US Defense Secretary Selected [Archive]

Captain Dart

2nd Dec 2016, 05:29

Here are some of the best words that the “Mad Dog” has had to offer:

1. “I don’t lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word.”

(San Diego Union Tribune)

AP

2. “The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.”

(Business Insider)

3. “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you **** with me, I’ll kill you all.”

(San Diego Union Tribune)

4. “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”

(San Diego Union Tribune)

Flickr

5. “Marines don’t know how to spell the word defeat.”

(Business Insider)

6. “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

(San Diego Union Tribune)

7. “The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.”

(San Diego Union Tribune)

8. “You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”

(Mattis’ Letter To 1st Marine Division)

Gen. Mattis in 2006 / Flickr

9. “There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim.”

(Business Insider)

10. “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”

Al R

2nd Dec 2016, 07:54

Interesting story behind the sacking of Joe Dowdy.

http://www.business.unr.edu/faculty/simmonsb/badm720/wsjdowdy.doc

oldpax

2nd Dec 2016, 09:46

I always thought America had a secretary of attack?!!!

MPN11

2nd Dec 2016, 10:23

He sounds like Trump's kind of guy: "Kill. Them."

charliegolf

2nd Dec 2016, 11:21

Was he in Dr Strangelove?

MAINJAFAD

2nd Dec 2016, 11:23

One big problem in his appointment, its against the law (1947 National Security Act). He has to have been off the active list for 7 years before he can be considered. That regulation has been by-passed once, when George C Marshall was made SecDef in 1950, but he had already been in government as SecState and the appointment was driven by the fact that the US was involved in a major war (Korea) and Truman needed somebody trusted to keep his egotistic field commanders in line (which Marshall was known to be capable of doing).

SASless

2nd Dec 2016, 12:42

You do understand the Republicans control both Houses of Congress....right?

They write a Bill that grants an exception for Mattis on a one time basis...get a simple majority vote and it goes to the President's Desk to be signed.

Reckon President Trump will sign the Bill?

Lonewolf_50

2nd Dec 2016, 13:35

I always thought America had a secretary of attack?!!!
You thought wrongly. Here are the facts. Up until 1947 defense reorganization act (which gave birth to the USAF) we had a Secretary of the Navy and a Secretary of War. After 1947, the Secretary of the Navy became subordinate to the Secretary of Defense, as were the other two service secretaries.
Our department of defense is like any other nation's Ministry of Defense.

Now you know; there will be no charge for this remedial education. :8

@MAINJAFAD: no, it's not against the law. It is within the law providing the request for waiver is approved by Congress. If they don't approve the request, the appointment cannot go forward and another choice presented. ALL cabinet posts are subject to "advice and consent of the Senate." In the United States, "advice and consent" is a power of the United States Senate to be consulted on and approve treaties signed and appointments made by the President of the United States to public positions, including Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, United States Attorneys, and ambassadors. Any other remedial education that you request will be provided at the usual rates. :8

MAINJAFAD

2nd Dec 2016, 14:17

sandiego89

2nd Dec 2016, 14:18

glad rag: same old, same old.

No, I assure you he is quite different. Perhaps like most took on some lucrative consulting gigs post retirement, but in most other ways he is quite different. I worked in one of his commands and met him a few times.

And no MPN11 he is not a war monger, but he fully understands the nastiness of war, and he is not afraid to talk about it. If it comes to fighting he will be prepared and do it right.

melmothtw

2nd Dec 2016, 14:20

MAINJAFAD, I suspect that the Republicans may well waive the limit this time, not because it is the right thing to do but, as SASless points out, because they can. I suspect too that we'll be seeing a lot of this over the next four years.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Dec 2016, 15:10

Lonewolf, Thanks for the correction, however there must be something in written law about this 7 year limit and why it exists. Yes congress can waive the limit, but they haven't in almost 70 years and when they did so the person they gave the waiver to was ideally qualified to do what was required (because he had already been involved in building up an armed services from next to nothing peace time force to a War time one). What makes you think that this man is not uniquely qualified? He is very much up to scratch on what is or isn't required for the military of this day and age. We've had a variety of DoD leaders who were barely qualified (Cohen comes to mind) but nominated anyway and not having to deal with a waiver (having never served).

Also: what's your beef here? Your location is Herfordshire so I'll assume you are a Brit. What's your skin in this game? Having someone competent in our DoD would make working with your MoD a better proposition, in terms of our special relationship. More to the point, someone with some common sense is a needed voice of reason in the ear of the President. (General Mattis has the reputation of ample supplies of common sense).
Here, from the British ragaka Daily Mail: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3994856/How-General-Mad-Dog-world-s-powerful-military-leader-Trump-s-new-Defense-Secretary-says-war-hell-hoot-holes-need-shot-loves-Shakespeare-Roman-philosophy.html) Mattis told Trump when asked about waterboarding, 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.'
The British Defence Secretary said: 'I congratulate General James Mattis on his nomination and wish him well with the confirmation process. 'He has a deep understanding of our shared military culture as well as experience of serving alongside British forces. The US is and will remain our closest partner on security and defense. 'I look forward to continuing our close cooperation to fight terrorism, deter aggression, and collaborate on innovative technologies to ensure the security of our nations.'

@Al R: For context, I'd recommend that you take a look at the number of commanders (corps and division commanders) relieved during the war by General Patton, who was himself relieved of 7th Army command by Ike.

gums

2nd Dec 2016, 15:33

Senate will have the last word. And unless the Senate leadership uses the loophole that the last majority leader used, the waiver will be subject to a filibuster, best I see it.

The Democratic Senate harpooned Sen Tower from Texas back in the 80's, I seem to recall. Tink Bush I nominted him. No filibuster either. But he seemed a good choice. Cheney finally got the job.

If you look at Mattis' language, it sounds like Trump himself talking.

The troop looks good to this old warrior, and his last ten years or so have been heavily focused upon an area of the world that needs experience there.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Dec 2016, 15:41

gums: I remember the Tower hearings. Politics can be a dirty thing.

Al R

2nd Dec 2016, 16:35

Lonewolf,

Thanks, I will.

Krystal n chips

2nd Dec 2016, 16:39

Captain Dart...

About those quotes....

They should save the scriptwriters a job when "Apocalypse Now....the Sequel" is made.... in the not too distant future once he starts practicing what he seemingly preaches.

"Charlie don't surf" is getting a shade passé now....so it's always nice to have a more contemporary role model available in lieu of Kilgore.

FOG

2nd Dec 2016, 17:06

Re. the Col. Dowdy incident, I believe that the real culprit was/is Gen. Kelly. Documented history of trying to insert himself into the -3 (operations) lane in order to try and polish his own apple. The most charitable characterization Gen. Kelly is integrity challenged to simultaneously raise himself while attacking competent subordinates. There are at least a couple of AARs that support this line of thinking. More than a little scuttlebutt about actually charging Gen. Kelly for his conduct in this (and a few other) matter. Ultimately another black eye for the USMC and admitting mistakes (to include how Gen. Kelly made it past 1stLt.) was decided against.

Gen. Mattis has been honest about the relief of Col. Dowdy, that it was a mistake. Col. Dowdy would not be the 1st nor last FMF type officer who has fallen to professional
staff pukes who do one tour in the FMF as junior officers then spend their career outside the FMF (school, Army of the Potomac, etc.) then come for a short tour as a LtCol. or Col. then back to staff work.

On the WSJ article about on other relief that is a falsehood. The CO of the Motor T Regiment was relieved within the 1st 24 hours and never even crossed the Iraq/Kuwait border. The relief was for stress, she was assigned as a MEF staff augmentee, then given a Bronze star for the actions of the Regiment that her XO led throughout, he did not receive an award for his leadership…

On the waiver we (USA) have a thing called the Constitution. In it allows the President to appoint people with very few conditions. Congress passing a law is not amending the Constitution. If Congress wants the law to stand then they will pass a waiver.

S/F, FOG

MPN11

2nd Dec 2016, 19:59

....
And no MPN11 he is not a war monger, but he fully understands the nastiness of war, and he is not afraid to talk about it. If it comes to fighting he will be prepared and do it right.
Point taken. I simply mean he would, hopefully, focus military power on the target[s]. Instead of getting sidetracked by politics.

Enemies need to be killed, and our present enemies aren't going to convert to Christianity or call it off and go home.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Dec 2016, 21:23

@Al R: 16 of 155 generals in WW II who commanded divisions were relieved of command (two or three we later given other commands) ~ (snippet from Tom Ricks' "Lose a General Win a War" article from 2010 that accompanied the firing of General McChrystal)

Patton relieved one of his division commanders in North Africa, and from my readings of his history, I think three or four in France. (Not sure which book on Patton this comes from, but he had a discussion with one of his corps commanders about "if you don't relieve General X, I'll relieve you.")

@MPN11:
A good half of the Sec Def's job is politics. The other half is making sure the nation can apply military means when and where needed.

Flugplatz

2nd Dec 2016, 22:55

Don't know much about thi guy but I must say I like the cut of his jib.. I suppose his biggest problem will be keeping the JCS in line. Better than a having a Chief executive of the Ford Motor Co. at any rate

GlobalNav

2nd Dec 2016, 23:34

This guy might be alright, I dunno, but he belongs on the field more than in an office and a guy who lives by aggressive sayings doesn't strike me as very thoughtful. We'll see I guess

rjtjrt

3rd Dec 2016, 00:52

Post 12 ........Thanks for the correction, however there must be something in written law about this 7 year limit and why it exists.......

I recently read, I think on CNN or BBC, that the 7 year limit was to ensure it was clear the military is under civilian control.

SASless

3rd Dec 2016, 03:11

Gums,

Remember Pinky Reid and the Democrat Majority in the Senate voting in the Nuclear Option on Presidential Appointments....no more Filibustering is allowed....a simple Majority is all that is required.

Please to remember....George Patton got "relieved" by Eisenhower when he made Patton head up the Army that wasn't.....the one that was supposed to invade via Calais.

In WWII....in the American Army Generals performed or they got fired. We did not have the time or luxury to accept failure.

phil9560

3rd Dec 2016, 04:22

WTF are on about FOG ?

WhatsaLizad?

3rd Dec 2016, 04:31

I Served With James Mattis. Here's What I Learned From Him (http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/02/served-james-mattis-heres-learned/#disqus_thread)

Includes a comment from a Brit observer of Mattis.

stilton

3rd Dec 2016, 05:13

No doubt he's been a fine general, but chump has surrounded himself with them now.

So we have:

Mostly generals in senior cabinet positions

An extreme right wing white nationalist as 'strategic adviser'

A republican controlled house and senate so no checks and balances.

An unstable, xenophobic, bipolar, thin skinned sociopath about to take over the most
powerful position in the world.

What could go wrong ?

FOG

3rd Dec 2016, 06:54

Stilton,

I am far less concerned with the incoming crew than with the outgoing. I have to look up all the appointments but the only two I can think of off the top of my head are Gen.s Flynn and Mattis. Both of these gentlemen take the oath they have taken and administered hundreds if not thousands of times seriously.

Gen. Petraeus would give some pause. From the 101st in Mosul to "his" drafting of the counterinsurgency policy.

He was dead last (in my opinion) of the republicans running. Only thing worse were Clinton and Sanders.

S/F, FOG

Lonewolf_50

3rd Dec 2016, 18:51

This guy might be alright, I dunno, but he belongs on the field more than in an office and a guy who lives by aggressive sayings doesn't strike me as very thoughtful. We'll see I guess
Gen'l Mattis tailors his quotes to his audience. "Lives by aggressive sayings" strikes me as a serious case of underestimating somebody.

@Stilton Mostly generals in senior cabinet positions
Really? Name them, and then list all cabinet positions. "Mostly" is an overstatement, not to mention none are yet confirmed. See my point on advise and consent of Senate on last page. (I personally would recommend a campaign against Patraeus getting any appointment, given his known failure on handling classified information ... and he damned well knows/knew better). Sorry, general, you let down the side.
An extreme right wing white nationalist as 'strategic adviser' Not my favorite person.
A republican controlled house and senate so no checks and balances.
Display of ignorance. Half of the republicans in Congress (both houses) dislike Trump with some heat. Also, for a variety of issues you need 60 votes, not a simple majority. Do a little homework.
An unstable, xenophobic, bipolar, thin skinned sociopath about to take over the most powerful position in the world.
Hyperbole makes you look silly. Not impressive, your analysis, from top to bottom, though I personally share your distaste for one of his senior advisors.
What could go wrong ?
We could have a nation full of unthinking fools as a key ally on the eastern side of the Atlantic.

Hangarshuffle

3rd Dec 2016, 21:25

He looks and sounds old and mad, and is not what a declining power needs right now. There must be similar to him in history and would love to hear who they were and where it got to.

charliegolf

3rd Dec 2016, 21:53

Well at least he'll be happy to run the country on Christmas day should the Donald want family time.

AtomKraft

4th Dec 2016, 02:59

Brig. Gen. Mattis sounds like a typical high ranking US officer.

He is great at doing what Americans do best. Talking.

All that 'Gung Ho!' bollocks that he spouts is, as someone commented, tailored to please those listening, but it can't disguise the FACT that the US military haven't won anything for a long, long time.

The trouble with the USA is that it's excellent tactical warfighting abilities are invariably deployed after faulty strategic decisions. Vietnam was a classic. So was Iraq.

Let's hope that the STRATEGY improves under President Trump. That way, things might go better on the battlefield- in other words, pick wars (if pick 'em you must) where the fight is truly just, and you have a chance of actually winning.

Just invading countries you don't like, and then having your asses kicked, is not actually that impressive.

Capt. Dart. I liked your #10 Quote about the enemy getting a vote. GWB cooda used that one!;)

West Coast

4th Dec 2016, 03:40

Brig. Gen. Mattis sounds like a typical high ranking US officer.

Curious you can't be bothered enough to identify his rank properly yet you know enough about him to pass judgement.

AtomKraft

4th Dec 2016, 05:18

The link that SASless posted in post #3 identifies him as Brigadier General Mattis.

Que?

Did I abbreviate it wrongly? Please forgive me if I have sinned....looked it up. Should be Brig.-Gen.....Sorry about the missing hyphen......

You folk never miss an opportunity to miss the point, do you?

jindabyne

4th Dec 2016, 11:23

The link that SASless posted in post #3 identifies him as Brigadier General Mattis.

No it didn't. If you're going to try being the clever-dick, get it right. Try reading it again, and spot the tense.

Lonewolf_50

4th Dec 2016, 11:30

Brig. Gen. Mattis sounds like a typical high ranking US officer.

Just invading countries you don't like, and then having your asses kicked, is not actually that impressive.

Capt. Dart. I liked your #10 Quote about the enemy getting a vote. GWB cooda used that one!;)
Atom, a couple of points:
In order to get to the rank of general, 4 star, one has to work one's way through the lower starred ranks to include Brigadier General. So General Mattis was once, a long time ago, a Brigadier, but by the time OIF happened in 2003 he was a Major General, and later was promoted to General as well as the commander of US Central Command. All of that information is easy to find.

The US led coalition invaded Iraq, kicked their ass, and removed the government in power. What happened next was the a significant number of people in Iraq, and some others from elsewhere, chose score settling and a civil war rather than trying what was offered. (So be it, that's culture and politics). That isn't getting one's ass kicked. Getting your ass kicked is what happened to the Brits during our Revolution. We eventually lost interest in participating in their civil war. So we left, but oddly enough a few of our people back in the area assisting the government that we helped to put into place continue in the serial to that civil war. Real life isn't a video game, Atom, and politics takes place each day in a slightly different way as each dawn sees something different.

Yes, the enemy gets a vote. That's military training 101. Whether or not the pols believe the military when they are told that is an interesting point. (Lincoln's back and forth with his generals is an interesting example, during our civil war). It's one thing to win a war, it's another thing to win the peace. That second part is more difficult unless one chooses to occupy the nation you defeated for a few generations. (See Germany, Japan). That's where the matter of policy, politics and military means overlaps. Given that the policy stated very clearly by the Sec Def (Rumsfeld) in 2003 -- that we were not embarked on an effort in nation building -- was reasonably well articulated, it is no surprise that the nation building element of any plan or operation was under resourced, even not resourced. (I personally agreed with Colin Powell circa 2004, speaking at the political level, about "if you break it you own it" but that point was not entirely agreed within our policy making circles). What made the decision to "surge" in 2008 interesting was how that demonstrated that, with a different conceptual approach and investing more resources, more progress can be made. What then happened was predictable from the politcal side: it was decided that it's not worth the effort. Beyond that, any follow through President Obama might have made in choosing not to bring the troops home in 2010 died when the Iraqi government chose not to accept the SOFA. That was a critical political decision, and its results understandable from the PoV of both sides in that dialogue. Blaming that on people like General Mattis shows some serious ignorance on your part.

Beyond that, this thread is degenerating in the usual fashion, with the usual case of those who wish that had both the ability and the capability griping about those who actually do.

EDIT: all that said, I agree with your hope that the geo strategic thinking in Washington will improve, given that I was in the camp that disagreed with invading Iraq since breaking Iraq was bound to tip the regional balance in the favor of Iran, who were the larger geo strategic problem for American policy and posture in the region. Better strategic thinking would be very refreshing to see.

SASless

4th Dec 2016, 13:00

Lone,

It does not take much intellect or consideration to grasp where most of these comments come from....when we see Trump called all sorts of derogatory nicknames by those who are critical of Mattis in their Posts.

That gives their game away.

andrewn

4th Dec 2016, 13:25

Some really ignorant comments here, you only have to glance at Mattis' CV to understand he is a born leader of the highest calibre, and intellect seemingly. Basically, the kind of military leader we in the UK seem to be sorely lacking :)

ShotOne

4th Dec 2016, 14:07

As a Brit I'm a touch embarrassed by some of the anti-Trump catcalls from our side of the Atlantic. Few here had even heard of Brig Gen Mattis so any criticism of him is just an extension of that. The Donald won the vote and some here, even some in the political establishment (Corbyn, Sturgeon) ought to get used to it. Not to mention observe basic good manners

glad rag

4th Dec 2016, 14:22

Hmm spouting off the usual anti Iran bollox whilst carefully ignoring the viper in the nest, the REAL enemy?..

Oh and before the colon-ists start again, I hope that the incoming administration FULLY support the only secular country now left in the region..

glad rag

4th Dec 2016, 14:27

T28B

4th Dec 2016, 15:27

... I hope that the incoming administration FULLY support the only secular country now left in the region.. Who would that be? Curious to see who you think, in that region, is a secular country and why you offer that description.

glad rag

4th Dec 2016, 20:47

Who would that be? Curious to see who you think, in that region, is a secular country and why you offer that description.

Check your PMs

melmothtw

4th Dec 2016, 21:21

Check your PMs

Don't be shy glad rag, I'd be curious to know too.

West Coast

5th Dec 2016, 02:10

If you're willing to infer you know, then prove you know Glad Rag.

riff_raff

5th Dec 2016, 04:05

Consider that Eisenhower only retired from active duty a year or two before being elected US President.

T28B

5th Dec 2016, 14:00

glad rag, per your PM (which remains between us) I'll suggest that post that evoked the follow up questions/challenges is a case of thread drift and we'd all be better off sticking to the topic at hand. This thread began with the a post on the nomination for United States Secretary of Defense.

reynoldsno1

5th Dec 2016, 23:40

From what I have read and heard about Gen. Mattis is that he is anything but a 'warmonger'. Most of his quotes in the press are single sentences totally devoid of place, time and context, and merely reflect lazy journalistic practices, at best. He appears to be a well and widely read scholar, and, more importantly, very much his own man. I suspect he would have little issue with advising the Commander in Chief of his shortcomings, and certainly not via Twitter. I think he could be an excellent choice.

AtomKraft

6th Dec 2016, 07:36

Reply to Lonewolf 50s #38
I'm glad you got the point which I was trying to make in the end. That's the real deal.

Personally, I think there's a good chance under POTUS Trump.

A lot of folk hoped for the same with Obama- but got disappointed..Kinda like the lefties in the UK were cock-a-hoop when Blair got in. Then watched in horror as their 'lefty' Prime Minister buried himself waist deep in a variety of small wars which the Tories would have likely done less of.

If Trump thinks starting a fight with some nation or other is unwise, I can't see anyone talking, or lobbying him, into it.

But I guess we will see.

I salute the US armed forces unreservedly btw. They fight hard and strong.

But if you are in the wrong fight, then all's lost. Doesn't matter how good you are.

The best tactics in the world are worthless if the Strategy is wrong.

Lonewolf_50

6th Dec 2016, 12:54

But if you are in the wrong fight, then all's lost. Doesn't matter how good you are. The best tactics in the world are worthless if the Strategy is wrong. Yeah, they teach that at staff college. Most civilian leadership seems not to take that course, however. The point is to establish an objective and figure out which means to achieve it. Sometimes it is believed that military means will be faster, and thus able to achieve an end "while I am still in office." The long game is often not popular domestically here.
LBJ fell into that trap, for sure, and W seems to have done the same. What I think anchored his vision in this 'short and not too expensive war' was the belief that because the economic basis for Iraq's economy (oil reserves easy to get to) would allow for a "self funded" post war economic healing the post conflict phases would be both short and easily handed off to "the Iraqi People." (He and his team even had their own favorite expat in the wings, Chalabi ... ) All this even with the evidence of how hard this break up and repair operation is, see Yugoslavia. (We won't make their (previous administration's) mistakes) ... No, W, you made your own. :p
Needless to say, those assumptions at the geo strategic level were built on sand.

One of the places where I think Mattis can be of great value, which Rummy didn't for W, is his sanity check due to his credibility.
"Mr President, if you want to achieve this end, the military can get you X, or Y, but it can't get you Z." I think his habit of candor will be useful in mitigating or killing of bizarre policy/means mismatches.

West Coast

6th Dec 2016, 15:32

The best tactics in the world are worthless if the Strategy is wrong.

If you know Gen Mattis to the degree that you're comfortable about passing judgement on him, you'd know that he's a strategic thinker. We both know you'd never heard of the good General before and that your opinion is based solely off media reports. Instead of slagging the man, take the opportunity to close your mouth, open you ears and learn.

FOG

6th Dec 2016, 18:44

Lonewolf,

I agree that the desired end state should be clearly articulated and achievable. During the 1990s the desired end state was the defeat of Iraq and a stable Iraq. Evidence the plans and requirements as levied upon the operational forces. I was never a permanent staff officer for MarCet, CentCom, etc. but worked with more than a few of them. The two basic paths were defeat Iraq ala WWII (vice WWI)
Germany or defeat and occupy with a large force and administer.

When Gen. Shensheki was fired for his congressional testimony then looked at the forces being tapped for the invasion most were incredulous. The only thing that we could figure the objective being was to start an insurgency by toppling the central government thus enticing various jihadis to fight in Iraq vice Afghanistan. The the thinking being that Iraq was easier to get for the jihadis and far cheaper for us on the logistics side.

No one I know thought we (the USA) was serious about having a stable Iraq and public statements, etc. were a form of maskrovka, roughly along the lines of WWII Churchill and Coventry. That politicians didn’t have the PME of a Cpl. or 2ndLt. nor read Lawrence in college was unbelievable. The alternative being that the same politicians would have to double their collective IQ get to triple digits. Only time may tell, depending on level of honesty revealed by those involved.

One of the most telling briefs I attended was by a civilian lady for the War College. Basically she said we don’t care how you fight you Bn., Sqdn., etc. and that we don’t care about the tactical, operational with the only strategic concern was working with the civilian superiors. More than one officer decided that the path was not in keeping with their oath and ethos, they either turned down orders or told their monitor/detailer not to cut orders as they would not accept them.

The result is senior general officers in the mold of Powell and Clark. I have professionally met both and neither inspired much confidence in their traditional military abilities, though their ability to BS was good.

I hope Gen. Mattis initiates a PME along Gen. Grey, where the military tactical, technical, and strategic were central while encouraging study of other areas on the side. I hope he does away with the PC culture and it’s attendant costs. I hope he brings back the idea of actual training as during the Reagan and Bush1 eras. I hope he initiates an education plan of the civilian leadership to include Congress and other departments. I hope he gets a deputy who can figure out the whole acquisition ‘stuff’ and spearhead reforms with congress (sounds like a Mitt Romney).

Unfortunately hope is not a COA but it’s the best we have at this time.

S/F, FOG

Lonewolf_50

6th Dec 2016, 19:02

Evidence the plans and requirements as levied upon the operational forces. From Zinni's ~300k (an op plan we did a part of during a CPX) to Shinseki's 240-260 K to get it done through Phase IV and V, what we ended up with was a "how cheap can we do it" as directed from the National Command Authority. I was in theater when Bremmer was there, and when he snuck out like a thief in the night. The under-resourcing of Phases IV and V was blatant and cynical. That came from the top, despite the Army's best efforts to fulfill their Title X roles for post conflict ops When Gen. Shensheki was fired for his congressional testimony then looked at the forces being tapped for the invasion most were incredulous. It was a MacNamaresque move, not Rummy's finest moment. No one I know thought we (the USA) was serious about having a stable Iraq and public statements, etc. were a form of maskrovka, roughly along the lines of WWII Churchill and Coventry. That politicians didn’t have the PME of a Cpl. or 2ndLt. nor read Lawrence in college was unbelievable. Yep. I had always wondered if that were the longer game: entice local radicals into Iraq to get the locals to fight each other, but given some of our relationships in the area, I am not so sure that was the actual intent. It's just how it ended up.

Clark I met in person, he was J3 at the time. (Or was is DCSOPS for the Army? ) Smart guy, to be sure, but when he was in SHAPE my colleagues there "would not vote for that man for dog catcher." My own take on his time as SACEUR is a below average grade. Personal opinion. Powell I have met in person; we'll agree to disagree on the assessment, other than that both men learned how to operate in the Political AOR.
I hope he does away with the PC culture and it’s attendant costs. He can try, but Congress pays the bills and they seem to have bought into it. I think Mattis will know which fights to pick. My read on him is that is one of his strengths.
I hope he brings back the idea of actual training as during the Reagan and Bush1 eras. Yeah, what a concept: a well trained force. :ok: Unfortunately hope is not a COA but it’s the best we have at this time. Heh, thus spake General Sullivan when he was Chief of Staff of the Army. :cool:

To roughly quote General Shelton: Douglas Feith was the dumbest smart guy he'd met in his life. Likewise with a few other people who had W's ear (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/06/paul_wolfowitz_bill_kristol_and_douglas_feith_should_be_igno red_the_neocons.html).

FOG

6th Dec 2016, 21:19

Lonewolf,

Pleading guilty on the plagiarism of the quote, I first heard it from Gen. Gray in 1988 as a 2ndLt.

Met Clark during Allied Farce. We wanted the ARG to seize Pristina and since I had some training/experience with these… Short version it was; a) Stupid, b) Sounded like an illegal order to invade without proper authority, c) 6th Fleet was never chopped to EUCOM, it was in support. General impression of Clark was that he would have been the most over the top GO if he had been in Dr. Strangelove.

Agree to disagree on Powell. I met Powel in a working/social type situation. Very smooth and worked the room as a politician. Initial impression was that Powell was informed and knew his stuff. As the event developed it was clear that Powell was regurgitating lines. Powell’s knowledge, let alone mastery, of both the specific situation and at the basic Capt. (non MOS specific) level were severely lacking. He was very good at re-directing the conversation vice addressing the subjects.

“That came from the top, despite the Army's best efforts to fulfill their Title X roles for post conflict ops” I didn’t have access to the top of the USMC but when queried those with multiple stars received essentially the following; “Your concerns are noted and appreciated, they have been addressed by those civilians both elected and those confirmed by the Senate.” Translation is; STFU, go do your jobs, and don’t ask questions that would embarrass our civilian seniors.

S/F, FOG

Lonewolf_50

6th Dec 2016, 21:22

FOG

6th Dec 2016, 21:34

What I meant from "Came from the top" is that despite the Army trying to do what they know and are trained to do, the civilian leadership chose to ignore their best advice and decided that they already had their own answer. Good call on Pristina, I think I've heard similar before from a different angle, with the same assessment you arrived at. (What was he thinking?)

That’s my impression as well, that the senior USMC was told to STFU and do as ordered.

The most charitable thing history could look on the civilian leadership is if they really wanted to start an insurgency, and that the civilian leadership has some good evidence to back up this COA.

S/F, FOG

FlightlessParrot

7th Dec 2016, 05:39

@MAINJAFAD: no, it's not against the law. It is within the law providing the request for waiver is approved by Congress. If they don't approve the request, the appointment cannot go forward and another choice presented. ALL cabinet posts are subject to "advice and consent of the Senate."
Quote:
In the United States, "advice and consent" is a power of the United States Senate to be consulted on and approve treaties signed and appointments made by the President of the United States to public positions, including Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, United States Attorneys, and ambassadors.
Any other remedial education that you request will be provided at the usual rates.

But I thought the 7 year glitch had to be waived by Congress (? does it need a specific legislative act?), not just the normal Senate consent process?

AtomKraft

7th Dec 2016, 14:10

Westie.
I don't know Mattis, nor claimed to.

I see his idiot quotes though. :rolleyes:

But, still, he could be good at his job- or he WAS good at his job? I don't know- it's not for me to say. Let's just hope he's good at his next one....

What I do know is this: It's not the job of troops on the ground to die while trying to make up for plans thought up by an idiot in the White House.

Being shot in the head in some foreign country does not make you a hero- especially if you shouldn't even be there.

Mattis knows that. So do you and I but no-one knows it more than the poor idiot sent out to execute such policy.

God save us all from the 'bought and sold' politician, so beloved in Washington D.C.

Here's to Trump!

A man who at least has his own money.

Lonewolf_50

7th Dec 2016, 14:25

But I thought the 7 year glitch had to be waived by Congress (? does it need a specific legislative act?), not just the normal Senate consent process?
Let me explain this to you: the term "against the law" is and was FALSE and that is why I responded.
Laws are rule sets. In this rule set, there is a general rule (the 7 year bit) but also a provision within the rule for a waiver request. Therefore, NOT against the law, but rather within the law since the provision for waiver is part and parcel to the rule set.
Was I being a bit nit picky? Yes, but the original statement was false and I felt it needed to be corrected.

I had a junior officer who left the service and was trying to get hired by a good sized defense firm. He'd been involved in some work with them previously so that regulations required that he not be hired by them for a six month waiting period unless he got a waiver. Per DoD regulations (which are derived from public law) we submitted a waiver package for him. (Over two dozen pages). We had hopes that the waiver would come through, but in the usual case of stamping down on those not of exalted rank, his waiver came back disapproved.
I then prepared a (30+ page) package, he and I worked on it together, to be sent to his Congressional representative and both State Senators, in hopes of getting an oversight query from Congress to DoD to appeal that ruling. However, once we had it all together (he had been interviewing with other companies as well) he came into my office before we got all of the signatures, dotted i's and crossed t's, and advised me that he'd not send in the packages to his elected representatives. He accepted that he'd gotten the beef job in the rectum, and chose to hire on with a different company. He was tired of fighting the :mad:ing system.
That experience was frustrating, educational, and useful. In my following job I had to answer a dozen Congressional inquires over various matters regarding people asking for appeals and waivers to regulations. Knowing what can go into such an appeal helped me staff the responses.