General Mattis is our new SECDEF

[Ooh-Rah]

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.

 

[Deleted member 2517]

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]

@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]

@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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.