It is interesting to look at how 2 different news sources portray trumps pick for Sec.of Def. The first gives a account that is positive:
Peters: Why Mattis would be a great secretary of defense
I’m lucky enough to know General James Mattis slightly. Just well enough to trust him unreservedly with our military and our nation’s security.
The president-elect could not choose a better man to be our next Secretary of Defense. Not just because Mattis is a battle-hardened Marine with a remarkable combat record. And not just because he has a mind of remarkable clarity and is, without question, the best-read general of his generation.
I trust Jim Mattis because he’s a man of character, that most un-Washingtonian quality. His public image is of one rough-and-tough Marine, but the man I’ve encountered is, above all, one of integrity. His code of honor is so out of fashion that one has to reach back to a Victorian vocabulary: He has a noble spirit.
And then compare this from a more liberal outlet and what he emphasizes:
During a 2005 panel discussion in San Diego, Mattis once said that he enjoyed "brawling" and enjoyed killing the enemy in war.
"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot," Mattis said. "It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling."
Mattis isn't eligible because the 1947 National Security Act says that any candidate must be a civilian and have been out of the service for 7 years (changed from the former 10 years in 2008) and since he's only been out for 3 years, he'd have to have special Congressional approval to go around the law.
General George C. Marshall's nomination in 1950 was the one exception and Congress said THIS about about having to bypass the Act in order to confirm Marshall:
Congress wrote:“the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approval by the Congress of continuing appointments of military men in the office of Secretary of Defense in the future.”
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
Robert Bateman wrote:First, I think he is going to puke trying to run the Pentagon. It is not just that he is not generally inclined to being bound to a desk and wrestling with political inter-service infighting. I suspect that Mattis is going to run afoul of his own civilian subordinates, specifically the hundreds of Trump boosters who will be injected under him politically within the Pentagon system.
Second, I think that there is a very real possibility, bordering on a certainty, that Mattis might well tell Mr. Trump to get fked at some point. Yes, it is true that Mattis can reason with people, but he is also the direct product of 40 years of enculturation within the culture of the United States Marine Corps. I do not believe that President-Elect Trump really understands this. There is a reason Mattis is called "Mad Dog," however much he himself may dislike the nickname.
Finally, I think I know what Mattis is trying to do by accepting this position, and it is not because he supports Mr. Trump: Mattis is sacrificing himself.
He knows that this will not end well, but he's doing it in order to preserve what he can of the military for the long-term, despite Trump. And he knows that he scares Trump. And so, he is essentially offering himself up as a shield. He knows his history, and he believes in civil control of the military. But in this case, and I suspect in only such a unique case as that of Trump, Mattis may have reached the conclusion that the nation's armed forces need protection from their own commander.
Vander wrote:I thought this was an interesting take:
Robert Bateman wrote:First, I think he is going to puke trying to run the Pentagon. It is not just that he is not generally inclined to being bound to a desk and wrestling with political inter-service infighting. I suspect that Mattis is going to run afoul of his own civilian subordinates, specifically the hundreds of Trump boosters who will be injected under him politically within the Pentagon system.
Second, I think that there is a very real possibility, bordering on a certainty, that Mattis might well tell Mr. Trump to get fked at some point. Yes, it is true that Mattis can reason with people, but he is also the direct product of 40 years of enculturation within the culture of the United States Marine Corps. I do not believe that President-Elect Trump really understands this. There is a reason Mattis is called "Mad Dog," however much he himself may dislike the nickname.
Finally, I think I know what Mattis is trying to do by accepting this position, and it is not because he supports Mr. Trump: Mattis is sacrificing himself.
He knows that this will not end well, but he's doing it in order to preserve what he can of the military for the long-term, despite Trump. And he knows that he scares Trump. And so, he is essentially offering himself up as a shield. He knows his history, and he believes in civil control of the military. But in this case, and I suspect in only such a unique case as that of Trump, Mattis may have reached the conclusion that the nation's armed forces need protection from their own commander.
tunnelcat wrote:Mattis isn't eligible because the 1947 National Security Act says that any candidate must be a civilian and have been out of the service for 7 years (changed from the former 10 years in 2008) and since he's only been out for 3 years, he'd have to have special Congressional approval to go around the law.
General George C. Marshall's nomination in 1950 was the one exception and Congress said THIS about about having to bypass the Act in order to confirm Marshall:
Congress wrote:“the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approval by the Congress of continuing appointments of military men in the office of Secretary of Defense in the future.”
He'll get the special approval.
Liberal speak: "Convenience for you means control for him, free and the price is astronomical, you're the product for sale". Neil Oliver
Leftist are Evil, and Liberals keep voting for them. Dennis Prager
A mouse might be in a cookie jar.... but he is not a cookie" ... Casper Ten Boom
If your life revolves around the ability to have an abortion, what does that say about your life? Anonymous
tunnelcat wrote:Mattis isn't eligible because the 1947 National Security Act says that any candidate must be a civilian and have been out of the service for 7 years (changed from the former 10 years in 2008) and since he's only been out for 3 years, he'd have to have special Congressional approval to go around the law.
General George C. Marshall's nomination in 1950 was the one exception and Congress said THIS about about having to bypass the Act in order to confirm Marshall:
Congress wrote:“the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approval by the Congress of continuing appointments of military men in the office of Secretary of Defense in the future.”
He'll get the special approval.
Only because the Republicans control Congress. It'll be a one-sided approval.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
Spidey wrote:Humm, see I try not to let other peoples opinions have any influence on my own…but I’m sure it happens.
You posted one man’s opinion…how about all of the rest, see this is the power of the media to bolster a particular opinion over others.
Which is why I’m always complaining about editorial pieces, instead of those that deal strictly in facts.
But anyway…my point was I didn’t get “your” opinion, but some person I never even heard of.
I haven't reached an opinion yet on the SecDef. I thought the opinion I linked was interesting, nothing more. I don't agree with it. I don't disagree with it.
tunnelcat wrote:Only because the Republicans control Congress. It'll be a one-sided approval.
Just like Obamacare was
That's where you're slightly mistaken. It wasn't a cake walk back then. People fought tooth and nail. At the time, they only got that abomination of a bill passed because some DINO's, aka, the Blue Dog Democrats, were eventually convinced to support the bill. They gave that final support because they were the ones in the party that the opposed single-payer option and they were the ones who made the liberal wing of the party finally drop the whole idea of single-payer just to get some sort of legislation passed that Obama could put his name on.
