I trust that you all know already that the Fuhrer has appointed Mad Dog Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense, and that Mattis has not yet been separated from the military for the seven years required to hold that post. My gut instinct is to oppose the appointment, but I wonder. Is Mad Dog such a bad dog?
Several Democratic lawmakers are raising concerns about Congress passing legislation to allow retired Marine Gen. James N. Mattis to be secretary of defense so soon after taking off his military uniform. But President Obama’s former defense secretary Leon Panetta believes Mattis should get the waiver and the job, he told me in an interview.
“It’s important that the Congress in the process of providing that waiver makes sure that Jim Mattis understands that he has to play a role not just on the military side but also on the civilian side. I think he does,” Panetta told me on the sidelines of the Reagan National Defense Forum on Saturday.
Panetta also said the 1947 law mandating that a defense secretary be out of uniform for 10 years — later changed to seven — was “arbitrary” and was crafted in a different era when generals had a singular role as war fighters, whereas today’s generals have more diverse roles…
From <Washington Post>
Both Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow had segments about the appointment.
I agree with Phyllis Bennis about the importance of the principle of civilian control of the media. I agree with Jeremy Bash that Mattis is a well-qualified military manager. He is also opposed to Trump on torture, Syria, and Russia.
If as waiver for Mattis is to be approved, it needs to be approved to be done openly with congressional hearings and debate. Sneaking it through in a continuing resolution is sleazy! In other words, it’s Republican.
In addition, given the Fuhrer’s penchant for ignoring and breaking rules, caving-in to it sets a bad precedent. On the other hand, while I don’t like Mattis at all, he is the most qualified and least objectionable of all the Fuhrer’s appointees to date. He would oppose Flynn, aka General Ripper, by representing at least some honor and decency. If he is rejected, God only knows what the Fuhrer might appoint next.
I’m still undecided on this one, but I hope this helps clarify the issues.
13 Responses to “Is Mad Dog Such a Bad Dog?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
To date, Trump has announced picks of retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for Secretary of Defense, retired Marine Gen. John Kelly for Secretary of Homeland Security, and retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn for National Security Advisor.
Those are all positions that historically have been occupied by people with only civilian backgrounds. THAT is what is concerning for me. Way too many military folks as advisor to Trump.
As the old saying goes, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Speaking as a veteran, I certainly agree in principle with SoINeedAName. (Amusing, I hope, story – in 2008, I received an email from some Reublican veteran who was "concerned" that Obama had no military experience [as opposed to McCain], so how could he be the Commander in Chief? I replied to the effect that the Founders had in mind civilian control of the military for various reasons, so no, I wasn't in the least concerned. I added that, if he felt that strongly about the extent and quality of military experience for the Commender in Chief, I presumed he had voted for Kerry in 2004? Do I even need to say that I never heard another word from him?)
However, Leon Panetta has a point. If Mattis is not confirmed, who will he appoint instead? I think I might prefer Mattis to, say, Cheney. I don't know the answer either.
(Actually, as a former Marine, the last former Marine general I could have whole-heartedly supported as Secretary of Defense was Gen. Smedley D. Butler. Bot he's dead.)
I'm not sure, I have a 'wait and see attitude', with Mattis. I'm siding with what Ms. Bennis stated, we don't need any more wars!
Though, he does bring experience to the table, but will see how Congress defines this.
I tend to agree with Ms. Bennis. I also agree with Nameless. Too many military men are being appointed by a man who all ready asks if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them> I don't expect much resistance from Congress. The Republicans have a majority in both houses, and we have too few Democrats with the guts to stand up and fight.
Stand with Sen. Gillibrand: Tell Democrats to filibuster waiver for Gen. Mattis
Civilian control of the military is a bedrock foundation of any democracy, and it’s more important than ever to uphold it now that we have a president-elect dead set on eroding constitutional norms. Filibuster the waiver that Gen. James Mattis would need in order to serve as secretary of defense.
https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/petitions/stand-with-sen-gillibrand-tell-democrats-to-oppose-a-waiver-for-gen-mattis
Additional note: IMO, these two organizations, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland, give Drumpf the power for a military coup should he want to take over the country prior to 2020 elections which he may/will lose and eventually hand it off to his children. Remember that these two organizations have been under civilian oversight. Now, Drumpf wants to have military men taking both of them over. No, this is not a conspiracy theory, just thinking out loud. lol.
29 Largest Armies In The World
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/29-largest-armies-in-the-world.html
The 11 Most Powerful Militaries In The World
http://www.businessinsider.com/11-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2014-4
.
"Is Mad Dog such a bad dog?" — He's a Republican! Enough said. Anyone who says he enjoys killing does not have my respect.
I tend to agree with Bennis. There nothing to say that a civilian cannot understand the military, military policy and strategy. The government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people", not solely the military.
Thanks TC. Sorry I've been absent again – I keep getting increasingly bad waves of nausea – the latest lasted (vilely) for more than 12 hours – however I may have found the reason and a solution, but it will take several weeks to be sure – this morning's only lasted 3 hours!. Onwards and upwards as CS Lewis put it!
I bow to other's knowledge of General Mattis – but I have to agree that the founding fathers did envisage civilian control of all of their branches of government – not that that would influence Trump in any way shape or form – I said he'd change the rules currently governing military staff and government appointments, and he is. I only hope that if Trump does try and press the nuclear trigger that the chiefs of the armed forces can stand up to him and have cooler heads – God help us all.
I hope you find the cause and a solution for your prolonged bouts of nausea, Pat. Feeling nauseous is so debilitating Take care and feel better soon.
Pat, I sure hope and pray you feel better.
There are a lot of reasons for not allowing Drumpf to appoint Mad Dog Mattis to serve as secretary of defense. Nameless already mentioned that there would be far too many ex-military men in the cabinet (three, including Mattis) and Mattis is only just out of uniform too boot, needing a waver to appoint him. But personally I'm rather suspicious of Drumpf picking Mattis for this position. Most here think the choice could be worse because Mattis opposes Drumpf on some campaign issues (torture, Syria, Russia and even Iran, I believe?), but shouldn't that very fact raise some alarm? Until now Drumpf has only appointed the the worst, people who agreed with him outright or were willing to turn coat juist to get the job. Could the latter be the case for Mattis too?
Or is this an imitation of Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Scalia in SCOTUS, a nominee Republicans couldn't possibly find fault with, but wouldn't hear or confirm anyway just because Obama nominated him? Is Mattis just a decoy to keep Democrats occupied while Drumpf is ushering the rest of his cabinet in?
I don't think he's a decoy. I think Trump tapped an honorable man by accidident and is too vain to admit it.
I oppose in consideration of Nameless' logic, but I'll feel damn foolish, if we end up with a Putin puppy, who loves torture instead.