General James Mattis Confirmed as Defense Secretary by Senate

[Skroe]

If that were the case, why choose Trump to champion their plan, since she obviously would have been far more personally knowledgeable of it? Would there have been push back from Clinton as opposed to Trump, or more involved oversight that would make her a less ideal executor of said plan? I strongly doubt that the Trump campaign would have simply come up with it on their own, without someone nudging them in that direction. I mean, for one of the most comprehensive things that Trump actually put forward, it was very sidelined to the point where only people who took an active interest in such matters really noticed it... the only thing that Trump himself did with it was announce that he had support from the military.

Heritage is a conservative think tank (and part PAC) and it was the think tank that wrote the policy paper. The PAC side, Heritage Action, which is kind of an offshoot of the older, and much more venerable thinktank, is pretty radical. They were involved in the Trump campaign from the early days. Think Heritage as one house with two families in it. Trump is promoting a plan key backers wrote basically.

But the DETAILS of the Heritage plan are not unique to them. The Center for A New American Security, Brookings, New America Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Congressional Research Center have all produced broadly similar plans. For example:



https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf

They differ in some details but are pretty close. The "Clinton plan" may have had fewer carriers and more subs, or some other mix, but the entire US Military force structure plan would have been a broad "size up" from today.

The military is apolitical, though it is generally believed that while the rank and file supported Trump (like most republican Presidents), the senior leaders were generally pro-Clinton. Trump's 200 figures paled in comparison's to Hillary's extensive military and foreign policy support. Moreover, as early as a year ago, news was leaking out about early anti-Trump contingencies by active duty leaders, who would seek to protect their services from Trump, namely especially doing things like ordering war crimes.

Trump was "announcing" someone most everyone in DC wants, except Barack Obama.

[Cthulhu 2020]

In Trump's huge lineup of pay to players, yes-men, incompetence, "I don't know what this department even does", and "I have zero relevant experience", Mattis is one of the few people who was actually a GOOD pick.

Why is it always the highest ranking conservative military folks who understand the value of NATO, and the further down the chain you go (and the further away from actually knowing about the military you get) the more they oppose NATO? Guess that's only a question we'll be able know the answer to, but can't say, because those who have no knowledge of the military will continue to scream about NATO being a scam, while the rest in the know are educated otherwise.

Mattis openly opposes many of Trump's more insane stances, and has said on more than one occasion he will oppose Trump when necessary.

He wasn't a pay to play shill who forked over tons of money for a cabinet position, like many of the others.

Unlike many of Trump's other picks, he has relevant experience and knows what he's doing in the department.

Out of all of Trump's picks, this is the one single one that wasn't a complete abortion and waste of space. I feel bad for Mattis though, he's going to be the unfortunate victim in an administration that will be the most scandal-ridden in history, and as good of a guy as he is, he's a part of that administration and will undoubtedly get caught up in the plethora of scandals that will ravage this administration.

[Skroe]

In Trump's huge lineup of pay to players, yes-men, incompetence, "I don't know what this department even does", and "I have zero relevant experience", Mattis is one of the few people who was actually a GOOD pick.

Why is it always the highest ranking conservative military folks who understand the value of NATO, and the further down the chain you go (and the further away from actually knowing about the military you get) the more they oppose NATO? Guess that's only a question we'll be able know the answer to, but can't say, because those who have no knowledge of the military will continue to scream about NATO being a scam, while the rest in the know are educated otherwise.

Mattis openly opposes many of Trump's more insane stances, and has said on more than one occasion he will oppose Trump when necessary.

He wasn't a pay to play shill who forked over tons of money for a cabinet position, like many of the others.

Unlike many of Trump's other picks, he has relevant experience and knows what he's doing in the department.

Out of all of Trump's picks, this is the one single one that wasn't a complete abortion and waste of space. I feel bad for Mattis though, he's going to be the unfortunate victim in an administration that will be the most scandal-ridden in history, and as good of a guy as he is, he's a part of that administration and will undoubtedly get caught up in the plethora of scandals that will ravage this administration.

With that said, we need to remember, respect and realize that Mattis, as a career military guy, like everyone else who is STILL a Career Military guy, will actively work not only to make good policy advice for Trump, but also protect the armed forces from his boss's whims (which is what the military does with every President, and most government agencies do in general, but it is usually political appointees at the top who are part of the problem).

That is to say, we shouldnt be too surprised when Mattis does something disappointing to this trust we're placing in him, down the road, in order to protect the integrity of the institution he leads.

For example, in the old write up about the military's plans to protect itself from Trump, the reporter speculated (to promp the question) if generals would resign if Trump ordered them to do something illegal or dangerous. It is more likely it turns out, the General (an abstract figure here) follows orders nominally, but slows down and frustrates anything illegal, in order to personally make sure that something illegal doesn't happen, or is at least mitigated. An example given is that if Trump ordered 100,000 troops to go seize Raqqa in Syria and fight ISIS on foot, does this General resign? No. He leads the mission tries to make sure it isn't fucked up by Trump lackeys micromanaging from the White House. And if the time comes that his resignation is requested, he makes Trump fire him, publically, rather than resign.

All bit of a thought exercise, but I think the point stands: if we're going to have our publican servants who aren't Trumpkins preserve our institutions to make Trump President in Name Only (PINO, let's call him that instead of POTUS), we need to not freak out when they engage in a bit of misdirection to placate their stupid boss. Mattis or somebody assenting could easilly really be a form of active frustration to a Trump agenda. It'll be very hard to tel..

[satimy]

Mattise seems like the best cabinet candidate. He seems incredibly intelligent.

[minteK917]

The populists aren't gonna take over in the EU, specialy since we can now see what idiots populism produces in the US (that sleazy little bugger who's president).

The two most right wing party have pretty huge lead in France. Le Pen is even first lol. Even if Le Pen does not win in the end, the socialism party is done for. I wouldnt think everything is "fine" just yet. Trump election should tell you otherwise, but you are already dismissing clear proof. If all you are think is that it cant happen here, it will happen.

[Theinquisition]

Oh god this. So much this. My best friend just got out of the army, pissed as fuck about what happened to it since he went there.

He's a guy who does counter-intelligence work, had two deployments to Afghanistan, and was due for another promotion, but it was held back because of lack of spots. A very smart, educated guy with his Bachelors Degree they had cutting grass.

- - - Updated - - -



You got it entirely backwards. THe size of the military in terms of people, the size of the armed forces in terms of material, must be congruent with the mission and strategy. And that is the problem. The US is charged by congress, with the laws that the President signs as part of the national military strategy (which is an official document), to focus on certain key itemized contingencies, but broadly, deploy a global defense strategy capable of fighting two wars simultaneously. This has been the charge of congress, since World War II, when the US fought in Europe and the Pacific.

It is immoral, irresponsible, and unrealistic to tell our service members to do that, and then try and do it on the cheap. That is exactly what Obama's administration did.

A few years back, the Chief of Naval Operaitons was asked by Congress in hearings how many ships he'd need if he wanted to reach 100% of Combatant Commander's requests. He said about 450 ships. The US Navy currently stands at 281 ships, and will grow to 308 by 2020. The current Naval requirement is 355 ships by 2030, and that is reached only by having the US accept greater risk - deploying one destroyer where it once might have deployed a destroyer and a mine sweeper or something.

You want to spend less on the military? Okay. Valid political position. That means cutting back on money spent. But that's step two. Step one is designing a national military strategy that fits the funding model you envision.

Keep in mind for example, Obama's stunt to try and retire an aircraft carrier. Having 10 aircraft carriers means you really have 3. Because you'll have 3 deployed, 1 ready to deploy, 2 training or in post-deployment, and 2 in various states of maintenance (one of which is usually cut open, as it's being refueled). The US could never actually deploy all 10 carriers at once. So Obama, in trying to cut a carrier, was cutting a lot more than it looks like, because there would be "carrier gaps" when the US couldn't have a carrier in specific regions. In fact, the retirement of the USS Enterprise in 2012 and the delay of its replacement, the Gerald R Ford, created several carrier gaps, one of which is going on now, as there is no US Carrier in the Middle East.

Obama tried to cut that carrier ostensibly to save money (about $700 million to refuel). That should have been done only AFTER pairing back the global presence requirement and shifting the navy from an 11 carrier strategy (which it is currently implementing with 10 by extending deployments and delaying maintenance) to a 9 carrier one. In actuality, the US is really trying to do a 15 carrier strategy with 10 in a very creative way. It should build more carriers (and likely will), to meet that requirement.

This may sound like a call to militarism or something. It's not. While I think that a comprehensive global military strategy is in the US's best interests by far, if Congress votes to change that, then the people have spoken. However trying to solve a problem with 65% of a solution fucks somebody, and in Obama's case, it was service members. THat's irresponsible governance, on the part of both the President, and Congress (which put under-resourced bills on his desk). Obama talked a great game about bringing our troops home from wars. It is no different if Carrier crews (for example) are doing 30-50% longer deployments to allow the Navy to paper over a gap. Either the policy needs to change, or the navy needs a lot more ships. And this can be extended to the Army, the Marines and to the Air Force. Remember: pre Iraq War, US Army deployments were at most 6 months. Over the course of the war, it became 9 months, then a year. My friend did two 9 month deployments to Afghanistan. All that happened, because the Army was instructed to wage a 750,000 troop war, with a maximum of 560,000 (now down to 465,000, on its way to 490,000 by law, Obama wanted to cut to 420,000).

Indeed, when I got out we had NCO's leaving who had more combined time in service than our entire platoon. Obama hollowed out the force, the only people getting promoted now are those that know how to memorize the NCO study guide, and can run fast.

[Tomyris]

The two most right wing party have pretty huge lead in France. Le Pen is even first lol. Even if Le Pen does not win in the end, the socialism party is done for. I wouldnt think everything is "fine" just yet. Trump election should tell you otherwise, but you are already dismissing clear proof. If all you are think is that it cant happen here, it will happen.

There is a small difference that people seem to ignore or just not notice. Le Pen and the dangers of a far-right win are taken very seriously, not mocked, even more now after UK and US events. She is leading in the polls now by a small margin, and that should be a warning for her supporters, she is not the underdog anymore. Dangers like that tend to mobilise the population. In the first round there are many parties and candidates, personally I do not see her leading the polls that weird, she is the most known by the excitable media. Second round is a different story. That is why she is starting panicking and pick on the new underdog who seems to be stealing the left and right wing votes alike. He is the one to watch if you want to throw smart predictions on the forums and then say ''I told you so''.

As for the socialist party, yeah, they suck right now due to a disastrous Hollande presidency. They lost their own voters with right-wing decisions. It will be interesting to see who they vote for. Le Pen does not seem the beneficiary because she did not spike as much as she would have hoped, especially in these troubled times. I mean, the socialist got drowned to almost 10-13 %...she lost some opportunity there.

Maybe the French people don't buy negative populism that much? I can't talk for everyone but at every election I read the plans and programs that these candidates have. Especially those regarding the economy. If she does not come up with some solutions for the problems France has right now, I do not see her gaining more. Of course, you have that percentage of population that only likes to hear about border and immigration, but the debate is going to start focusing on economic policies and I really want to see her gaining those dissapointed left-wing voters with the vague notions she likes to throw around. Not to mention, the republicans, who I assume, are not very thrilled with her wanting to tax everything and everyone, even with 0 profit, just to ''symbolically'' contribute, lol.

[Adolecent]

The two most right wing party have pretty huge lead in France. Le Pen is even first lol. Even if Le Pen does not win in the end, the socialism party is done for. I wouldnt think everything is "fine" just yet. Trump election should tell you otherwise, but you are already dismissing clear proof. If all you are think is that it cant happen here, it will happen.

France isn't "the EU". And French right-wing parties are fine by me, they don't bother me 1 bit and have no influance at all on my life. And of those 2 right-wing parties in France only 1 (Front National) is opposed to the EU. And if Front National will win the elections in France, which is a clear possibility, we'll just have to deal with it.

I for one ain't gonna cooperate with Putin and Trump to weaken the EU since that will definitely not be in my best interests (or anybody living in the EU's best interests) to do so. Becourse if the EU falls apart it will create the opportunity for Russia and the US to suck us dry! And i will fight till my last breath to prevent that!

[Aeula]

Isn't he the guy that has a plan to kill everyone he meets, just in case?

Don't know much about him but what I've heard is pretty good, probably the best man for the job.

[caervek]

Step 8: Convince your boss to put another 10,000 troops in Eastern Europe by the middle of next year.

What is your obsession with trying to destabilise Europe lol.

We need less US involvement not more, harassing Russia is not going to improve relations just make them worse.

[Aehl]

Skroie: Mate, just one small notation.

The Secretary of Defence does not and will never issue orders to the President of the United States. He may make suggestions, offer counsel, but in all truth I think you have the chain of command upside down.

Mattis takes his orders from the President...not the other way around.

[zaino]

im not into many trump cabinet picks

but i do like this guy

good

[minteK917]

Skroie: Mate, just one small notation.

The Secretary of Defence does not and will never issue orders to the President of the United States. He may make suggestions, offer counsel, but in all truth I think you have the chain of command upside down.

Mattis takes his orders from the President...not the other way around.

In theory thats how it works, but in reality it hardly ever happen like that. Presidents hardly go over the head of military. More like the president is given the situation and what should be done, the president simply makes it official. Point in case bush and Iraq, Bush can barely be blamed for it, well he can, but more for letting it be done. But it was not really his plan or his orders. When it comes to military most presidents are more like enablers then someone giving direct orders.

[Aehl]

In theory thats how it works, but in reality it hardly ever happen like that. Presidents hardly go over the head of military.

Wrong.

The head of the military is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not the Secretary of Defence.

[minteK917]

Wrong.

The head of the military is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not the Secretary of Defence.

And? The secretary of Defence will still be the one telling Trump what to do lol. Trump is not gona give any order without Mattis period. On paper hes the only person over mattis. But thats never how it works. The Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are only advisors, they give no orders at all, they arent even part of the chain of command. Secretary of defense is pretty much the de facto commander in chief most of the time. It will be this time and everybody knows it lol. What Skro said is pretty much spot on.

[Skroe]

What is your obsession with trying to destabilise Europe lol.

We need less US involvement not more, harassing Russia is not going to improve relations just make them worse.

You're one of the few people who think it's destabilizing. Especially considering reigonal governments are requesting a roboust allied presence.

Your opinion is not the opinion.

Moreover, considering 25 years ago, 300,000 US troops lived in Europe, you folks can handle it. We're talking turning 95,000 there now into 105,000. Not exactly a radical increase.

- - - Updated - - -

Skroie: Mate, just one small notation.

The Secretary of Defence does not and will never issue orders to the President of the United States. He may make suggestions, offer counsel, but in all truth I think you have the chain of command upside down.

Mattis takes his orders from the President...not the other way around.

I was being a bit dramatic intentionally. Of course the Secretary of Defense is subservient to the President. But here's the rub: President's often don't know shit. Rumsfeld for example, pushed the agenda HE wanted, but controlling the flow of information from the Pentagon to the President to go through him.

Similarly back when Robert Gates was Obama's first Secretary of Defense, he ordered the Pentagon to always go through him before talking to the White House, because Susan Rice, Obama's foreign and security policy guru was trying to basically take over bot the State and Defense Department policy making by being the middle man between them and the President.

Mattis can make things happen, simply be decided what is important for the President to know and what is not.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong.

The head of the military is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not the Secretary of Defence.

No. The head of the military is the President of the United States (civilian control of the military). His direct subordinate is the Secretary of Defesense. Together, following the Rule of Two, they make up the National Command Authority.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is subordinate to them both and is the highest uniformed officer in the military, but overall, 3rd in line. Under the Goldwater-Nicols reforms of the 1980s, the Joint Chiefs are in coordinators and principal advisors to the President. The Unified Combatant Commands, of which there are 10 (Pacific Command, European Command, Central Command, Africa Command, Strategic Command, etc) have operational control and the four star general head of those commands are responsible for their region.

To put it simply, for managing the war against ISIS, while nominally the superior to the Head of Central Command is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the chairman cannot legally give the Head of Central Command an order on how to conduct operations, only the Secretary of Defense and President can.

This was all done by the way, in direct response to White House micromanagement during Vietnam.

[Wells]

Mattis was one of the few nominees that wasn't entirely inappropriate, but I still opposed his confirmation. There shouldn't be waivers on civilian control measures.

[Deleted]

Well, Mattis is a soldier. As soldier he is used to receive commands from his commander in chief. In this case, Donald Trump is Mattis commander.

So i doubt he would not follow one of his orders.

[Wells]

Well, Mattis is a soldier. As soldier he is used to receive commands from his commander in chief. In this case, Donald Trump is Mattis commander.

So i doubt he would not follow one of his orders.

This highlights the whole point to civilian control.

[Thepersona]

Skroe, care to elaborate on whats the defense policy on climate change? I know that on the pemtagon is a big national security issue, and it helped propel the syrian revolution and the current fiasco