It is subtle by the standards of modern political discourse, yes. The clever juxtaposition of two paragraphs is nothing like a direct statement that fits on a CNN chyron.
In fact, I just checked CNN online and their breaking news banner is “Mattis resigns, says his views do not align with the President’s.” Does that have the same impact as “Mattis resigns, says the President is a dangerous lunatic”?
One of those is someone leaving the administration because they disagree with the administration. The other is a setup for a military coup. Id rather not do a military coup.
Also, While I'm saddened to see Mattis leaving I think people are asking a little much of an old soldier to openly shit on the president of the united states.
Frankly, I think it's going to be a couple of years before we realize just how much he's done to reign in the dangerous impulses of the Tang colored president.
Also, While I'm saddened to see Mattis leaving I think people are asking a little much of an old soldier to openly shit on the president of the united states.
Frankly, I think it's going to be a couple of years before we realize just how much he's done to reign in the dangerous impulses of the Tang colored president.
I really doubt it honestly. Like this feels like John Kelly all over again. People trying to lionize an "adult" in the room of the trump admin completely forgetting accepting a position Trump in the first place already says you aren't a fucking adult in the room.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Against who? The US has begun withdrawl from all of it's major armed conflicts and there isn't anyone who poses an actual threat to the US.
I mean, the obvious answer is Iran, but I'd like to think the chain of command would hesitate to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against them given that their is no casus belli that's relevant here.
I disagree; the senior advisor to the president on military matters should be someone who has a fundamental understanding of how the military functions and what it is capable of; otherwise you wind up with people who either grossly over estimate or underestimate the capabilities of the military as a whole.
For what it's worth, there is no chain of command with nuclear weapons. The whole idea of mutual assured destruction is that literally one person can immediately launch them.
There's nothing stopping a president from giving the order and refusal would lead top court martial. Unless someone relieves the president from power, which would be a coup and an act of treason.
I guess even with Mattis there no one could stop Trump from doing it, but definitely one less guy in the room telling him it's not a good idea?
EDIT: @moniker thank you for explaining my error, I'll leave this up to be suitably mocked.
Against who? The US has begun withdrawl from all of it's major armed conflicts and there isn't anyone who poses an actual threat to the US.
I mean, the obvious answer is Iran, but I'd like to think the chain of command would hesitate to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against them given that their is no casus belli that's relevant here.
I disagree; the senior advisor to the president on military matters should be someone who has a fundamental understanding of how the military functions and what it is capable of; otherwise you wind up with people who either grossly over estimate or underestimate the capabilities of the military as a whole.
For what it's worth, there is no chain of command with nuclear weapons. The whole idea of mutual assured destruction is that literally one person can immediately launch them.
There's nothing stopping a president from giving the order and refusal would lead top court martial. Unless someone relieves the president from power, which would be a coup and an act of treason.
I guess even with Mattis there no one could stop Trump from doing it, but definitely one less guy in the room telling him it's not a good idea?
Protocol requires confirmation of the order by SecDef to launch.
Also, While I'm saddened to see Mattis leaving I think people are asking a little much of an old soldier to openly shit on the president of the united states.
Frankly, I think it's going to be a couple of years before we realize just how much he's done to reign in the dangerous impulses of the Tang colored president.
I really doubt it honestly. Like this feels like John Kelly all over again. People trying to lionize an "adult" in the room of the trump admin completely forgetting accepting a position Trump in the first place already says you aren't a fucking adult in the room.
Christ, thank you. It’s be great if we could stop lionizing and making excuses for people who voluntarily signed up to work with Trump. Consider everything that was obvious about Trump before the election, and then consider that a person consciously chose to go serve that.
If you wanted to reign it in, and we’re here? Either you’re comically inept or not all that opposed to what you’re seeing. And resigning in limp protest now doesn’t make good for silence during past terrible decisions. I don’t give a shit about what sparks fires in a corporate environment. We’re way the hell past that, and if Mattis can’t recognize that from his insider perch, then frankly, he’s fucking useless.
Edit: And somehow I have to reconcile the above with the fact that, yes, inevitably his successor will be worse.
Also, While I'm saddened to see Mattis leaving I think people are asking a little much of an old soldier to openly shit on the president of the united states.
Frankly, I think it's going to be a couple of years before we realize just how much he's done to reign in the dangerous impulses of the Tang colored president.
I really doubt it honestly. Like this feels like John Kelly all over again. People trying to lionize an "adult" in the room of the trump admin completely forgetting accepting a position Trump in the first place already says you aren't a fucking adult in the room.
Christ, thank you. It’s be great if we could stop lionizing and making excuses for people who voluntarily signed up to work with Trump. Consider everything that was obvious about Trump before the election, and then consider that a person consciously chose to go serve that.
Could be that they were more thinking they were serving "The Republican Party" who could keep Trump under control.
Against who? The US has begun withdrawl from all of it's major armed conflicts and there isn't anyone who poses an actual threat to the US.
I mean, the obvious answer is Iran, but I'd like to think the chain of command would hesitate to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against them given that their is no casus belli that's relevant here.
I disagree; the senior advisor to the president on military matters should be someone who has a fundamental understanding of how the military functions and what it is capable of; otherwise you wind up with people who either grossly over estimate or underestimate the capabilities of the military as a whole.
Fucking Central American caravaners for all I know. A dangerously unstable lunatic whose psyche is under attack from sixteen different directions is the president of the United States.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Also, While I'm saddened to see Mattis leaving I think people are asking a little much of an old soldier to openly shit on the president of the united states.
Frankly, I think it's going to be a couple of years before we realize just how much he's done to reign in the dangerous impulses of the Tang colored president.
I really doubt it honestly. Like this feels like John Kelly all over again. People trying to lionize an "adult" in the room of the trump admin completely forgetting accepting a position Trump in the first place already says you aren't a fucking adult in the room.
Christ, thank you. It’s be great if we could stop lionizing and making excuses for people who voluntarily signed up to work with Trump. Consider everything that was obvious about Trump before the election, and then consider that a person consciously chose to go serve that.
If you wanted to reign it in, and we’re here? Either you’re comically inept or not all that opposed to what you’re seeing. And resigning in limp protest now doesn’t make good for silence during past terrible decisions. I don’t give a shit about what sparks fires in a corporate environment. We’re way the hell past that, and if Mattis can’t recognize that from his insider perch, then frankly, he’s fucking useless.
Edit: And somehow I have to reconcile the above with the fact that, yes, inevitably his successor will be worse.
If your option is to either step up and work for a horrible boss to keep him from fucking everything up or standing aside so that some yes man will blithely agree to endanger the well being of countless millions where do you stand?
I remember something about the people in the active military Trump picked out for his cabinet having to accept because the only way to refuse was to quit the military. Was Mattis active when picked?
I remember something about the people in the active military Trump picked out for his cabinet having to accept because the only way to refuse was to quit the military. Was Mattis active when picked?
That's exactly how Mattis joined, he couldn't refuse.
I remember something about the people in the active military Trump picked out for his cabinet having to accept because the only way to refuse was to quit the military. Was Mattis active when picked?
No, Mattis had retired several years before. However, there is a law which prohibits retired military from being SecDef until X (I think 5?) years after their retirement date, which Mattis had to be given special exemption from by congress. (this was not unique, there have been other SecDefs who got that exemption)
It is subtle by the standards of modern political discourse, yes. The clever juxtaposition of two paragraphs is nothing like a direct statement that fits on a CNN chyron.
In fact, I just checked CNN online and their breaking news banner is “Mattis resigns, says his views do not align with the President’s.” Does that have the same impact as “Mattis resigns, says the President is a dangerous lunatic”?
e: I may be wrong but Mattis may not legally be able to call the President a dangerous lunatic if Article 88 of the UCMJ (contemptuous language towards public officials) still applies to him as a retired officer
Dongs Galore on
+12
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
"The wheels may be coming off," said a conservative House Republican who supports Trump, commenting on the news about Mattis' departure at the end of February.
(From CNN)
That’s a hard paragraph to reconcile with any kind of sane reality.
Republicans are starting to treat this as a canary in the coal mine, ignoring that was 2 years ago, and this is more akin to a human person shouting ‘oh no! I am dying from inhaling all this noxious gas! It’s killing me! The gas I mean!’
Republicans: "It wasn't a crime" "Liberal Outrage" "He's the president" "I don't agree with what he said (but I'm not going to do anything about it.)" "I'd rather hop a fence than answer like a decent human being" etc. etc. etc.
Republicans know Trump is a fucking disaster. They've always known. They don't really care because they can't afford to care. There isn't going to be some new revelation that changes their minds: They put a man accused of rape on the Supreme Court for no other reason than because Trump wanted him there to save his ass. They'll eat shit for Trump all day, every day, because the alternative is to never win a primary ever again. There's a reason pretty much every single Republican critic either kissed the ring (Romney, Graham) or is getting the hell out of dodge after impotently tsk tsking the President for the last two years (Corker, Flake)
At best we get off-the-cuff visceral reactions before they figure out how to compartmentalize whatever latest atrocity.
You can tell who hasn't served by their reaction to Mattis' resignation letter. We are trained from day one how to respond to those above us. Mattis' letter was a massive fuck you to Trump in military speak, and would have gotten anyone not 06 and below shit-canned with loss of rank.
That letter was blatant as fuck, militarily speaking. Anyone who doesnt see that isnt military, and expecting more is asking Mattis to ignore damn near 50 years of military training to appease their world view on how to go out with both middle fingers blazing Arthur Morgan style.
Also, While I'm saddened to see Mattis leaving I think people are asking a little much of an old soldier to openly shit on the president of the united states.
Frankly, I think it's going to be a couple of years before we realize just how much he's done to reign in the dangerous impulses of the Tang colored president.
I really doubt it honestly. Like this feels like John Kelly all over again. People trying to lionize an "adult" in the room of the trump admin completely forgetting accepting a position Trump in the first place already says you aren't a fucking adult in the room.
Especially since the breaking point for Mattis was a good decision to not be involved in Syria's civil war. The administration has done a lot of bad shit and fucked over a lot of allies that could be a breaking point, but this one isn't really one of those things.
I’m not particularly optimistic about what happens now in Syria, but I can acknowledge that there really aren’t any good scenarios to expect.
But the writing was on the wall as to what motivated the decision by Trump, and was likely the cherry on the shit sandwich for Mattis. Ultimately he was just another delusional Republican thinking he could absolutely tame Trump, and everyone else who tried was just bad at it
You can tell who hasn't served by their reaction to Mattis' resignation letter. We are trained from day one how to respond to those above us. Mattis' letter was a massive fuck you to Trump in military speak, and would have gotten anyone not 06 and below shit-canned with loss of rank.
That letter was blatant as fuck, militarily speaking. Anyone who doesnt see that isnt military, and expecting more is asking Mattis to ignore damn near 50 years of military training to appease their world view on how to go out with both middle fingers blazing Arthur Morgan style.
This is both factually wrong and a pretty shitty play to authority to boot.
Mattis is, whatever else aside, smart enough to know roughly how much of a ripple different forms of resignation would make, and he chose a fairly quiet path in a very loud time.
You can tell who hasn't served by their reaction to Mattis' resignation letter. We are trained from day one how to respond to those above us. Mattis' letter was a massive fuck you to Trump in military speak, and would have gotten anyone not 06 and below shit-canned with loss of rank.
That letter was blatant as fuck, militarily speaking. Anyone who doesnt see that isnt military, and expecting more is asking Mattis to ignore damn near 50 years of military training to appease their world view on how to go out with both middle fingers blazing Arthur Morgan style.
This is both factually wrong and a pretty shitty play to authority to boot.
Mattis is, whatever else aside, smart enough to know roughly how much of a ripple different forms of resignation would make, and he chose a fairly quiet path in a very loud time.
That is certainly your interpretation of what happened.
I just want to point out that Mattis has set is resignation date as Feb 28th. Over three months away. I imagine that makes it hard for someone to actually fire Mattis before then.
Mattis has had a job to do this entire time. And that job has been "Don't let the madman push the nuke button that ends the world." Dead Hand is still around, and all that.
I'm sure I would have enjoyed Mattis being an outspoken critic of Trump. But then Mattis would get fired sooner rather than later, and only Trump's attention span would stand between him and the nukes. There's a lot of bad things that are better than breathing radioactive dust.
I'm not saying Mattis is perfect. I'm saying preventing nukes from flying is important. Also, there may be more to the story behind the scenes in some of these things.
I kinda wonder if Mattis won't be slow-rolling this withdrawal from Syria etc, on account of his resign date being so far away. Particularly, after the Democrats regain the House.
+4
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Either Mattis should stay around and stop the nukes, or he should resign in protest and hope to change things that way. Clearly he’s chosen to resign in protest; his protest is simply not as effective as it could have been.
His letter was not intended to make magapedes change their minds or make you feel good about sticking it to drumpf. He was talking to the ruling class.
His letter was not intended to make magapedes change their minds or make you feel good about sticking it to drumpf. He was talking to the ruling class.
Yes. He was making an empty gesture that lets him still play the game instead of being actually open and honest with the american people about what is going on.
It's actually pretty funny because the more people try and make what he did say Serious Business the more cowardly he becomes since if it was that bad he should not beating around the fucking bush.
Also, While I'm saddened to see Mattis leaving I think people are asking a little much of an old soldier to openly shit on the president of the united states.
Frankly, I think it's going to be a couple of years before we realize just how much he's done to reign in the dangerous impulses of the Tang colored president.
I really doubt it honestly. Like this feels like John Kelly all over again. People trying to lionize an "adult" in the room of the trump admin completely forgetting accepting a position Trump in the first place already says you aren't a fucking adult in the room.
Especially since the breaking point for Mattis was a good decision to not be involved in Syria's civil war. The administration has done a lot of bad shit and fucked over a lot of allies that could be a breaking point, but this one isn't really one of those things.
Getting out of Syria may or may not be ultimately good (given that it's exactly what Russia and Turkey's respective authoritarian regimes want, I'm skeptical, even though it's hard to argue that the US military presence there has made a good outcome possible) but the manner in which it is being done, announced via tweet with no warning to the people who have to organize the change and deal with the inevitable aftermath, is inarguably and absurdly the wrong way to go about it.
That's not a little detail for the secretary of defense.
I just want to point out that Mattis has set is resignation date as Feb 28th. Over three months away. I imagine that makes it hard for someone to actually fire Mattis before then.
Mattis has had a job to do this entire time. And that job has been "Don't let the madman push the nuke button that ends the world." Dead Hand is still around, and all that.
I'm sure I would have enjoyed Mattis being an outspoken critic of Trump. But then Mattis would get fired sooner rather than later, and only Trump's attention span would stand between him and the nukes. There's a lot of bad things that are better than breathing radioactive dust.
I'm not saying Mattis is perfect. I'm saying preventing nukes from flying is important. Also, there may be more to the story behind the scenes in some of these things.
I kinda wonder if Mattis won't be slow-rolling this withdrawal from Syria etc, on account of his resign date being so far away. Particularly, after the Democrats regain the House.
Didn't Mattis slow-roll Trump's policies against DREAMers and LGBT members in the military until Trump's attention drifted elsewhere, then let them die quietly? Or am I remembering things incorrectly?
That is precisely what Mattis did. His goal was ensuring the Department of Defense did right by those who signed on the dotted line. The man actually cares about, and respects, the United States Armed Service Members. Unlike our CIC.
I disagree; the senior advisor to the president on military matters should be someone who has a fundamental understanding of how the military functions and what it is capable of; otherwise you wind up with people who either grossly over estimate or underestimate the capabilities of the military as a whole.
No. For reason why this is a bad idea see Imperial Japan.
Where it was enshrined into the constitution that SecArmy and SecNavy had to be ranking military officers. Creating a situation where only conservatives could form government and where held hostage to the military brass to stay in power. Refuse Military demands and the admirals and generals would resign and the cabinet would fall. The argument that "there would always be a general willing to serve his country" was used when the constitution was written(along with your argument). Didn't turn out that way.
Besides the president has advisers with knowledge of military matters: The Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is part of their job, to advise the president on military matters.
Honestly your idea is one of those "common sense and obvious" ideas that are not nothing of the sort. Civilian oversight of the military is one of the linchpins of the US democratic system and one of the reason there has never been a challenge to civilian rule in the 250 years of the American republic. Not every other state in the Americas can claim the same.
Edit: Sorry, but I feel like this is one of the biggest dangers when it comes to civilian oversight of the military. It starts out with "only a military man can oversee the military", follows through with "why are you not just rubberstamping our budgets and deployment, we know what we are doing" goes straight to "The government would be so much more effective if it didn't have all that boring debate and just followed a chain of command like the Military". There is plenty of history to back this up.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I disagree; the senior advisor to the president on military matters should be someone who has a fundamental understanding of how the military functions and what it is capable of; otherwise you wind up with people who either grossly over estimate or underestimate the capabilities of the military as a whole.
No. For reason why this is a bad idea see Imperial Japan.
Where it was enshrined into the constitution that SecArmy and SecNavy had to be ranking military officers. Creating a situation where only conservatives could form government and where held hostage to the military brass to stay in power. Refuse Military demands and the admirals and generals would resign and the cabinet would fall. The argument that "there would always be a general willing to serve his country" was used when the constitution was written(along with your argument). Didn't turn out that way.
Besides the president has advisers with knowledge of military matters: The Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is part of their job, to advise the president on military matters.
Honestly your idea is one of those "common sense and obvious" ideas that are not nothing of the sort. Civilian oversight of the military is one of the linchpins of the US democratic system and one of the reason there has never been a challenge to civilian rule in the 250 years of the American republic. Not every other state in the Americas can claim the same.
Complete abdication of civilian policy making around war was also what led to the German Empire having its diplomatic circumstances at the beginning of WW1 dictated by strategic military concerns, and partially contributed to the war being fought in the first place.
I disagree; the senior advisor to the president on military matters should be someone who has a fundamental understanding of how the military functions and what it is capable of; otherwise you wind up with people who either grossly over estimate or underestimate the capabilities of the military as a whole.
No. For reason why this is a bad idea see Imperial Japan.
Where it was enshrined into the constitution that SecArmy and SecNavy had to be ranking military officers. Creating a situation where only conservatives could form government and where held hostage to the military brass to stay in power. Refuse Military demands and the admirals and generals would resign and the cabinet would fall. The argument that "there would always be a general willing to serve his country" was used when the constitution was written(along with your argument). Didn't turn out that way.
Besides the president has advisers with knowledge of military matters: The Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is part of their job, to advise the president on military matters.
Honestly your idea is one of those "common sense and obvious" ideas that are not nothing of the sort. Civilian oversight of the military is one of the linchpins of the US democratic system and one of the reason there has never been a challenge to civilian rule in the 250 years of the American republic. Not every other state in the Americas can claim the same.
Edit: Sorry, but I feel like this is one of the biggest dangers when it comes to civilian oversight of the military. It starts out with "only a military man can oversee the military", follows through with "why are you not just rubberstamping our budgets and deployment, we know what we are doing" goes straight to "The government would be so much more effective if it didn't have all that boring debate and just followed a chain of command like the Military". There is plenty of history to back this up.
There's quite the difference between saying that SecDef should be very knowledgeable about military matters and demanding that active duty officers have veto power over the government (as in your Japanese example). You're taking Gaddez's argument and stretching it to a ridiculous degree.
Incidentally:
The Japanese rule about only active duty officers serving as the ministers of war and the navy had nothing to do with the Japanese constitution. It was implemented by Prime Minister Yamagata ("father of the Japanese army") in 1900, then relaxed in 1913. It only became a problem when it was reintroduced in 1936 by Prime Minister Hirota, specifically because the then leaders of the army demanded its return because they didn't like the influence retired officers had over the government.
Posts
One of those is someone leaving the administration because they disagree with the administration. The other is a setup for a military coup. Id rather not do a military coup.
I mean shit I'm sure Mattis was even in charge when its happened.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Frankly, I think it's going to be a couple of years before we realize just how much he's done to reign in the dangerous impulses of the Tang colored president.
I feel like the dirty laundry isn't usually on such prominent display. And so dirty.
I really doubt it honestly. Like this feels like John Kelly all over again. People trying to lionize an "adult" in the room of the trump admin completely forgetting accepting a position Trump in the first place already says you aren't a fucking adult in the room.
pleasepaypreacher.net
For what it's worth, there is no chain of command with nuclear weapons. The whole idea of mutual assured destruction is that literally one person can immediately launch them.
There's nothing stopping a president from giving the order and refusal would lead top court martial. Unless someone relieves the president from power, which would be a coup and an act of treason.
I guess even with Mattis there no one could stop Trump from doing it, but definitely one less guy in the room telling him it's not a good idea?
EDIT: @moniker thank you for explaining my error, I'll leave this up to be suitably mocked.
Protocol requires confirmation of the order by SecDef to launch.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Christ, thank you. It’s be great if we could stop lionizing and making excuses for people who voluntarily signed up to work with Trump. Consider everything that was obvious about Trump before the election, and then consider that a person consciously chose to go serve that.
If you wanted to reign it in, and we’re here? Either you’re comically inept or not all that opposed to what you’re seeing. And resigning in limp protest now doesn’t make good for silence during past terrible decisions. I don’t give a shit about what sparks fires in a corporate environment. We’re way the hell past that, and if Mattis can’t recognize that from his insider perch, then frankly, he’s fucking useless.
Edit: And somehow I have to reconcile the above with the fact that, yes, inevitably his successor will be worse.
Could be that they were more thinking they were serving "The Republican Party" who could keep Trump under control.
But they can't.
Fucking Central American caravaners for all I know. A dangerously unstable lunatic whose psyche is under attack from sixteen different directions is the president of the United States.
If your option is to either step up and work for a horrible boss to keep him from fucking everything up or standing aside so that some yes man will blithely agree to endanger the well being of countless millions where do you stand?
It's a Lazy Susan.
That's exactly how Mattis joined, he couldn't refuse.
No, Mattis had retired several years before. However, there is a law which prohibits retired military from being SecDef until X (I think 5?) years after their retirement date, which Mattis had to be given special exemption from by congress. (this was not unique, there have been other SecDefs who got that exemption)
Also a CNN headline: Jim Mattis' resignation letter is an absolutely stunning rejection of Trumpism
e: I may be wrong but Mattis may not legally be able to call the President a dangerous lunatic if Article 88 of the UCMJ (contemptuous language towards public officials) still applies to him as a retired officer
(From CNN)
That’s a hard paragraph to reconcile with any kind of sane reality.
EVERY.
FUCKING.
TIME.
*Trump does something fucked up*
Republicans: "What the fuck?!?"
*five minutes pass*
Republicans: "It wasn't a crime" "Liberal Outrage" "He's the president" "I don't agree with what he said (but I'm not going to do anything about it.)" "I'd rather hop a fence than answer like a decent human being" etc. etc. etc.
Republicans know Trump is a fucking disaster. They've always known. They don't really care because they can't afford to care. There isn't going to be some new revelation that changes their minds: They put a man accused of rape on the Supreme Court for no other reason than because Trump wanted him there to save his ass. They'll eat shit for Trump all day, every day, because the alternative is to never win a primary ever again. There's a reason pretty much every single Republican critic either kissed the ring (Romney, Graham) or is getting the hell out of dodge after impotently tsk tsking the President for the last two years (Corker, Flake)
At best we get off-the-cuff visceral reactions before they figure out how to compartmentalize whatever latest atrocity.
That letter was blatant as fuck, militarily speaking. Anyone who doesnt see that isnt military, and expecting more is asking Mattis to ignore damn near 50 years of military training to appease their world view on how to go out with both middle fingers blazing Arthur Morgan style.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Especially since the breaking point for Mattis was a good decision to not be involved in Syria's civil war. The administration has done a lot of bad shit and fucked over a lot of allies that could be a breaking point, but this one isn't really one of those things.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
But the writing was on the wall as to what motivated the decision by Trump, and was likely the cherry on the shit sandwich for Mattis. Ultimately he was just another delusional Republican thinking he could absolutely tame Trump, and everyone else who tried was just bad at it
This is both factually wrong and a pretty shitty play to authority to boot.
Mattis is, whatever else aside, smart enough to know roughly how much of a ripple different forms of resignation would make, and he chose a fairly quiet path in a very loud time.
That is certainly your interpretation of what happened.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Mattis has had a job to do this entire time. And that job has been "Don't let the madman push the nuke button that ends the world." Dead Hand is still around, and all that.
I'm sure I would have enjoyed Mattis being an outspoken critic of Trump. But then Mattis would get fired sooner rather than later, and only Trump's attention span would stand between him and the nukes. There's a lot of bad things that are better than breathing radioactive dust.
I'm not saying Mattis is perfect. I'm saying preventing nukes from flying is important. Also, there may be more to the story behind the scenes in some of these things.
I kinda wonder if Mattis won't be slow-rolling this withdrawal from Syria etc, on account of his resign date being so far away. Particularly, after the Democrats regain the House.
Yes. He was making an empty gesture that lets him still play the game instead of being actually open and honest with the american people about what is going on.
It's actually pretty funny because the more people try and make what he did say Serious Business the more cowardly he becomes since if it was that bad he should not beating around the fucking bush.
Getting out of Syria may or may not be ultimately good (given that it's exactly what Russia and Turkey's respective authoritarian regimes want, I'm skeptical, even though it's hard to argue that the US military presence there has made a good outcome possible) but the manner in which it is being done, announced via tweet with no warning to the people who have to organize the change and deal with the inevitable aftermath, is inarguably and absurdly the wrong way to go about it.
That's not a little detail for the secretary of defense.
Didn't Mattis slow-roll Trump's policies against DREAMers and LGBT members in the military until Trump's attention drifted elsewhere, then let them die quietly? Or am I remembering things incorrectly?
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
No. For reason why this is a bad idea see Imperial Japan.
Besides the president has advisers with knowledge of military matters: The Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is part of their job, to advise the president on military matters.
Honestly your idea is one of those "common sense and obvious" ideas that are not nothing of the sort. Civilian oversight of the military is one of the linchpins of the US democratic system and one of the reason there has never been a challenge to civilian rule in the 250 years of the American republic. Not every other state in the Americas can claim the same.
Edit: Sorry, but I feel like this is one of the biggest dangers when it comes to civilian oversight of the military. It starts out with "only a military man can oversee the military", follows through with "why are you not just rubberstamping our budgets and deployment, we know what we are doing" goes straight to "The government would be so much more effective if it didn't have all that boring debate and just followed a chain of command like the Military". There is plenty of history to back this up.
Complete abdication of civilian policy making around war was also what led to the German Empire having its diplomatic circumstances at the beginning of WW1 dictated by strategic military concerns, and partially contributed to the war being fought in the first place.
There's quite the difference between saying that SecDef should be very knowledgeable about military matters and demanding that active duty officers have veto power over the government (as in your Japanese example). You're taking Gaddez's argument and stretching it to a ridiculous degree.
Incidentally:
So what's the betting pool on how long Mulvaney lasts?
He didn't want the job in the first place, they literally couldn't find someone else to take it.
So I'm gonna say until October.