Jim Mattis

[keefe]

One of the finest men ever to wear an American uniform.

Every warrior I know would follow that man through the gates of hell to defend this nation.

 

[HouWarrior]

Mathis boasts an impressive record, as a soldier.

What will be interesting/groundbreaking here is that the Secretary of Defense job (f/k/a Secretary of War) has lined up with our tradition of "civilian" military control ...... by our Secretary almost always being a civilian.

In fact...
Have we ever had a sitting general named as Secretary of Defense?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Mathis boasts an impressive record, as a soldier.

What will be interesting/groundbreaking here is that the Secretary of Defense job (f/k/a Secretary of War) has lined up with our tradition of "civilian" military control ...... by our Secretary almost always being a civilian.

In fact...
Have we ever had a sitting general named as Secretary of Defense?

I assume no on sitting general as there is a rule about civilian control and the number of years one needs to be out of the military to qualify.  NPR reported though that Mattis won't be the first to get a waiver (George Marshall).

[Babybluejeans]

What is the point of this thread? Sounds like a good guy though: https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/politics/green-beret-accuses-gen-mattis-leaving-men-die-article-1.2896433?client=safari

[keefe]

What is the point of this thread? Sounds like a good guy though: https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/politics/green-beret-accuses-gen-mattis-leaving-men-die-article-1.2896433?client=safari

I have worked for Mattis twice and he is honorable and lives the warrior ethos. Mattis and Petraeus collectively rewrote our approach to low intensity warfare and engineered a profoundly effective COIN strategy. Brilliant man.

 

[jsglow]

And simply having the President be able to say 'Knock if off or I'll have to turn this over to Mad Dog!' will have the bad guys quaking in their boots.

[Babybluejeans]

I have worked for Mattis twice and he is honorable and lives the warrior ethos. Mattis and Petraeus collectively rewrote our approach to low intensity warfare and engineered a profoundly effective COIN strategy. Brilliant man.

Ah, yes, Petraeus. The Honorable One *proven* to have compromised classified emails. Good guy too.

[jesmu84]

http://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/1/13718282/pentagon-jim-mad-dog-mattis-trump-iran-hawk-russia-secretary-of-defense-general

[WellsstreetWanderer]

The guy is the real deal. just read where he once volunteered for duty so  a  Major could spend the Holiday with his family.

[forgetful]

One of the finest men ever to wear an American uniform.

Every warrior I know would follow that man through the gates of hell to defend this nation.

 

I agree with this analysis.

[keefe]

And simply having the President be able to say 'Knock if off or I'll have to turn this over to Mad Dog!' will have the bad guys quaking in their boots.

glow

Mattis not only understands the operational art of warfare but he lives it at the tactical level. Unlike many, however, he has a keen understanding of the strategic dimensions and that is what sets him apart.

Mattis is a hawk but he has a visceral awareness of what can happen, does happen, and must happen when you send young men and women into harm's way.

Mad Dog was forced to retire because he knew that a policy of asking warriors to risk everything without a clearly defined strategy and the requisite support to ensure success was immoral. In essence he told the truth and some people didn't like the message. 

[forgetful]

Mad Dog was forced to retire because he knew that a policy of asking warriors to risk everything without a clearly defined strategy and the requisite support to ensure success was immoral. In essence he told the truth and some people didn't like the message.

I agree with you on almost everything in this thread, but here you are wrong.  He was forced to retire, because of his views on Iran.  He wanted to go into Iran and do regime change, he didn't want any diplomatic solution, because he didn't trust Iran.

He pushed his hawkish agenda by pointing out every possible long term risk without a non-war solution.  The people in charge did not want another directionless war of regime change.  They wanted a diplomatic solution.

You are sugarcoating the story.  Maybe Mattis is right, he's a brilliant, honorable man, but his dismissal had nothing to do with asking "warriors to risk everything without a clearly defined strategy."  It had everything to do with his hawkish stance re. Iran.

[keefe]

I agree with you on almost everything in this thread, but here you are wrong.  He was forced to retire, because of his views on Iran.  He wanted to go into Iran and do regime change, he didn't want any diplomatic solution, because he didn't trust Iran.

He pushed his hawkish agenda by pointing out every possible long term risk without a non-war solution.  The people in charge did not want another directionless war of regime change.  They wanted a diplomatic solution.

You are sugarcoating the story.  Maybe Mattis is right, he's a brilliant, honorable man, but his dismissal had nothing to do with asking "warriors to risk everything without a clearly defined strategy."  It had everything to do with his hawkish stance re. Iran.

I will grant you that the public justification for his being relieved was his view on Iran. But there is far more to that narrative.

Let me first say that I have been to Iran. And many of my colleagues have been to Iran. And when we made those trips bad things stopped happening to our people in Iraq. Under a different COCOM and CinC decisions were made on realpolitik. When a new CinC came in we stopped a very effective military operation that prevented the flow of arms, technology, money, and insurgents from Iran into Iraq. And when we stopped those operations the death toll went back up - especially among Iraqi Sunnis.

Iran is a threat to the USA. I know this first hand. The mullahs are not our friends and they never will be.

Current policy has been to use air power to deconflict targets on a very limited basis. My former men, TACPs, go into harm's way to carry out their mission. When we hear of a bad guy getting schwacked in Libya, Yemen, Syria, etc... it is because there are TACPs calling in those strikes.

Now, eliminating bad guys who do terrible things to innocent people is a good thing. But whenever you send men into combat it must be part of an overall coherent strategy. To do otherwise is immoral. Brave men will do their duty but they must know that there is a rational end game.

And if we can send men into Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc why can we not send men into Iran...especially when that last actor is the worst offender?

Guys I trained, men who wear Ranger tabs, warriors I went into combat with are thrilled with the nomination of Jim Mattis to be Sec Def. Because they know to their very core that Mattis will never allow his people to be sent into harm's way without a coherent strategy. And they know that bad guys are bad guys - regardless of passport.

And one thing I will say from first hand knowledge - Iran is not our friend. They hate the US, its institutions, our culture, our freedoms. They can and will do anything to hurt us, harm us, humiliate us, and destroy us.

I have personally killed Quds and would do so again in a heart beat. These are evil, nasty, vicious immoral animals who prey on the unarmed, the helpless, and the weak. And they do this in the name of God. 

[Tugg Speedman]

I assume no on sitting general as there is a rule about civilian control and the number of years one needs to be out of the military to qualify.  NPR reported though that Mattis won't be the first to get a waiver (George Marshall).

The 1947 law limiting the Defense Secretary to someone out of the military for 7 years is clearly unconstitutional.

The constitution says the president gets to name his cabinet and the only constraint is a sitting member of congress cannot also be a cabinet member.  By passing this law congress effectively amended the constitution without going through the proper procedures.  Congress knew this was a bogus rule which is why three years after passing it (1950) they approved George Marshall as Defense Secretary.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442736/general-mattis-defense-secretary-waiver-congress-unconstitutional-donald-trump

I think this is correct and this entire waiver discussion is irrelevant.

[jsglow]

That actually makes a lot of sense.  Why would Congress have the right to restrict the Chief Executives advisors other than the standard advise and consent.  Wonder why the law was written?

[HouWarrior]

The 1947 law limiting the Defense Secretary to someone out of the military for 7 years is clearly unconstitutional.

The constitution says the president gets to name his cabinet and the only constraint is a sitting member of congress cannot also be a cabinet member.  By passing this law congress effectively amended the constitution without going through the proper procedures.  Congress knew this was a bogus rule which is why three years after passing it (1950) they approved George Marshall as Defense Secretary.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442736/general-mattis-defense-secretary-waiver-congress-unconstitutional-donald-trump

I think this is correct and this entire waiver discussion is irrelevant.

Instead of reading someones web article as authority why not read the statute and let us know where you see unconstitutionality :
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/113

[Tugg Speedman]

Instead of reading someones web article as authority why not read the statute and let us know where you see unconstitutionality :
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/113

Why don't you read the article and its arguments than provide a link that was covered in the article?

Because reading the statue is not enough to determine its constitutionality.  One also needs to read the actual constitution and court opinions related to this statute.  Both are provided and discussed in the article.

Instead you saw the words "national review" in the link, probably had a physical revulsion because its grates against your political views, and then had to go all morally superior and condense me with your post.  You could not address the issue?

Its a shame you had to ruin this thread and get it locked for going political, I was enjoying it until now.

[Tugg Speedman]

That actually makes a lot of sense.  Why would Congress have the right to restrict the Chief Executives advisors other than the standard advise and consent.  Wonder why the law was written?

It was written after WW2 (1947) because congress wanted more civilian control on the armed forces.

That nearly that same congress (1950) waived its own rule for George Marshall.

[HouWarrior]

Why don't you read the article and its arguments than provide a link that was covered in the article?

Because reading the statue is not enough to determine its constitutionality.  One also needs to read the actual constitution and court opinions related to this statute.  Both are provided and discussed in the article.

Instead you saw the words "national review" in the link, probably had a physical revulsion because its grates against your political views, and then had to go all morally superior and condense me with your post.  You could not address the issue?

Its a shame you had to ruin this thread and get it locked for going political, I was enjoying it until now.

I already read your cited article and its liberal use of minority opinion dictum from a few very off point cases, all lacking in precedent value. The most honest article concession point was that; ..."The Supreme Court has not squarely decided this issue..." The article is merely one of opinion and effort of the author to sway us to his position....I determined to go back to the sources.

So ....I read the statute and shared it with you. I do not see any unconstitutionality (nor has Congress) in its text, 60 year history, or 15 plus amendments.

Where is the statute constitutionally infirm?

My.....Disagreeing with your point does not equal or merit your kind words, to wit:


....."Instead you saw the words "national review" in the link, probably had a physical revulsion because its grates against your political views, and then had to go all morally superior and condense me with your post.  You could not address the issue?

Its a shame you had to ruin this thread and get it locked for going political, I was enjoying it until now...."

You are better than this Heidelberg

[forgetful]

Why don't you read the article and its arguments than provide a link that was covered in the article?

Because reading the statue is not enough to determine its constitutionality.  One also needs to read the actual constitution and court opinions related to this statute.  Both are provided and discussed in the article.

Instead you saw the words "national review" in the link, probably had a physical revulsion because its grates against your political views, and then had to go all morally superior and condense me with your post.  You could not address the issue?

Its a shame you had to ruin this thread and get it locked for going political, I was enjoying it until now.

A couple things. 

1.  Your article has nothing to do with the law and no logic to why it would be unconstitutional.  Rather a man just plain claiming it is unconstitutional.

2.  Houwarrior provided the link to the statute to indicate that there is nothing in the statute that would be unconsitutional.  The law in 1947, created the position of the Secretary of Defense (it did not previously exist) and set the rules for the position and what authority the position will entail.  Both are wholly within the rights of congress.  The constitution allows (and specifies) that congress will create the laws for "appointments not otherwise provided for."  That is exactly the case for the secretary of defense. 

3.  The 1947 law had nothing to do with congress "wanting more civilian control of the armed forces," rather it had to do with wanting more organized control over all divisions of the military.  Civlilian control of the military is dictated specifically in the constitution.  If this was challenged, the supreme court would side with the fact that both the formation of the law and the stipulations of the law are consistent with the constitution.  The 1950 exception was unique and they indicated at the time that they never perceived needing to grant an exception in the future.  I hope (and believe they will) grant a waiver in this instance.

4.  Houwarrior did not make this political at all.  You posted about the constitutionality of the appointment and attacked him for posting the actual law.  Even then, the comments were not remotely political, but rather a discussion on the constitution and laws regarding appointment of a secretary of defense.

[vogue65]

I will grant you that the public justification for his being relieved was his view on Iran. But there is far more to that narrative.

Let me first say that I have been to Iran. And many of my colleagues have been to Iran. And when we made those trips bad things stopped happening to our people in Iraq. Under a different COCOM and CinC decisions were made on realpolitik. When a new CinC came in we stopped a very effective military operation that prevented the flow of arms, technology, money, and insurgents from Iran into Iraq. And when we stopped those operations the death toll went back up - especially among Iraqi Sunnis.

Iran is a threat to the USA. I know this first hand. The mullahs are not our friends and they never will be.

Current policy has been to use air power to deconflict targets on a very limited basis. My former men, TACPs, go into harm's way to carry out their mission. When we hear of a bad guy getting schwacked in Libya, Yemen, Syria, etc... it is because there are TACPs calling in those strikes.

Now, eliminating bad guys who do terrible things to innocent people is a good thing. But whenever you send men into combat it must be part of an overall coherent strategy. To do otherwise is immoral. Brave men will do their duty but they must know that there is a rational end game.

And if we can send men into Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc why can we not send men into Iran...especially when that last actor is the worst offender?

Guys I trained, men who wear Ranger tabs, warriors I went into combat with are thrilled with the nomination of Jim Mattis to be Sec Def. Because they know to their very core that Mattis will never allow his people to be sent into harm's way without a coherent strategy. And they know that bad guys are bad guys - regardless of passport.

And one thing I will say from first hand knowledge - Iran is not our friend. They hate the US, its institutions, our culture, our freedoms. They can and will do anything to hurt us, harm us, humiliate us, and destroy us.

I have personally killed Quds and would do so again in a heart beat. These are evil, nasty, vicious immoral animals who prey on the unarmed, the helpless, and the weak. And they do this in the name of God.

I think your case would be much stronger without all the claims to authority, your authority.
There are plenty of dead men on both sides who had lots of "warrior ethos".   Gung-ho, gung-ho, fu $$ing gung-ho ( I  cleaned it up ), that's an old USMC chant from Vietnam, now its, hu-rah, hu-rah, hu-rah.

I agree that the extreme hatred of Americans in the middle east is a very large problem, but there are also many europeans who also have strong negative feelings toward us, especially the young.  They have no loyalty or knowledge of our sacrifices during WWII or after, but they do recognise our destablizing policies in the recent past.

NATO is in jeaporty, probably a more significant problem than Iran.

In my opinion the National Security Advisor position is significantly more important than the Sec. of Defence in todays world.  And then we have the Joint Chiefs, lots of authority to go around.

[Tugg Speedman]

I already read your cited article and its liberal use of minority opinion dictum from a few very off point cases, all lacking in precedent value. The most honest article concession point was that; ..."The Supreme Court has not squarely decided this issue..." The article is merely one of opinion and effort of the author to sway us to his position....I determined to go back to the sources.

So ....I read the statute and shared it with you. I do not see any unconstitutionality (nor has Congress) in its text, 60 year history, or 15 plus amendments.

Where is the statute constitutionally infirm?

My.....Disagreeing with your point does not equal or merit your kind words, to wit:


....."Instead you saw the words "national review" in the link, probably had a physical revulsion because its grates against your political views, and then had to go all morally superior and condense me with your post.  You could not address the issue?

Its a shame you had to ruin this thread and get it locked for going political, I was enjoying it until now...."

You are better than this Heidelberg

Let's cut to the chase, what will the Senate do?

* ignore the law and 51 senators approve him and let the court decide?

* pass a waiver?

I think they ignore it.

[GGGG]

Let's cut to the chase, what will the Senate do?

* ignore the law and 51 senators approve him and let the court decide?

* pass a waiver?

I think they ignore it.

They will put a waiver in.  It's not like the House is going to deny it.

I mean why appoint and approve someone in violation of the law and then leave the door open to a needless lawsuit?  They have likely already discussed this issue and everyone is on board including Paul Ryan.

[jsglow]

I hope my comments aren't political.  I certainly don't intend then that way. Even the New York Times is singing the praises of Mattis.  He gets 80+ votes in the Senate for waiver/confirmation or both.  No Democratic Senator in a Red state wants that in a campaign ad in 18 months.

Which leads to a secondary interesting discussion I wish we could have without resorting to sides.  Seems like Trump is going to put Kellyanne in charge of what I'll call the 'national whip' team.  We saw the first example of this in Ohio.  As I said to chick, when big tough initiatives are working their way through Congress, he's going to fly into important states, hold a bunch of rallies, and pressure that states elected officials to go along.

There's going to have to be a new position created on the team... nickname writer. (lying Ted, little Marco, crooked Hillary) No pol is going to want to get a Trump nickname.  And mark my words, he'll hit Republicans too if he thinks it necessary.