Posted on 11/25/2016 10:50:43 AM PST by Future Snake Eater
Among those in the Marine Corps I taught and deployed with, Gen. (ret.) Jim Mattis is a legend. The quotes, the foxholes, the knife hands. Everyone has their favorite story. I once handed Mattis a Diet Coke out of a cooler at Quantico. A mundane act? Yes. But I’ve remembered it fondly for 12 years.
He is Chaos, Mad Dog, and the warrior monk. But we should not add secretary of defense to that list.
I have long thought of Mattis as a “break glass in case of emergency” type of leader. He was uniquely suited to his roles in the early years of the War on Terror. He is a warrior and a leader of men in the application of violence. He is not, however, a man for all seasons. Many in defense circles have been so overjoyed as the prospect of a qualified secretary, that they seemed to have forgotten to stop and ask if Mattis would, in fact, be right for the job. He is not a politician, or a wonk, or a bureaucrat. To ask him to be any of those things would be like trying to keep a wave upon the sand.
...
There are ultimately three primary reasons why we shouldn’t hope Chaos becomes secretary of defense.
1. Mattis a recently retired general and is therefore statutorily prohibited from serving as secretary of defense. And while a legislative solution is possible, this law exists for good reasons and overriding it bodes poorly for long-term civil-military relations.
2. Warfighters rarely make good bureaucrats. The Pentagon is one of the world’s largest bureaucracies, and Mattis has shown little patience for management and administration.
3. His boss won’t listen.
(Excerpt) Read more at warontherocks.com ...
I find his reasoning to be rather soft.
1) There's a regulatory limit on putting Mattis in? OK, well, that's easy to sidestep. Rule Number One in the military: Everything's waiverable.
2) Mattis' hatred of bureaucracy could bog him down to ineffectiveness, or it could also inspire him to blast through it and simplify some ridiculous processes. Not to mention that if anyone thinks generals don't have to deal with bureaucracy then they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
3) This is just a plain "I don't like Trump" reason. That's raw bias and useless as an argument.
Thanks Erin. Now f off
Is there something wrong with Diet Coke?
After wasting time looking over the long list of contributors and editors of this site and not finding any mention of “Erin Simpson”, I can’t imagine why I should care what she thinks about anything.
Is this our modern day Patton? If so, he has my vote for SECDEF.
Hey, Snowflake, I am glad he frightened you. He did not get 4 stars because he was a wild cowboy. He did so because he knows every aspect of his business. I want him to intimidate our enemies with the fear of the Mad Dog.
We don’t want a politician there and we certainly don’t have any need for patience with liberals after everything they’ve done. We need a true warrior with the will to destroy enemies. It’s time.
mine too.
Sgt wuterich actually did what Mattis said in the big talk “tears in my eyes” quote, and Mattis prosecuted him.
He also supports the Palestinians.
I like him better as Sec of State. Let him use all those books he read, 8000 at last count.
Best Friend or Worst Enemy sounds like a good new motto for the State Department.
Elections (and resultant ROE) matter.
We are, and have been in a "break glass in case of emergency" situation since Bambi took office.
It is hereby expressed as the intent of the Congress that the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approval by Congress of continuing appointments of military men to the office of Secretary of Defense in the future.
It is hereby expressed as the sense of the Congress that after General Marshall leaves the office of Secretary of Defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.
Based on this it seems to be saying that Congress did not ever want a military person in the SECDEF position. They don’t say anything about a time limit.
??
I really like that Cotton guy.
You can’t just put a ship level by straightening the wheel. You must counteract the inertia done during the turn. In other words, the sharp left turn we made must be followed by a right turn just to level out least for a period.
I very much respect Mattis as a warrior, greatly so!
I also would much prefer someone else in this role what with its policy-influencing aspects.
Just saying my view. I think Mattis could then be given a mission to lead up the utter, complete, and genuine destruction of ISIS (starting with cutting off Obama’s supply lines to them)
I bet Mattis could get the job done, and well, in less than 90 days. No messing around, no screwing around, no long land war in Asia, no ridiculous attempts at “nation building” just kill the demonic basturds and get out. Mission accomplished. For real.
Unfortunately, Mattis is seriously contaminated by his continuing seat on the BoD of the grossly fraudulent Theranos:
https://www.theranos.com/leadership/board-of-directors
His initial AND his continuing presence on this board shows EXTREMELY poor judgement. Personally, I wouldn’t want this old fool anywhere near the Pentagon (and before anyone here howls in rage at me, please take a close look at a few of the stories linked below):
https://www.google.com/search?q=theranos+mattis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=theranos+fraud&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=theranos+walgreens&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=theranos+walgreens&tbm=nws
https://www.google.com/search?q=theranos+lawsuits&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
President Trump should have a number of very capable people for Sec of Defense. He does not need to appoint this fellow(a great warrior but whose understanding of defense policy is, imho, worrisome).
just my 2 cents worth, and with today’s inflation that’s admittedly worth a lot less than it even sounds like..... ha!
I think President Trump has some excellent judgement and will, I hope, find someone more reassuring for this post.
I think there is an accepted informal 7 year from service time limit. But I agree that from the founding of DoD Congress did not wish a command military man as SecDef. A notion I agree with. The uniformed military is ably, ehh sometimes not, represented by the CJCS. We do not need to confuse the CoC by adding a career command level military man to the second highest rung in the CoC.
That’s nice......Trump won - he gets to pick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.