Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Dec 1, 2016.
Is it possible to die from winning too much? I'm concerned.
I'd rather Trump picked a more junior officer for the position; perhaps a retired colonel or one-star. However, it's not a terrible choice.
Mattis as SecDef + Petraeus as SecState = ISIS days numbered, big time.
And for you anti-war lefties out there, that combination of two former generals who commanded troops in Iraq should be welcome news. Both of those guys have seen a lot of lives lost in the Middle East, and my guess is that both would argue very strongly not to commit ground troops unless the US is going to win AND secure that win.
It will require a Congressional Waiver from the rule that states that commissioned officers have to be retired for seven years before appointment as Secretary of Defense.
The only time this rule was waived, was for the Appointment of George Marshall as Defense Secretary in September 1950. And in passing the Act, Congress noted:
I realize Trump is a blithering imbecile. I recognize that most of the people who voted for him aren't much better. But do we really have to explain why Congress made the rule about retired Officers as SecDef in the first place?
Do people really not understand what the Secretary of Defense does? That he's not hunkered down in some bunker, cooking up brilliant strategic strokes. It's not leading a staff in combat. It's not training and leading a regimental combat team or an Army Corps.
This is nothing against James Mattis. By all accounts a highly competent Marine officer, probably the best of his generation. But SecDef is not the billet for a man with those skills or talents. Rather the opposite, in fact. And as good an officer as Mattis is, he is no George Marshall. Not in the organizational and national security perspective.
We have a strong tradition of Civilian Control of the Military in this country. For a host of very good reasons. Including the fact that SecDef will soon be overseeing the promotions and procurement budgets of of not just the Mariune Corps., but also the Navy, Army, and Air Force. It is to prevent unfair influence and favoritism in the SecDef for his former colleagues that we have this law.
I doubt Mattis will get the nod from Congress.
As vrDrew clearly stated, it's not really wise to have former military run the DOD.
To many potential conflicts of interest.
Plenty of SecDefs and service secretary's have been former military. However, former flag officers are uncommon.
Just so that people understand this: This isn't about partisan politics. This is about making sure our country doesn't turn into a military dictatorship.
If Trump had nominated some highly Conservative member of the House or Senate Armed Services Committee, I'd say "fine." Likewise if he'd nominated someone from academia or the law - a retired judge or former Republican Governor. As President, one gets a certain amount of latitude in choosing one's Administration.
Until it comes to breaking the law. And that is what I find so alarming about this nomination. Trump obviously doesn't give a nickel jizz for the precedents and traditions that make this country great. He obviously assumes that a Republican Congress will gladly rubberstamp whatever idiocy blossoms forth from his TwitterHole.
And what of General Mattis? Well, let's start with this: Whatever his military credentials, he's pretty much pissed in the soup by agreeing to accept the nomination for a post he knows he legally cannot accept.
So, screw you too, General Mattis.
It's legal with a Congressional waiver and you know it.
Didn't you post a thread asking why we were so divided as a nation? To find the answer to your question, you should just read your own posts.
By accepting the nomination, Mattis clearly demonstrated a lack of the fundamental understanding of both the role of the Secretary of Defense and the principle of civilian control of the military.
What qualifications for the job of SecDef does Mattis claim to hold? Because if he's relying on a successful record in combat, he obviously is totally missing the point.
Retired Generals like Mattis are the sort of people a *********** draftdodger like Trump uses to compensate for his utter cowardice and dereliction of duty.
And a pox on people like Mattis who are too driven by ego and ambition not to recognize it. While Mattis's contemporaries were dying in fighting in Vietnam, ******* Trump was laughing at them.
Given the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said just days ago Mattis was "one of the finest military officers of his generation and an extraordinary leader" and "I hope he has an opportunity to serve America again" I think a waiver might not be too tough.
Enjoy more wars.
Highly unlikely, no matter who sits.
If they changed the rules I could end up the Pope in Rome, or accept the Medal of Honor for saving 15% on my car insurance. But as a decent human being with a respect for the principles of the Catholic Church and military honor - I'd tell the person offering me that deal "No thanks."
That's the difference between a decent human being and a psychopath. One that apparently hasn't sunk into you yet.
I'm confused at who you are implying has no honor. General Mattis or aaronvan?
Existing law says that military personnel must be out of the service for at least seven years unless that requirement is waived by Congress.
So no laws are being broken and no rules are being changed.
Trump will get his pick and the left will shut up and sit in the corner where they belong. Elections have consequences.
--- Post Merged, Dec 1, 2016 ---
Congress is controlled by Republicans, should be fine.
--- Post Merged, Dec 1, 2016 ---
Gotta say, it is fun watching you come unglued about the Trump presidency. A word of caution, you might want to pace yourself. As I wonder if you will last 4 or 8 years at the rate you are going.
I wouldn't be too sure he knows it.
I think he knows it. He is just ignoring it like he does whenever someone points out something he doesn't like.
indeed and we will soon see those consequences.
What does it matter? We spend twice as much as any other nation on defense for what? We launch nukes, they launch nukes, it's all over for everybody.
Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)
1 United States 596.0
2 China [a] 215.0
3 Saudi Arabia 87.2
4 Russia 66.4
If we took half this money and put in into infrastructure or jobs, we would still spend more on defense than any other nation on earth and we would actually "Make America Great Again".
Is it a deterrent? Sure, but that does not hold water either.
Russia was accused of influencing our election and everyone just looked at each other all glossy eyed.
The biggest, toughest kid on the block theory is not going to help us much in the modern world, and we are too stupid to figure that out. But I know get over it, we lost.
it will happen and thankfully so. down will go the rules of engagement that Obama put on us too. the handcuffs are about to come off.
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet
~ Maj. Gen. James Mattis
--- Post Merged, Dec 1, 2016 ---
I have zero doubt it will go through
Possibly, but by the time his hearings come around, he would have been out of the military for 4 of the 7 years. He's also well liked on Capitol Hill by both Democrats and Republicans. This will certainly come up during his Senate hearings, and if a law needs to be passed, he would likely have to appear before the House committees too, but I think he will make it.
Or look at it this way: Assume VRDrew is right, and that Trump and his supporters are a bunch of deplorable knuckle-dragging dim bulbs about military matters, torture, terrorism, etc. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a seasoned, respected thinker become the secretary of defense in order to keep the president in check?