Kraut783
SOF Support
It is odd, wonder what the history is behind it.
General Mattis is our new SECDEF
- Thread starter Teufel
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,827
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)
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.
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 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.
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.
M.
Devildoc
Verified Military
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
Verified Military
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.
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
I guess she doesn't understand what "retirement" means?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,827
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
Verified Military
It's definitely a fixer upper, but I think I could flip it for profit off some new A1C.
Never has this clip been more appropriate
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,661
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
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,587
T
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,827
@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
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.
Last edited:
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,661
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.
Last edited:
