The picks are getting interesting...

Thoughts?

dag hammarsjkold wrote:The picks are getting interesting...

Thoughts?

I think he's doing great. In fact, I know he is because Democrats are pulling their hair out and he's staying away from microphones.

Regardless of whether Gen. Mattis is a good choice, is it a good idea to violate the US Code to appoint him as SecDef?

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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/113

He only left the Marines in 2013.

danivon wrote:Regardless of whether Gen. Mattis is a good choice, is it a good idea to violate the US Code to appoint him as SecDef?

No, it's a terrible idea. Civilians need to be in charge of the military in the US, that's how it's done. The military serves the people, you certainly don't want it the other way around!

If Mattis left the military in 2013, isn't he a civilian?

I am enjoying civilian life since I retired... (stress the CIVILIAN)

bbauska wrote:If Mattis left the military in 2013, isn't he a civilian?

I am enjoying civilian life since I retired... (stress the CIVILIAN)

Did you read the excerpt from the US Code that I quoted? Only your answer suggests not. To be appointed to the post of Secretary of Defense, someone has to have been out of a commissioned active military role for seven years.

Not three-and-a-half years.

Only once has this been waived - for Marshall in 1950. The circumstances there were:

1) the post was new, having been created in 1947
2) his two predecessors had failed to get the new department working well (not necessarily their own faults)
3) the Korean War was on

And Marshall lasted only a single year in post, and the issue of McArthur was complicated by the very question of whether there was civilian oversight of the military.

So, bbauska, are you making an exception to your usual stance of upholding the law?

I missed the 7 year timeframe. He should not be allowed.

I am not trying to say this SHOULD be waived, but an argument could certainly be made.
It HAS been waived before
We ARE in a state of war in Afghanistan, terrorism, Syria is a powder keg, Iraq is a powder keg, etc

You could make a good argument why it might be a good idea to waive this yet again. (I would not)

I read a piece in the Sunday Times the other day by Niall Ferguson, who while broadly conservative by UK standards is effectively one of the liberal elite that Trump's entire campaign was built around opposition to. He was positively glowing in his assessment of Mattis. Reckons it's far and away the best decision Trump has made. He even compared him, not entirely light heartedly, to some kind of modern day Marcus Aurelius. I'm obviously not in a position to comment, not knowing the man at all, but it's an interesting assessment from a man who knows the American scene very well and who's been very critical of Trump in the past.

I think it could be a shrewd move. Trump's foreign policy positions have been, if not isolationist then certainly leaning towards a withdrawal from direct military intervention in the various global quagmires in favour of cutting deals with the likes of Russia and China. This may well turn out to be a good thing for the world, but it can only work if there's a credible threat of military force behind it. Having a man like Mattis in charge of Defence provides that credibility. It means that when Trump comes to negotiate he doesn't come from a position of weakness, like Obama has done so frequently.

Niall Ferguson is a worse idiot than Donald Trump. Being a good imperialist of course he is going to like Mattis. His book about WWI was nauseating in its revisionism, trying to steer blame away from Germany and saying England was to blame. England was to blame for isolating Germany and basically forced Germany to start the war because it was surrounded, according to him. And if England had stayed out Germany would have won but it would have been better because there would have been no Lenin or Hitler. He thinks England intervening in WWI was an enormous error. Realpolitik ala Henry Kissinger. Complete and utter rubbish.

Of course it was an error because he thinks that this was the downfall of the British Empire, which he would probably welcome back if he could. He is also a big fan of American imperialism and is doing an authorized biography of Henry Kissinger (of course, Mr. Realpolitik himself!)He's made a lot of money clapping his hands at how superior the West is without showing any sense that he understands that the people on the other side of it might not have been too happy about it. He could turn a utilitarian into a deontologist from the shock at seeing his extreme utilitarianism.

I wouldn't trust anything he says.

England was in fact responsible for MUCH (certainly not all) of Germany's financial woes that brought about WWII. England was also instrumental in breaking apart the Fatherland that they wished to reunite.
It was not all England's fault and Germany certainly is not blameless, but yeah, England forced it along no doubt.

I think we are talking about different wars. And I disagree with placing blame on England for WWII (if that's your contention). Germany was primarily responsible for starting WWI, the Treaty of Versailles was an inevitable result after more than a million French and English soldiers died in the war (in fact, Germany made peace with Russia on more harsh terms and had it as its war aims annexation of territor and it also took Alsace and Lorraine from France in 1870 and imposed a war indemnity in a prior war) so it had no grounds for complaining about a harsh peace treaty when they lost.

Germany created its own problems before WWI by building a powerful navy, a move inevitably antagonizing Great Britain whose national security and trade with its colonies depended on command of the sea. Germany's militarism and desire to dominate the continent drove France and Russia together. It also drove France and England to start military cooperation about bringing a BEF over in the event of war, even though there was no firm commitment. No other power had such expansionist aims (these were explicitly stated in September 1914 as being taking Frrnch territory and turning Belgium into a vassal state). Their Schlieffen plan called for a 40 day assault on France and they had detailed plans on how to mobilize their army and had systematic plans to use their railroads to ship their army to the front. Their leaders attempted prior to the war to intimidate Belgium into allowing free passage through Belgium. (Incidentally the German military counted on England coming into the war but discounted their military so the idea that English ambiguity about assisting France as a cause of the war is baseless too). If Germany was so afraid of war they could have easily put pressure on Austria to make more reasonable demands on Austria; instead, they gave Austria a free hand to punish Serbia. Germany was ready for war.

And Ferguson sits there and says it would have been a much better decision to abandon Belgium and France. Yes, the cost was ghastly but it would have been an amoral, cowardly act to abandon France, Belgium and who knows what other country to German domination. England essentially prevented (with a lot of US help but if England did not act later intervention by the US in both WWI and WWII would not have mattered) German domination of Europe in both WWI and WWII, a feat to be proud of and not apologize for.

Things like honor, courage, doing the right thing--they don't mean anything to Ferguson.It's just actions that makes things better in the long run. Actually, I don't think England staying out of WWI would have been better in the long run in any case. Ferguson has said while the Apache and Navajo had a lot of admirable traits but we don't know what they are because they were not literate they did not write them down but we do know they killed a lot of bison and left to their own devices they would not have created the civilization that there is in North America. Just crass, unfeeling comments about the dispossession and subjugation of the people who lived here before Europeans arrived.

How this guy keeps getting paid to spout his drivel is beyond me. Well, of course, he defends capitalism, the superiority of the West and the good coming from colonialism to the hilt so I guess you have the answer.

yep, I misread the I vs II
England played a big role in WW TWO starting up but no, WW ONE they had very little to do with that.
..we agree!!

freeman3 wrote:Niall Ferguson is a worse idiot than Donald Trump. Being a good imperialist of course he is going to like Mattis.

I think you've misread Mattis. He is as close to "fight only when necessary" as we have ever had at Defense. He is of the stripe of avoiding "optional" wars. However, he believes if we have to fight, we fight to kill the other side. In other words, no more fighting on politically-correct terms.

He is no armchair general, which is why the troops love him. He sleeps on the floor--or wherever they are. He is of them and for them, and they know it.

Should he get a waiver? Yes. Even many Democrats acknowledge this is a good pick. Plus, we do have a real need to put someone with knowledge there. Not only is Trump clueless, but the previous Administration used the military as a petri dish for social experimentation. The military exists to protect the US, and not to make liberals feel good about their social views. It's time to get rid of the rubbish and get back to the basics.

I was more focused on Ferguson than Mattis, but some of the quotes in the following article indicate he is pretty sharp, that he has an overall well-thought out strategic vision.
http://www.politico.com/states/californ ... are-107793

His "mad-dog" quotes I would hope are just Marine Corp bravado, which is fine. As long as there is a big brain behind the bravado.

I am not sure that there is that big of a deal between a 3 and 7 year hiatus as long as the person is permanently out of the military. That would be more important to me. Is someone who is out of the military for 7 years less a part of the military than someone out 3 years? Maybe.