with NATO, he was CENTCOM commander, he's had plenty of sophisticated leadership roles that demanded some measure of toleration and political finesse. He's got to be professionally in line with all the directives handed down over the past 8 years. He's had plenty of time to come to terms with the repeal of DADT and other changes.
> 
> I'm betting he'll figure out how best to integrate those changes without a degradation of combat readiness. If anybody can do that, he can.



I have been saying this since his name was leaked.  He has more positive relationship with NATO, more understanding of and interaction with Congress than many, understands budgeting, procurement, etc.  He is a warrior's warrior, but he is no troglodyte.


----------



## CDG (Dec 13, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> He is a warrior's warrior, but he is no troglodyte.



And herein lies the disconnect.  IMHO, much of the civilian populace, particularly politicians in Washington, believe one proves the other.  The warrior-scholar, warrior-monk, warrior-professional is not understood by them.  They will never outright admit it, but they believe that if someone is capable of visiting violence on others, they are automatically intellectually inferior.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 13, 2016)

Considering how Trump seems to be dismissing the advice of the intelligence community already it will be interesting to see how he takes Mattis' advice, whether he listens to it or makes up his own mind without that expert opinion.


----------



## Etype (Dec 13, 2016)

CDG said:


> ...violence...


Violence is, all too often, looked at by the State Dept. and politicians as a failure instead of a viable means to an end.  Some folks are immune to the diplomatic process, example- ISIS.

The truth is, folks like GEN Mattis have seen, and participated in, every level of human interaction from cooperation, to coercion, to violence.


----------



## Etype (Dec 13, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Considering how Trump seems to be dismissing the advice of the intelligence community...


What advice is this?


----------



## WasNeverHere (Dec 13, 2016)

Etype said:


> What advice is this?



The dubious Intel report that "Russia hacked my recount"?


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 13, 2016)

Etype said:


> Violence is, all too often, looked at by the State Dept. and politicians as a failure instead of a viable means to an end.  Some folks are immune to the diplomatic process, example- ISIS.
> 
> The truth is, folks like GEN Mattis have seen, and participated in, every level of human interaction from cooperation, to coercion, to violence.



Violence is just on the continuum of politics.  Von Clausewitz said war is an extension of politics by another means.  It's so unsettling that professional diplomats don't understand poli sci 101.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 13, 2016)

Etype said:


> What advice is this?



Barack Obama: A President without intelligence briefings is 'flying blind'

Ignore the bits about Obama, this is the important part:



> Trump over the weekend said on _Fox News Sunday_ he's not interested in daily intelligence briefings unless developments have changed enough to merit his attention. Asked whether he's rejecting valuable intelligence, Trump was defiant.
> 
> "I get it when I need it," he said of the top-secret briefings sessions, generally designed to present facts for the president to make decisions on when something's changed and what, if any, action should be taken.
> 
> "I'm, like, a smart person," Trump continued. "I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years."


----------



## Jay_Pew (Dec 13, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Barack Obama: A President without intelligence briefings is 'flying blind'
> 
> Ignore the bits about Obama, this is the important part:



I don't necessarily disagree with President-Elect Trump's main point, and it just ties in with his whole overall theme. He says he doesn't need them everyday, because they mostly contain the same information. According to him he only wants them "when something changes". This ties perfectly with his whole theme that government/beaurocracy is very inefficient. Why does he necessarily need to be briefed the same material everyday? He can be briefed as needed, as a situation unfolds/ as the information is requested.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 14, 2016)

Jay_Pew said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with President-Elect Trump's main point, and it just ties in with his whole overall theme. He says he doesn't need them everyday, because they mostly contain the same information. According to him he only wants them "when something changes". This ties perfectly with his whole theme that government/beaurocracy is very inefficient. Why does he necessarily need to be briefed the same material everyday? He can be briefed as needed, as a situation unfolds/ as the information is requested.



Yeah look I can see what you're saying but I think it is bad form. Why wouldn't you take advantage of everything you have?


----------



## AWP (Dec 14, 2016)

Didn't we beat up Obama for skipping his intel briefings?


----------



## Etype (Dec 14, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Barack Obama: A President without intelligence briefings is 'flying blind'
> 
> Ignore the bits about Obama, this is the important part:


The part about things changing enough to merit his attention is key. There are very few things that require presidential approval, and the GCCs, SECDEF, CJCS, etc know how to get in touch with him when they come up.


----------



## CQB (Dec 14, 2016)

He is and was an outsider, despised by the GOP as well, if you recall. Said the system was broken, coincidentally so did Sanders. Was the system he gatecrashed one where both sides of the house only let the great unwashed have a peek at the process now and then? The picks for office so far, including Mr. Mattis  have been really interesting, no policy yet but the indications IMO are that it may be run as a business instead of a cartel.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 14, 2016)

Etype said:


> The part about things changing enough to merit his attention is key. There are very few things that require presidential approval, and the GCCs, SECDEF, CJCS, etc know how to get in touch with him when they come up.



As The Boss though the buck stops with him. If he doesn't know something because he couldn't be arsed with a briefing then it's on him if it blows up.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 14, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Considering how Trump seems to be dismissing the advice of the intelligence community already it will be interesting to see how he takes Mattis' advice, whether he listens to it or makes up his own mind without that expert opinion.


We still don't know who in the intel community is claiming Russian involvement, let the Congressional Critters have their hearing and see what is said under oath.


----------



## Etype (Dec 14, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> As The Boss though the buck stops with him. If he doesn't know something because he couldn't be arsed with a briefing then it's on him if it blows up.


It seems to me like being updated when something changes or demands his attention is a good policy. 

Giving a daily update brief to a president with no military experience seems like a waste of time to me, unless he were particularly interested in micro-managing. We have GCCs and TSOCs who worry about such things so the president doesn't have to. Time sensitive matters, approvals and authorizations etc. are usually handled by desk side briefings, not at Intel dumps.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 14, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> As The Boss though the buck stops with him. If he doesn't know something because he couldn't be arsed with a briefing then it's on him if it blows up.


He's not in the White House until 2017, the current boss is a guy name Obama.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 14, 2016)

Alright it's 0325 here and I didn't expect four quotes! I'll reply to you guys all at once tomorrow evening my time (the future).


----------



## Etype (Dec 14, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> We still don't know who in the intel community is claiming Russian involvement, let the Congressional Critters have their hearing and see what is said under oath.


Or if it even is happening. Put the reporters on the stand and see what they say. Whether or not they say anything, it will show any potential future leakers that their identity may not be safe, should they chose to not keep secrets.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 14, 2016)

Etype said:


> Or if it even is happening. *Put the reporters on the stand and see what they say*. Whether or not they say anything, it will show any potential future leakers that their identity may not be safe, should they chose to not keep secrets.



Agreed, but I bet you a donut they would either invoke the 5th or claim they could not say anything in order to protect their sources.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 14, 2016)

Etype said:


> Or if it even is happening. Put the reporters on the stand and see what they say. Whether or not they say anything, it will show any potential future leakers that their identity may not be safe, should they chose to not keep secrets.



I don't think that is a good policy. The press should be able to protect their sources.


----------



## Etype (Dec 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't think that is a good policy. The press should be able to protect their sources.


I understand and agree, somewhat- but in this case, the sources have committed a pretty serious crime.

Additionally, the members of the press haven't necessarily done anything wrong, and shouldn't face retribution.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 30, 2017)

Saw a Duffleblog headline today that was the best I'd seen in a while: 'Troops sour on Mattis after he releases 6,000 book reading list'


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 30, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Saw a Duffleblog headline today that was the best I'd seen in a while: 'Troops sour on Mattis after he releases 6,000 book reading list'



I saw another one that said "General Mattis once shot an azimuth, and killed a man"


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 30, 2017)

TLDR20 said:


> I saw another one that said "General Mattis once shot an azimuth, and killed a man"



I think the Onion is still the gold standard on general news satire but the Duffleblog is really coming into their own on stuff like this.  Really doing a great job of getting to the heart of stuff that requires at least some military association to get.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 22, 2017)

Dear General,

Yep.  Politicians are mostly scum and are actually "shocked and awed" that you would want to appoint people you consider qualified (regardless of party affiliation) vs. Republican to whom favors are owed and promises were likely made.

Please don't let me wake up one morning and read a headline that states, "Mattis says, fuck this.  Find yourself another Sec Def."

Hill Republicans say they're growing frustrated with Mattis


----------



## AWP (Mar 22, 2017)

From the link above:

 “We know Trump isn’t part of the establishment and that it’s going to be a bit different, but it should go without saying that a Republican administration is expected to staff federal agencies with Republicans.”

And that is such a great example of why this country has problems. The best? Nah, stack the deck with our boys.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 22, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ... "Mattis says, fuck this.  Find yourself another Sec Def."...



He's never been a quitter but I think it's entirely conceivable that at some point he _will_ say "fuck this." Mattis has credibility, integrity, honor, courage and holds himself to a very high standard...qualities entirely alien to most politicians. He is Sparta.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 22, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> He's never been a quitter



LOL -

I actually edited my post and changed "I quit" to fuck this". 

Didn't want anyone to suggest that I was accusing the General of being a quitter.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 22, 2017)

Personally, I care less about what the "Hill Republicans" care about! They are simply crying because they aren't getting their way. Cry on.....


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 22, 2017)

Agoge said:


> Personally, I care less about what the "Hill Republicans" care about! They are simply crying because they aren't getting their way. Cry on.....



They're a large part of the reason the electorate was pissed off enough to nominate, and then elect Donald Trump.  Making them cry puts a smile on my face.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 22, 2017)

Totentanz said:


> They're a large part of the reason the electorate was pissed off enough to nominate, and then elect Donald Trump.  Making them cry puts a smile on my face.



Yep...they are simply part of the status quo. If they don't want to be, then put something first -- besides themselves -- and stand out in the crowd. Do something for the electorate rather than for their personal benefit. Career politicians...I simply can't stand them.


----------



## CDG (Mar 22, 2017)

These next 4 years are a critical juncture in the grand experiment that is America.  The government is already arguably way too cumbersome and entrenched to change.  At best, we are at a crossroads where this is the absolute last change to effect some substantial and meaningful change.  Qualifications for foreign policy, defense policy, diplomacy aside, President Trump's biggest chance for a positive legacy, IMHO, is getting Washington turned around.  I don't think he will be a great President against the metrics traditionally used.  What I do think, is that this is just about our last shot at trimming the needless bureaucracy, and getting this ship at least slightly turned in the right direction.  I have no doubts about SECDEF Mattis sticking to his guns.  Hopefully the President backs him like he should.  I can see a showdown between a (for once) united Congress against President Trump because their comfortable status quo is threatened.  They are so cemented into their bubbles of self-importance and entitlement that they will lash out against anything that threatens that.  Ideally, they band together in their pettiness, and turn the American people further against the status quo.  We, the people, start holding them accountable, and the next round of elections brings even more change.


----------



## CQB (Mar 22, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> He's never been a quitter but I think it's entirely conceivable that at some point he _will_ say "fuck this." Mattis has credibility, integrity, honor, courage and holds himself to a very high standard...qualities entirely alien to most politicians. He is Sparta.



The canary in the coal mine spot is no longer up for grabs.
The US bond market would be another.


----------



## AWP (Mar 22, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I actually edited my post and changed "I quit" to fuck this".



There's a difference?


----------



## Dame (Mar 22, 2017)

AWP said:


> There's a difference?


Sure. One says, "I don't want to bother." 
The other says, "I'm not stupid enough to bother."
Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.


----------



## AWP (Mar 22, 2017)

Dame said:


> Sure. One says, "I don't want to bother."
> The other says, "I'm not stupid enough to bother."
> Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.



The reason doesn't matter, quitting is quitting.


----------



## Dienekes (Mar 22, 2017)

I saw something somewhere equating Trump to Jackson in that he is a "populist demagogue sort of like Jackson was." (Not an exact quote but not my words.) At this point, could anything less than a demagogue affect the sort of change that America seems to desperately need for its long-term? In this culture and political climate, I don't think so. Will he be great or will he suck a bag of dicks? History will tell, but I agree with CDG in that this is most definitely a critical juncture for the US, and no one else would have had the potential to shake up the system like Trump has now. At the very least, there are now conversations being had that previously weren't acknowledged so there's a start.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 16, 2017)

There is a LOT happening here....

<bonus points if you can make out what the coffee mug says>


----------



## Dame (May 16, 2017)

"Be polite, be professional, but..."




ETA: Too easy, Marine.


----------



## Gunz (May 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> There is a LOT happening here....
> 
> <bonus points if you can make out what the coffee mug says>
> 
> View attachment 18742




I could go through everything on that table in one night. Including the crayons.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 17, 2017)

Someone forgot the booze.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 29, 2017)

So General, what keeps you up at night?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 29, 2017)

Interviewer: "General Mattis, what is best in life?"

Mattis: "Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women."

To add - The "silkies" make the pic so much more awesome!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 31, 2017)

*Secretary of Defense, James Mattis' Commencement Speech, USMA, West Point
*
Well worth the watch....the time will fly right by.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 2, 2017)




----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 9, 2017)

Statement by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > News Release View

Let's make the fucking grass grow.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 9, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> Statement by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > News Release View
> 
> Let's make the fucking grass grow.



Yeah, baby.


----------



## Dame (Aug 9, 2017)

General Mattis hit 11 out of 10 targets with only 9 bullets.

When General Mattis crosses the street the cars have to look both ways.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 9, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> Statement by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > News Release View
> 
> Let's make the fucking grass grow.


THAT, Mr. President, is how you sound like you are about to commit to wholesale slaughter and you're not the one to be fucked with.


----------



## Muppet (Aug 9, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> I could go through everything on that table in one night. Including the crayons.



I just fucking laughed out loud bro.

M.


----------



## AWP (Aug 12, 2017)

Last week Secretary Mattis dropped this out there and with very little fanfare.

Document: SECDEF Mattis Pentagon Memo on Ethics - USNI News

Mysterious Gen. James Mattis Memo Sparks Debate on Twitter - Routine Housekeeping or Warning?

Secretary Mattis’ Insights on Ethics - Radical Compliance






It is being touted as his take on the transgender ban in the DoD. Umm, okay. The Twitter responses on the DailyKos link are as awesome as you'd expect.  One of the main reasons I posted though is the opening sentence. "Those entrusted by our nation with carrying out violence..."

Whatever prompted this, even if routine, when was the last time you saw a memo on anything start like that?


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 12, 2017)

Time for Mattis to change DOD back to the War Department.


----------



## Teufel (Aug 13, 2017)

I'm all about resolving unavoidable conflicts with the highest levels of violence...but no one really wants to go to war with North Korea. Don't get me wrong, I'll raise my hand again if it comes to that and do everything I can to ensure there is a never a Kim Jung Dos. That being said, the Korean War part Deux would result in catastrophic WWII levels of casualties on all sides. The physical cost to our ally South Korea would be devastating and would savage the world economy.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 13, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> Time for Mattis to change DOD back to the War Department.



Congress should actually declare war then.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 13, 2017)

Teufel said:


> I'm all about resolving unavoidable conflicts with the highest levels of violence...but no one really wants to go to war with North Korea. Don't get me wrong, I'll raise my hand again if it comes to that and do everything I can to ensure there is a never a Kim Jung Dos. That being said, the Korean War part Deux would result in catastrophic WWII levels of casualties on all sides. The physical cost to our ally South Korea would be devastating and would savage the world economy.



Everyone wants to get some until it's time to "get some".


----------



## Gunz (Aug 13, 2017)

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 13, 2017)

AWP said:


> ...when was the last time you saw a memo on anything start like that?




When was the last time we had a guy nicknamed "Mad Dog" in charge of the DoD?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 15, 2017)

My god I love this man...

Defense Secretary Mattis tells sailors ‘you’re not some pu–y sitting on the sidelines’ | American Military News


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 15, 2017)

I'd like to present a trade, if you will. General Mattis for Prince Charles. He will assume all responsibilities and eventually be King.


----------



## Kaldak (Aug 15, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I'd like to present a trade, if you will. General Mattis for Prince Charles. He will assume all responsibilities and eventually be King.



And give up a national treasure? 

Trade deeeclined!


----------



## Dame (Aug 15, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I'd like to present a trade, if you will. General Mattis for Prince Charles. He will assume all responsibilities and eventually be King.


:-/ Back off Kiwi. He's ours!


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 16, 2017)

Ok I'll throw in William + family too. Harry is off the table.


----------



## Frank S. (Aug 16, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Ok I'll throw in William + family too. Harry is off the table.



Give us Rambro and he's yours.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 16, 2017)

Frank S. said:


> Give us Rambro and he's yours.



No deal. He is an integral part of the "stay behind" defence system for when the Yanks come. Erm, I mean the Chinese!


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 16, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Ok I'll throw in William + family too. Harry is off the table.



I had to hate because Harry is probably the only guy younger than me that I'd willingly put out for in a heartbeat.  He's level headed, AND an Apache pilot.  Fuck yeah that's a panty dropper.  No Harry?  No deal.  He could be in the same class as the Warrior Monk in a few years.  He'd never exceed Mattis, but he'd come close.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 16, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> I had to hate because Harry is probably the only guy younger than me that I'd willingly put out for in a heartbeat.  He's level headed, AND an Apache pilot.  Fuck yeah that's a panty dropper.  No Harry?  No deal.  He could be in the same class as the Warrior Monk in a few years.  He'd never exceed Mattis, but he'd come close.



I get where you're coming from. William, though, is also a pilot and a big dick rescue pilot at that. Charles, well, he's just in the mix to get of him.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 16, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I get where you're coming from. William, though, is also a pilot and a big dick rescue pilot at that. Charles, well, he's just in the mix to get of him.



I'd have to think about Wills.  He's grounded, but he's also got his father's bald spot (bless his heart).  Rescue pilots are pretty big dick shit, but they aren't their own gender here in the states.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 16, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> I'd have to think about Wills.  He's grounded, but he's also got his father's bald spot (bless his heart).  Rescue pilots are pretty big dick shit, but they aren't their own gender here in the states.



We'll reconvene in a few weeks.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 16, 2017)

Fair enough, I'll be patient.


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2017)

This is Harry's girlfriend. He wins. Hands down. Why is this a discussion, right @SpongeBob*24?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 16, 2017)

Except that Mattis would just show up in his old blues and it'd be game over single Harry.



racing_kitty said:


> I'd have to think about Wills.  He's grounded, but he's also got his father's bald spot (bless his heart).  Rescue pilots are pretty big dick shit, but they aren't their own gender here in the states.



They are.

It's called the Coast Guard.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 16, 2017)

Prince Harry is a pimp.

Mattis would fuck him up though.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 16, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Ok I'll throw in William + family too. Harry is off the table.



Who gave the Hobbits any decision making power in the Commonwealth?  Go back to your hamster wheel and let the grown ups talk.  You're all nothing but a bunch if failed Aussies anyway. :-":-"


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 16, 2017)

I think I hear America Lite speaking.


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 16, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I think I hear America Lite speaking.



says Australia Lite


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 16, 2017)

Woah! Canada'a arsehole can speak!


----------



## medicchick (Aug 16, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I get where you're coming from. William, though, is also a pilot and a big dick rescue pilot at that. Charles, well, he's just in the mix to get of him.


He's a co-pilot, never got rated to fly solo.  His last "job" as a medivac pilot they had to buy a new helicopter since everyone else flys solo.  You can keep him and his do nothing (except flash bare bits at war memorials) wife.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 16, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Woah! Canada'a arsehole can speak!



That's rich coming from Australia's syphilitic sore. :-":troll:


----------



## Gunz (Aug 16, 2017)




----------



## Devildoc (Aug 16, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> I'd like to present a trade, if you will. General Mattis for Prince Charles. He will assume all responsibilities and eventually be King.



Negative, Ghostrider.  We don't do "royalty" in 'Merca.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 16, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Negative, Ghostrider.  We don't do "royalty" in 'Merca.



Just old fashioned nepotism. :-"


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 16, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Just old fashioned nepotism. :-"



Hey, nepotism is the American way!  The bluebloods, however, are a no-go at this station....


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 16, 2017)

Well this thread took a left turn...

Secretary of War Jim 'Mad-Dog' Mattis, is not some cheap hookers to be traded around to our funny speaking brethren. No deal.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 31, 2017)

Semper Fi, General.  Semper Fi.

A Reporter Asked Mattis Why He Continues To Serve Trump. His Response Was Perfect


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 1, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Semper Fi, General.  Semper Fi.
> 
> A Reporter Asked Mattis Why He Continues To Serve Trump. His Response Was Perfect
> 
> View attachment 19570



Savage Level 100.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 20, 2018)

I have to wonder if every once in a while....he flips on YouTube and watches this....


----------



## Dame (Jun 21, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I have to wonder if every once in a while....he flips on YouTube and watches this....
> ]



I think about this scene every morning while I read the secdef report.
"No check that. Not your dick, _my_ dick."


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 21, 2018)

Word on the street is he has been busy lately running around OEF dressed up like SAS killing people with nail guns and claw hammers.....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 21, 2018)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Word on the street is he has been busy lately running around OEF dressed up like SAS killing people with nail guns and claw hammers.....



Bloody brilliant. 

As much as I try to keep up, I am still often awed by the sheer wit of some of our members.


----------



## DasBoot (Jun 21, 2018)

Ive seriously been considering getting a Mattis tattoo. For real. All homo.


----------



## digrar (Jun 22, 2018)

medicchick said:


> He's a co-pilot, never got rated to fly solo.  His last "job" as a medivac pilot they had to buy a new helicopter since everyone else flys solo.  You can keep him and his do nothing (except flash bare bits at war memorials) wife.



His squadron had flown Sea Kings for 20 something years (cockpit crew of 2), up until the unit was stood down. He was a co pilot and then qualified as an operational captain in 2012 which made him qualified to be the Pilot.


----------



## medicchick (Jun 23, 2018)

digrar said:


> His squadron had flown Sea Kings for 20 something years (cockpit crew of 2), up until the unit was stood down. He was a co pilot and then qualified as an operational captain in 2012 which made him qualified to be the Pilot.


Not for the medivac company which is what was referred to.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 23, 2018)

Medivac company? I was talking about the RAF.


----------



## digrar (Jun 23, 2018)

medicchick said:


> Not for the medivac company which is what was referred to.



You did too, my error. Although they ended up buying two of those two seaters, so they may have had more reasons for doing so than keeping the future King of England occupied.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 23, 2018)

I was under the impression they always had two pilots. Either way it doesn't lessen the fact that he was a rescue pilot and flew into, like, storms and shit.


----------



## AWP (Jun 24, 2018)

We're done soiling a thread about Darth Mattis by discussing the finer points of helicopter pilots in a developing nation.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 24, 2018)

Always bringing Florida into things.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 24, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> Always bringing Florida into things.


Pretty sure Mattis is from Eastern Washington.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 24, 2018)

That's gay...


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 24, 2018)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Pretty sure Mattis is from Eastern Washington.



Pretty sure that wasn't the point of my bad joke.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 24, 2018)

AWP said:


> We're done soiling a thread about Darth Mattis by discussing the finer points of helicopter pilots in a developing nation.



I've already broken at least one commandment regarding The General. (that whole thing about not having no other idols or something....)  

So....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 24, 2018)




----------



## Grunt (Jun 24, 2018)

Long live Chaos......


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 2, 2018)

Do you want a Civil War?  Because this is how you get a Civil War....

Two envelopes containing ricin are intercepted at the Pentagon | Daily Mail Online

Two envelopes addressed Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson have tested positive for ricin after being intercepted at the Pentagon, according to officials.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 2, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Do you want a Civil War?  Because this is how you get a Civil War....
> 
> Two envelopes containing ricin are intercepted at the Pentagon | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Two envelopes addressed Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson have tested positive for ricin after being intercepted at the Pentagon, according to officials.



That's _NOT _where I intended them to go.  My bad.

Seriously, that's no bueno....


----------



## Box (Oct 2, 2018)

What in the ever loving fuck is wrong with people these days?


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 2, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> You want a Civil War?  Because this is how you get a Civil War....
> 
> Two envelopes containing ricin are intercepted at the Pentagon | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Two envelopes addressed Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson have tested positive for ricin after being intercepted at the Pentagon, according to officials.


Guess the Chinese are pissed over freedom of navigation exercises.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 2, 2018)

DA SWO said:


> Guess the Chinese are pissed over freedom of navigation exercises.



Sadly I am more of the belief it was likely sent from "one of us".


----------



## Grunt (Oct 2, 2018)

People should beware lest they "stir the hive" up and get something they don't want.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 2, 2018)

Is Shannon Richardson out of prison? That was her MO re Obama. Maybe she's defected to the Democrats.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Oct 2, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Do you want a Civil War?  Because this is how you get a Civil War....
> 
> Two envelopes containing ricin are intercepted at the Pentagon | Daily Mail Online



As long as when the time comes ShadowSpear has a thread for rally/rendezvous points. 

I'm not trying to take over half of Ohio on my own over here...


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Oct 2, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


>




Ok, not to fuck up a good thread but...



That was an Army General's quote.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 2, 2018)

BlackSmokeRisinG said:


> That was an Army General's quote.



My advice within this thread....


----------



## digrar (Oct 2, 2018)




----------



## Grunt (Oct 2, 2018)

Meh...I don't care if Winnie the Pooh said it...it's true!


----------



## Topkick (Oct 2, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> My advice within this thread....



Come on, you Marines can have all the good crayons but you can't have this.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 2, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Come on, you Marines can have all the good crayons but you can't have this.



Come on Top, there's no reason to get personal about this...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 2, 2018)

Topkick said:


> Come on, you Marines can have all the good crayons but you can't have this.


Hmmm...I have a response to this.  But first....

Have you voted yet?


----------



## Topkick (Oct 2, 2018)

Ah...a Marine well suited for politics. Ive voted so let's hear it.


----------



## Topkick (Oct 2, 2018)

Grunt said:


> Come on Top, there's no reason to get personal about this...


I'm a Cav Scout. So, I've probably taken more shit than a lot of Marines. It's all good.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 2, 2018)

Topkick said:


> I'm a Cav Scout.



Oh. Sorry.


----------



## digrar (Oct 3, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Hmmm...I have a response to this.  But first....
> 
> Have you voted yet?


----------



## AWP (Oct 3, 2018)

Mattis snorted ricin in college and mainlined ebola as a Platoon Commander. What do you hope to accomplish?


----------



## Teufel (Oct 3, 2018)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 19, 2018)

Update to the Ricin thing...More letters found in ricin case; Air Force secretary also targeted


----------

