Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

US Defense Secretary Selected

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

US Defense Secretary Selected

Old 4th Dec 2016, 14:07
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
ShotOne is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 14:22
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 14:27
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ShotOne
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
Indeed, the shoe is firmly on the other foot now, marvellous isn't it.
glad rag is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 15:27
  #44 (permalink)  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: The Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,691
Received 278 Likes on 126 Posts
Originally Posted by glad rag
... 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.
T28B is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 20:47
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by T28B
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
glad rag is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2016, 21:21
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,118
Received 151 Likes on 77 Posts
Originally Posted by glad rag
Check your PMs
Don't be shy glad rag, I'd be curious to know too.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 02:10
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,067
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
If you're willing to infer you know, then prove you know Glad Rag.
West Coast is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 04:05
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Consider that Eisenhower only retired from active duty a year or two before being elected US President.
riff_raff is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 14:00
  #49 (permalink)  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: The Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,691
Received 278 Likes on 126 Posts
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.
T28B is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2016, 23:40
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,344
Received 18 Likes on 9 Posts
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.
reynoldsno1 is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 07:36
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
AtomKraft is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 12:54
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,131
Received 320 Likes on 204 Posts
Originally Posted by AtomKraft
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.
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.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 15:32
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,067
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
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.
West Coast is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 18:44
  #54 (permalink)  
FOG
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
FOG is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 19:02
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,131
Received 320 Likes on 204 Posts
Originally Posted by FOG
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.
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.

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.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 21:19
  #56 (permalink)  
FOG
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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

Last edited by FOG; 7th Dec 2016 at 02:19.
FOG is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 21:22
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,131
Received 320 Likes on 204 Posts
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?)
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 21:34
  #58 (permalink)  
FOG
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
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
FOG is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2016, 05:39
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@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?
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2016, 14:10
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Westie.
I don't know Mattis, nor claimed to.

I see his idiot quotes though.

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.
AtomKraft is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.