US Defense Secretary Selected
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,809
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Enemies need to be killed, and our present enemies aren't going to convert to Christianity or call it off and go home.
@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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post 12
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.
........Thanks for the correction, however there must be something in written law about this 7 year limit and why it exists.......
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.
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.
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
@Stilton
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 ?
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Brig. Gen. Mattis sounds like a typical high ranking US officer.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by AtomKraft; 4th Dec 2016 at 05:36.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The link that SASless posted in post #3 identifies him as Brigadier General Mattis.
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.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 4th Dec 2016 at 12:05.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 