Yup, that's why there's the 7 year restriction.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Chaos in the E-Ring
- Thread starter nittany03
- Start date
I couldn't find that Marshall resigned from the Army during his stints as Secretary of State and Defense but you won't find him wearing a uniform during either of his terms. Not only that but SECDEF was still new and getting shaken out at that time and Marshall was a larger than life figure well known worldwide with a sterling reputation, much more so than even Mattis.
Sure. But the article is pretty much a slam against having any retired military officers involved in any significant policymaking aspects of government.
From closing paragraph:
I do note that the author doesn't actually offer any real alternatives. For example, plenty of criticism on why a military officer shouldn't be SECSTATE. Which I can accept.
But somehow Giuliani or Romney are better choices simply by virtue of not being military officers?
Or somehow HRC and Kerry are supposed to be undeniably great choices?
Amazing how everyone forgets that Alexander Haig went from White House COS to SACEUR to retiring from active duty in 79 to SECSTATE in 81. Some even suggest he ran the executive branch as Watergate overcame Nixon. Guess memories are short.....I also seem to remember that it wasn't the Generals pushing for another war on top of Afghanistan......
And Marshall's status as an active duty five-star is why I'm arguing that a waiver for Mattis would be less problematic. If he were to hypothetically pass me on the street tomorrow and order me to do something, I'd be within my hypothetical rights to say "fuck off, sir!" While Mattis still has moral authority (which is arguably the point behind his needing a waiver), he can't command maneuver formations in the field. Which is what would be required to effect a hypothetical coup.
You're undermining your own argument in the third sentence.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a51199/mattis-trump/
The only part of this piece I'm not in agreement with is that Mattis has got to know what he's getting into as SECDEF. Gonna be a rough ride, though...
The only part of this piece I'm not in agreement with is that Mattis has got to know what he's getting into as SECDEF. Gonna be a rough ride, though...
What's silly in this whole argument is that it's whether generals - as in, a class of people who were recently in uniform - should be in policymaking positions. As if your former occupation determines your ability and worldview, rather than personality, education, and individual experience. Often within the same article the author will note the differences in temperament and worldview between Mattis and, say, Mike Flynn or David Petraeus.
I can see the argument against having too many former generals in the cabinet. Diversity of experience is always good in any council of advisors. But the argument against having generals in positions of policymaking is demonstrably false.
I can see the argument against having too many former generals in the cabinet. Diversity of experience is always good in any council of advisors. But the argument against having generals in positions of policymaking is demonstrably false.
Once again, Terminal Lance nails it:
http://terminallance.com/2016/12/02/terminal-lance-lord-mattis-iv/
http://terminallance.com/2016/12/02/terminal-lance-lord-mattis-iv/
Gillibrand is Hillary 2.0 (she even took over Hillary's NY senate seat) and is positioning herself to run for the Democratic nomination in 2020. If I remember correctly, she was the one advocating to take power away from commanding officers in sexual assault cases and give it to the legal branch.
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenint...brands-fight-to-bring-power-to-the-powerless/
That's going to be the challenge for all of Trump's major cabinet officers - that the President doesn't seem to get (or if he does, doesn't much care) about the role of the Cabinet and the departments. While the role of a cabinet officer is to carry out the President's policies, that only works if the policies are clearly and consistently articulated and coordinated with and through the relevant secretaries and departments. In other words, how are they supposed to carry out the president's policies when they have no idea what they are? Is Romney (or whoever) going to be carrying out negotiations with the Chinese when Trump suddenly announces he's making a state visit to Taiwan? What's Mattis going to do when an F-35 crashes and Trump 3 AM tweets "Terrible jet! Never liked it! Cancelling the program first thing tomorrow!"
Trump's already shown a yen for picking up the phone whenever he feels like it and making promises whether they can be kept or not. Surprising and bypassing your cabinet officers isn't a good way to keep talented cabinet officers, and this admin will need talented cabinet officers.
They could ask Duterte's cabinet how they deal with it.
All true. But I see a difference in that that Donald has already said, many times, that he a) he intends to order the military to do things that are illegal, and b) he is prepared to ignore the advice of the military professionals in place ("I know better than the generals"). In light of this, I'd rather have a Mattis than a Rumsfeld.
Trump has said a lot of things that he's already turned back on. Sure he's a wild card but I think with someone like Mattis, we'll know who really wears the pants in that relationship.