US Defense Secretary Selected
 

Announced by President-Elect Trump during a speech December 1 (subject to waiver from Congress on the requirement to be retired for more than 7 years before appointment - expected to be forthcoming):

James N "Mad Dog" Mattis, General USMC (Retired)

Former commands:

US Central Command
US Joint Forces Command
NATO SAC(T)
1 MEF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mattis

The F-35B program should survive then !

Since retirement from the military, Mattis has worked for FWA Consultants and also serves as a Member of the General Dynamics Board of Directors

same old, same old.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jame...ivilian_career

Yeah....Yeah....Yeah....same old thing huh?

There is a side to General Mattis few know of outside of the US Marine Corps.

This guy is the real deal....an Officer of Marines in every essence of the word...and his Being.

How many Senior British Officers you know that ever did this on Christmas?


One Marine's View: That?s the kind of officer that Jim Mattis is. A Marine Christmas story

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.”

Interesting story behind the sacking of Joe Dowdy.

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

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

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

Was he in Dr Strangelove?

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).

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?

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." Any other remedial education that you request will be provided at the usual rates. :8

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).

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.

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.

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: @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.

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.

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

Lonewolf,

Thanks, I will.

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.

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

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.

@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.

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

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.

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.

WTF are on about FOG ?

I Served With James Mattis. Here's What I Learned From Him


Includes a comment from a Brit observer of Mattis.

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 ?

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

Gen'l Mattis tailors his quotes to his audience. "Lives by aggressive sayings" strikes me as a serious case of underestimating somebody.

@Stilton 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.
Not my favorite person.
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.
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.
We could have a nation full of unthinking fools as a key ally on the eastern side of the Atlantic.

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.

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

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!;)

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 :)