What's new

US Politics

It's official: Donald Trump has chosen Gen. James Mattis for defense secretary







By: Leo Shane III, Military Times, December 1, 2016 (Photo Credit: Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Donald Trump on Thursday announced retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis as his pick for secretary of defense, tasking the popular military leader with carrying out the president-elect's planned overhaul of Pentagon operations and a shift in national security priorities.

Speaking at a rally Thursday night in Cincinnati, Trump confirmed media reports published earlier in the day indicating the president-elect intended to nominate Mattis for the key Cabinet post.

Neither Mattis nor Trump's transition team responded to Military Times' requests for comment.

The 66-year-old retired general, who left active duty in 2013 after reportedly falling from favor with the Obama administration over disagreements about Iran, last served as the head of U.S. Central Command. The post afforded him oversight of all military activity in the Middle East, to include the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He will require a waiver from Congress to hold the Pentagon's top post because law mandates a seven-year wait between active-duty service and working as defense secretary, a rule designed to reinforce the concept of civilian control of the military.

Mattis is widely respected on Capitol Hill, and likely won't encounter any difficulty getting confirmed. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., has praised Mattis as "one of the finest military officers of his generation and an extraordinary leader," and has signaled Senate support for Trump's choice, saying it won't be a problem for Mattis to obtain the waiver he'll need to serve as secretary.

Video by Daniel Woolfolk/Staff

Trump will look to Mattis, if confirmed, to help navigate a host of global security challenges: Washington's standoff with Russia, China's imperial ambitions, ongoing violence in Africa and the Middle East.

"The Afghan war is not going well," said Peter Bergen, a military analyst and vice president of the New America think tank. "One of the first things the Trump administration needs to do is to figure out its policy there."

Inside the Pentagon, Mattis was known for being assertive with the use of U.S. forces, said Bryan Clark, who was a top aide to Adm. Jon Greenert, the chief of naval operations from 2011 to 2015. Mattis leaned on the Navy to keep two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf as a means to counter Iran, creating some strain on the service's budget and resources.

“He pushed a lot more of a hawkish tone towards Iran” said Clark, now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “At the time, the Obama administration was trying to use the ‘carrot and stick’ method to get Iran to the table: The carrot being the nuclear negotiations and the sticks being the stepped up carrier presence. Mattis favored using the stick until the adversary cedes to your wishes — then bring out the carrots.”


Military Times
Here's why officers can't easily become defense secretaries

During his final years of service, Mattis sparred often with Obama’s national security team. As the president moved to set up his nuclear agreement with Iran, Mattis publicly advocated his aggressive approach to confronting the regime he has come to view as the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. Trump made this a key foreign policy point on the campaign trail, repeatedly blasting Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the nuclear deal.

While China and Russia might call for somewhat different approaches, Clark added that Mattis clearly believes in the power of U.S military muscle to solve problems. “He'll look to be a lot more assertive in our disagreements with other nations,” Clark said. “... He postured a large amount of forces with a lot of capabilities in the places they'd want to cause trouble.”


Military Times
Mattis: The man, the myths and the influential general's deep bond with his Marines

The general enjoys a cult-like following among past and present military members — particularly infantry Marines and soldiers — inspired by his swashbuckling rhetoric about the realities of war. He is known by an array of nicknames and military callsigns, including Mad Dog, Chaos and Warrior Monk. The last derives from his bachelor status, a rarity among those who attain four-star status.

Regarded as an intellectual but tough-edged military leader, Mattis is known for his colorful quotes such as: "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." His 44-year military career, which includes experience on the ground in combat, buoys his credibility. After their initial meeting on Nov. 19, Trump called Mattis “the real deal.”


Military Times
This is what General Mattis gets wrong about Iran

Mattis currently works as a national security fellow at the California-based Hoover Institution. In recent months he has spoken frequently in Washington, D.C., about the need for military leadership and vigilance in an increasingly dangerous world.

The president-elect has indicated a strong desire for a bigger military and fewer spending restrictions. But Trump also has promised a less-confrontational foreign policy strategy, blasting the past two presidents' inclination toward “nation building,” calling the approach an unforgivable failure.

It remains to be seen how that syncs with Mattis’ opinions. But in August, the general co-authored a report blasting the last three administrations for a perceived lack of national security vision, saying those leaders have largely ignored threats posed by Russia, China and terrorist groups worldwide.

“If the world feels more dangerous to you, it should,” the report states. “We are seeing the results of 20 years of the United States operating unguided by strategy. We have been slow to identify emergent threats and unwilling to prioritize competing interests; we have sent confounding messages to enemies and allies alike. Our country urgently needs to up our game, make common cause with countries that are willing to help repair and sustain the international order that has served the United States and our allies so well.”


Trump has said that Mattis may have changed his views on torturing terrorists — even before being formally offered the job. Trump and his surrogates have been advocates for a return to waterboarding and other controversial interrogation techniques, but in an interview with the New York Times on Nov. 22 the president-elect said Mattis made him rethink that position.

Instead, Trump said, Mattis advocated building a relationship with detainees. He told Trump “give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers, and I’ll do better,” an answer the president-elect called "impressive."


Military Times
Retired Gen. James Mattis says civilians know little about the military

Last spring, a group of Mattis fans unsuccessfully attempted to draft the retired general as an alternative presidential candidate to Trump and Clinton, but Mattis rebuffed the effort. And unlike a number of other high-profile former military leaders, he declined to condemn Trump’s campaign trail rhetoric about attacking the families of terrorists as dangerous and un-American.

In September, Mattis co-authored the book "Warriors & Citizens" which addresses the cultural gap between the military and the civilian population it serves. The results revealed a surprising level of ignorance and unfamiliarity.

His research found that one in three Americans have little or no familiarity with the military, and half of Americans cannot recall socializing with a service member or military spouse within the last year. This may point to at least one of his priorities as defense secretary: bridging the so-called civil-military divide.

“There are many people who do not know if the U.S. Army has 60,000 men or 6 million," Mattis told Military Times when the book was published in September. "They do not have a clue about that.

“America is quite right to be proud of their military, but at the same time there has got to be a sense of common purpose between these two elements. If, in fact, this gap grows and we lose the sense of common purpose, then I think we have a problem.”

Mattis espouses and exudes the virtues of military leadership and will bring three "critical elements" to the Pentagon, said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who retired in 2013 as NATO's top commander.

"First a deep profound and unshakable understanding of combat operations from having been there," Stavridis said. "Second an intellectual underpinning that comprehends the deepest elements of military history and strategy. And third an unbounded compassion for the troops that he serves."

With reporting by Jeff Schogol of Marine Corps Times and David Larter of Navy Times. The Associated Press also contributed to this report.



Leo Shane III covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He can be reached at lshane@militarytimes.com .
http://www.militarytimes.com/editorial-contacts
 
It's not only highly unusual for such a recently retired general to be Defence Secretary but he will be teamed up with the new National Security Advisor who is also a general, Michael Flynn.

mattissittingdown.jpg

Gen. James "mad dog" Mattis-USMC DefSec designee
senate-armed-services-committee-lt-gen-michael-flynn-Getty-640x480.jpg

Gen. Michael Flynn-US Army NSC designee.

II wouldn't want to piss either of them off. o_O
 
It's not only highly unusual for such a recently retired general to be Defence Secretary but he will be teamed up with the new National Security Advisor who is also a general, Michael Flynn.

mattissittingdown.jpg

Gen. James "mad dog" Mattis-USMC DefSec designee
senate-armed-services-committee-lt-gen-michael-flynn-Getty-640x480.jpg

Gen. Michael Flynn-US Army NSC designee.

II wouldn't want to piss either of them off. o_O
Indeed G. James Seems to be more ruthless ""Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet"." No war is over until the enemy says its over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote"
 
If you want to get a tough job done find a tough guy. As for Afganistan being an example, the toughest job is to get the hell out ASAP - as if it never had happened at the first place. Hint: Vietnam in 1975 or any US court order on divorce cases...

As for the folks willing to negotiate with these "tough guys", develop some manly demeanors (and possibly looks & voice). Qamar Pasha appears to be more than OK...

As for thunder-voiced Raheel Pasha, possibly being the commander of a force comprising mostly of the ex Osmanli Vilayets (Ottoman provinces), he will live up to his reputation inshaAllah while spending long hours and days in the negotiation table...

As for Mr. Trump, he is building his senior executive team with the folks who will bring him more businesses and reduce costs...

*Here, Trump and the USA are used interchangeably...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mad Dog Mattis.

I've read his quotes and listened to some of his interviews. Not a guy to be messed with.
 
Great post, as usual. Quite extensive that I cannot respond to all points, but I would like to touch on a few.


Thank you, my friend. Differences of opinion are healthy. The world would be a very boring place if everyone agreed all the time. I just like to point out the facts, and make my case.

That Republicans is the party of the rich and Democrats is the party of the working class is not as clear cut these days as it use to be. This election proved it, in my opinion. Look who voted for Democrats and who voted for Republicans.


Most low-income voters still voted for Clinton, though there was a bit of a shift towards Trump:

i96me7n04pwx.png (PNG Image, 1045 × 612 pixels).png

Source: New York Times Exit Poll


Nor have people's opinions about the parties/candidates changed much this year:

trump-clinton-matchup-graphic.png


More importantly, regardless of who voters vote for, Republicans cannot stop being termed a party of the rich and start being termed a party of the middle & working classes, until they stop supporting policies that favor the rich and start supporting policies that actually favor the middle & working classes.

That doesn't mean that they have to turn into Democrats, either. They could continue to hold the same positions on social issues and foreign policy that they do now.

Democrats play upon the poor for votes. What do Democrats do for poor people? Nothing.


Quite the opposite, actually. Republicans prey on poor whites for votes, and then enact policies that help the rich and harm the poor/middle class.

What do Republicans for poor whites? Nothing.

No doubt poor polling data played their part in this election, but I must tell there is a sizable number of people who thought Clinton's victory was all but guaranteed. To the them Trump was a joke. Easily defeated...and by landslide too. I think this complacency also kept many Democrats at home too.


Well, I do agree with you on this. Polls did show the race tightening as the election day approached, but Clinton still led in almost all of them. But you're absolutely right that some people did not take him seriously enough and stayed home. But you can only blame them so much, given what polling what showing:

imrs.php.jpg



Months ago, I remember having a casual conversation with a friend, shortly before the primaries entered the final stage. We were talking about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. He (a Bernie supporter, like me--and working in finance, by the way) said that although he was sad to see Hillary to be the likely nominee, she would still go on to beat Trump easily, in a somewhat nonchalant tone. I replied that was probably true, but Trump could still win if he over-performed and won Midwestern states, especially among working-class voters if many Sanders supporters stayed home. Even if she was winning the popular vote nationwide, he could win the electoral vote and become President.

At the time I said it, I hadn't given it much thought. I said it mainly because I wanted to point out Sanders' advantage over her as a nominee. I wasn't completely serious, though it was obviously a possibility. Sometimes it's shocking to be right...

And that brings me to another point. Although some lower-income voters did turn to Trump in the Midwest (which was what won him the electoral college), far more simply stayed home, and some voted third party:


"3. Trump did not flip white voters in the Rust Belt who had supported Obama. Democrats lost them.

Relative to 2012, Democrats lost 950,000 white voters in the Rust Belt 5 (-13 percent). This figure includes a loss of 770,000 votes cast by white men (-24.2 percent). Compare that number to the modest gains Republicans made in terms of white voters: They picked up only 450,000 whites (+4.9 percent).

Democrats also lost the black, indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) vote in the Rust Belt 5, with 400,000 fewer voters in this category (-11.5 percent). While disaggregated exit-poll data on BIPOC voters was inconsistently available across the five states we examined, in those places where numbers were available, Democrats saw losses among both black American and Latino voters. Importantly, some of the greatest losses in BIPOC votes were in states such as Ohio and Wisconsin, both of which adopted voter suppression laws beginning in 2012. But even in states with no such laws, such as Pennsylvania, BIPOC turnout was significantly lower this election cycle. In short, more people of color stayed home in the Rust Belt in 2016 than in 2012.



4. The real story—the one the pundits missed—is that voters who fled the Democrats in the Rust Belt 5 were twice as likely either to vote for a third party or to stay at home than to embrace Trump.

Compared with 2012, three times as many voters in the Rust Belt who made under $100,000 voted for third parties. Twice as many voted for alternative or write-in candidates. Similarly, compared with 2012, some 500,000 more voters chose to sit out this presidential election. If there was a Rust Belt revolt this year, it was the voters’ flight from both parties.

In short, the story of a white working-class revolt in the Rust Belt just doesn't hold up, according to the numbers. In the Rust Belt, Democrats lost 1.35 million voters. Trump picked up less than half, at 590,000. The rest stayed home or voted for someone other than the major party candidates.

This data suggests that if the Democratic Party wants to win the Rust Belt, it should not go chasing after the white working-class men who voted for Trump. The party should spend its energy figuring out why Democrats lost millions of voters to some other candidate or to abstention. Exit polls do not collect information about why voters stay home. Perhaps it’s time someone asked them."

161201_POL_RustBelt5_Income-CHART.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...2016/12/the_myth_of_the_rust_belt_revolt.html
 
Last edited:
"We"? Who's this "we"? Didn't Bernie the fake commie chicken out to Hillary? So much for "feel the Berne" aye? :lol:
Bernie's not humble. The guy reeks of hypocrisy. What kind of "socialist" owns three homes, the latest one of which is $600,000?


He was a democratic-socialist, not a communist or a true socialist, you imbecile. They're not even remotely the same thing. There is no hypocrisy. I've explained this to you multiple times now. I suggest laughing a little less and doing a little more research. It will save you a lot wasted time in the future.

Most of his supporters that showed up to the polls voted for Clinton. So I'm not sure how he "chickened out", given that he followed the lead of his supporters.

Bernie's a conman who took $200,000,000 donations from his jobless supporters and still didn't even attempt to fight for them at the DNC like he promised.


Every post, you stoop lower and lower. Kudos, let's see how low you can go. You make most Trump supporters look bad.

The vast majority of Bernie's supporters were employed. And yes, he accepted donations (like every other candidate) for a campaign that changed the political landscape of America. He also showed that you don't need huge corporations to bankroll a campaign. He re-focused the attention of Democratic Party on economic issues and showed the vulnerabilities of candidates like Hillary. Particularly important lessons, given how the election turned out.

At the convention, all his hopes rested on super-delegates. They backed Hillary, and paid the ultimate price in the general election. There was nothing else he could do. It was up to the Democratic Party to make the right choice. Unfortunately, they failed.

I'm glad Bernie supporters got what they deserved.


Bernie Sanders is still a Senator, and has more influence than ever before, especially with the Clintons out of the way. Not to mention that Democrats will likely make a comeback thanks to a renewed focus on economic issues and President Trump (he's going to be a disaster).

You, on the other hand, will have to defend Trump for the next four years. Good luck with that. You're about to get what you deserve. These next few years are going to be so much fun for us Bernie supporters. :partay:
 
Last edited:
Damn, those guys look tough o_O

I'm confident that they can do a better job than than Obama's administration.
 
Interesting discussion, don't get triggered just because it's Jared Taylor and listen to the conversation.


@Desert Fox

@LA se Karachi you too bro, have a listen if you have the time, good to know what the enemy is talking about, right ?




------------------------------------------------------------------
another big league deplorable ideologue

 

Even if I disagree with his views, I'd still prefer Jared Taylor as my neighbor over the "tolerant" leftists/liberals. At least I won't have to fear for my physical safety.



Wtf :lol: "Children of the sun"?? Can't believe people take these guys seriously.

Though I have to say they're still more civilized compared to the leftists/liberals who are sh!tting in the streets (literally, just look it up), beating people up for having different political views and burning down neighborhoods.
 
Even if I disagree with his views, I'd still prefer Jared Taylor as my neighbor over the "tolerant" leftists/liberals. At least I won't have to fear for my physical safety.




Wtf :lol: "Children of the sun"?? Can't believe people take these guys seriously.

Though I have to say they're still more civilized compared to the leftists/liberals who are sh!tting in the streets (literally, just look it up), beating people up for having different political views and burning down neighborhoods.
they've really shot themselves in the foot with all these years of "normalizing" far left attitudes toward conservative people and thought, haven't they ?

I agree, the neo nazi stuff is completely retarded, and no matter how Jared Taylor tries to blunt the knife, racism makes no sense. You're still going to have to deal with your share of these guys though, never in recorded human history have major demographic changes, the likes of which are predicted for America in the relatively short term (20-40 years), gone smoothly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Back
Top Bottom