Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

[IKE]

.There was wisdom in requiring someone to be removed from military service for at least 10 years to hold the position.

I can agree with this. While I admittedly have never stepped into The Building, I have trouble imagining Mattis as either incapable of adapting to his CIV role or as a slave to metrics divorced from proper goals or realistic measures; I feel like he'd have been on board with GRGB.

 

[Brett327]

It was Mattis who drove the strike fighter mission capable issue that led to NSS-A, which kind revolutionized how the NAE looked at maintaining/sustaining the fleet.

 

[Hotdogs]

In Trump's mind, he'd rather have an incompetent lap dog than the obligatory stubborn 60-something year old who has spent 40 years in DC who will try to talk him out of his policy objectives, which is who he'd have to appoint to replace Hegseth.

Mattis never left active duty in mentality or spirit. Before he resigned over differences of opinion with Trump on deploying ground troops to Syria (with Mattis being strongly on the side of committing forces), he had instituted such policy initiatives as 'thou shalt have 80% readiness, no exceptions' (which magically made stoplight charts green) and randomized carrier deployments.

We need our Secretary of Defense to act like a civilian leader and sometimes accept bad news. It helps if they understand that ships and planes need maintenance cycles.

There was wisdom in requiring someone to be removed from military service for at least 10 years to hold the position.

These two statements contradict each other. Advising and providing POTUS with options and risk assessments in conjunction with the COCOMs is basically one of the top descriptors of that role. Amongst a litany of other things that require large enterprise experience. Political ideology aside, Most Fortune 500 CEOs would be better fit for the job than Hegseth.

Mattis quit because Cheeto Jesus makes foreign policy decisions like a fucking drunk toddler without assessing the strategic implications of his decisions. (I.e. Syria withdrawal). Ironically how we ended up in the current shit-show with Iran.

 

[Spekkio]

These two statements contradict each other. Advising and providing POTUS with options and risk assessments in conjunction with the COCOMs is basically one of the top descriptors of that role. Amongst a litany of other things that require large enterprise experience. Political ideology aside, Most Fortune 500 CEOs would be better fit for the job than Hegseth.

Mattis quit because Cheeto Jesus makes foreign policy decisions like a fucking drunk toddler without assessing the strategic implications of his decisions. (I.e. Syria withdrawal). Ironically how we ended up in the current shit-show with Iran.

I don't know why you keep going on as if I am a fan of Hegseth or Trump. Please re-read my previous post.

As for talking the President out of policy objectives - I think Obama would like a mulligan on the surge everyone talked him into after he ran a campaign on getting out of Iraq... which also led to turnover in his administration. It's one thing to give advice within the confines of 'commander's intent' and it's another to fight tooth and nail with the boss's underlying policy objectives. You generally want cabinet members aligned with your vision.

Just to use an example other than 'Cheeto Jesus.'

The very first President of the U.S. ended up largely ignoring his own secretary of state because he wasn't aligned with the President's vision. Over time we realized that we shouldn't do things like have people from opposing political parties serve as VP or cabinet secretaries.

 

[Hotdogs]

I don't know why you keep going on as if I am a fan of Hegseth or Trump. Please re-read my previous post.

As for talking the President out of policy objectives - I think Obama would like a mulligan on the surge everyone talked him into after he ran a campaign on getting out of Iraq... which also led to turnover in his administration. It's one thing to give advice within the confines of 'commander's intent' and it's another to fight tooth and nail with the boss's underlying policy objectives. You generally want cabinet members aligned with your vision.

I don’t think Mattis or much of that first cabinet realized how obstinate and uninformed the POTUS is in foreign affairs. I think all of them probably thought they’d could provide a realistic view of his decisions that would accomplish his goals in a more measured manner. Mattis himself was openly critical of NATO and Europe throughout his tenure, so it’s hard for anyone to say that he actively worked against Trump. Plenty of disagreements happen at that level just like any staff (Bush and Obama had them as well), but that is very different than actively opposing policy. Trump liked Mattis because he was good in front of a camera, not because Trump had any real depth or understanding of what the role of SECDEF.

 

[Flash]

Acting... would probably be confirmed due to his military background. He's kind of a kook, and being a marginally successful Navy O6 hardly qualifies him for the job, but we know qualifications aren't important to this admin. Maybe there's still hope for Hendrix after all.

I actually wonder if he will be, he said some odd things when he ran for Senate in Virginia. Ought to make for an interesting confirmation if he is nominated. I'm not sure that will even happen though, folks in 'Acting' positions seem to be preferred by the current administration for several reasons.

 

[Spekkio]

I don’t think Mattis or much of that first cabinet realized how obstinate and uninformed the POTUS is in foreign affairs.

I will offer to you an alternate thesis: it didn't matter.

I can't find the graphic because of google indexing, but Presidential administrations tend to pass around high-level cabinet members and SMEs like the village bicycle. The typical example would be Donal Rumsfeld. But there are many, many more.

Trump, even in his first term, appointed people who had no prior association with another administration. There might be 1 or 2 who did. He wanted 'new blood,' but being an inexperienced President, generally chose people who were esteemed.

So here's the rub: Mattis is a stereotypical neocon, and 'came of age' in the Bush administration. Trump is...not that. And I postulate that Mattis knew Trump's foreign policy views weren't completely in alignment with his, but he had an opportunity to 'jump the line' of career administration officials to propel his career rapidly. And he had an idealistic view that maybe he could reason with the man by leveraging his in-depth experience and joint education.

Now, Mattis eventually found his moral principals were more important than his job responsibilities and political career, so he resigned. But that doesn't change the fact that Mattis initially accepted the position out of idealistic career opportunism.

Mattis would have done well if he were the SECDEF for Reagan, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr. But he was not working for those men. It isn't Trump's fault that Mattis accepted an advisory role to someone who fundamentally disagreed with his foreign policy views and couldn't get onboard with 'getting to yes.' It is Trump's fault for picking Mattis and expecting more obedience than he got... a theme that resonates with his first administration in a general sense.

As the expression goes... when there's a 'personality conflict,' the boss has the personality and the subordinate has the conflict.

Fast forward to Trump 2 and he has a mentality of "I got this," so his administration largely consists of a bunch of clueless millenials trying to make a splash. Because without Trump, they wouldn't get this opportunity for another 15-25 years, if they ever get it at all (Hegseth certainly wouldn't).

 

[IKE]

So here's the rub: Mattis is a stereotypical neocon, and 'came of age' in the Bush administration.

I repeat: what?
Mattis was 38 when H.W. was inaugurated and 50 when W. took office.

Now, Mattis eventually found his moral principals were more important than his job responsibilities and political career, so he resigned. But that doesn't change the fact that Mattis initially accepted the position out of idealistic career opportunism.

Fact? Psychologize much?

Also, see worst-motive fallacy

 

[Spekkio]

I repeat: what?
Mattis was 38 when H.W. was inaugurated and 50 when W. took office.

Formative years of his senior officer and General officer career.

Fact? Psychologize much?

Also, see worst-motive fallacy

Yes, because the first thing you think about Trump after he was famous for a reality TV show for firing people, ran a campaign that won for making fun of Rosie O'Donnell being a lesbian, and had people vote for him for being the type of guy to 'grab 'em by the pussy' is "that guy is going to listen to my nuanced foreign policy views based on decades of military experience."

Perhaps I'm giving Mattis too much credit for being intelligent enough to see Trump for who he actually was, but I don't think so. I think he saw an opportunity of a lifetime and believed he could 'exercise leadership' to influence Trump's mindset in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[IKE]

Formative years of his senior officer and General officer career.


Yes, because the first thing you think about Trump after he was famous for a reality TV show for firing people, ran a campaign that won for making fun of Rosie O'Donnell being a lesbian, and had people vote for him for being the type of guy to 'grab 'em by the pussy' is "that guy is going to listen to my nuanced foreign policy views based on decades of military experience."

Perhaps I'm giving Mattis too much credit for being intelligent enough to see Trump for who he actually was, but I don't think so. I think he saw an opportunity of a lifetime and believed he could 'exercise leadership' to influence Trump's mindset in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Or maybe the man was just driven to serve. He didn't get married until he was 71, and he spent a lot of energy reading, thinking, writing, and teaching.

You've presented zero evidence for your assertion, so I think both Occam's Razor and benefit-of-the-doubt apply here.

 

[Spekkio]

... benefit-of-the-doubt apply here.

I'm trying to get you to see the paradox of giving an esteemed, successful general the benefit of the doubt while simultaneously claiming that he was not intelligent enough to understand the type of person that Trump is when he watched the campaign and then interviewed for the Secretary of Defense job in December 2016.

Mattis required a Congressional waiver, so there was an easy moral 'out' from the 'duty to my country' standpoint. Something along the lines of "The statutory requirement of 7 years exists for good reason, and the nation needs a Secretary of Defense who is sufficiently removed from active duty service."

 

[taxi1]

I'm trying to get you to see the paradox of giving an esteemed, successful general the benefit of the doubt while simultaneously claiming that he was not intelligent enough to understand the type of person that Trump is when he watched the campaign and then interviewed for the Secretary of Defense job in December 2016.

Mattis required a Congressional waiver, so there was an easy moral 'out' from the 'duty to my country' standpoint. Something along the lines of "The statutory requirement of 7 years exists for good reason, and the nation needs a Secretary of Defense who is sufficiently removed from active duty service."

I have a friend who is hovering over going into the current administration somewhere in the DoD. Political appointment. Why? A combination of wanting to serve, make a difference, get his hand on the tiller, prestige, etc. Wants an important job, but below the scan of Laura Loomer. I constantly tell him that you know you will be fired. He’s ok I with it.

 

[Hotdogs]

I will offer to you an alternate thesis: it didn't matter.

I can't find the graphic because of google indexing, but Presidential administrations tend to pass around high-level cabinet members and SMEs like the village bicycle. The typical example would be Donal Rumsfeld. But there are many, many more.

Trump, even in his first term, appointed people who had no prior association with another administration. There might be 1 or 2 who did. He wanted 'new blood,' but being an inexperienced President, generally chose people who were esteemed.

So here's the rub: Mattis is a stereotypical neocon, and 'came of age' in the Bush administration. Trump is...not that. And I postulate that Mattis knew Trump's foreign policy views weren't completely in alignment with his, but he had an opportunity to 'jump the line' of career administration officials to propel his career rapidly. And he had an idealistic view that maybe he could reason with the man by leveraging his in-depth experience and joint education.

Now, Mattis eventually found his moral principals were more important than his job responsibilities and political career, so he resigned. But that doesn't change the fact that Mattis initially accepted the position out of idealistic career opportunism.

Mattis would have done well if he were the SECDEF for Reagan, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr. But he was not working for those men. It isn't Trump's fault that Mattis accepted an advisory role to someone who fundamentally disagreed with his foreign policy views and couldn't get onboard with 'getting to yes.' It is Trump's fault for picking Mattis and expecting more obedience than he got... a theme that resonates with his first administration in a general sense.

As the expression goes... when there's a 'personality conflict,' the boss has the personality and the subordinate has the conflict.

Fast forward to Trump 2 and he has a mentality of "I got this," so his administration largely consists of a bunch of clueless millenials trying to make a splash. Because without Trump, they wouldn't get this opportunity for another 15-25 years, if they ever get it at all (Hegseth certainly wouldn't).

I think you just made all this shit up.

 

[sevenhelmet]

I'm trying to get you to see the paradox of giving an esteemed, successful general the benefit of the doubt while simultaneously claiming that he was not intelligent enough to understand the type of person that Trump is when he watched the campaign and then interviewed for the Secretary of Defense job in December 2016.

Mattis required a Congressional waiver, so there was an easy moral 'out' from the 'duty to my country' standpoint. Something along the lines of "The statutory requirement of 7 years exists for good reason, and the nation needs a Secretary of Defense who is sufficiently removed from active duty service."

I think it's easy to armchair judge this using hindsight. At the time, my perception was that Mattis was a good fit for the SecDef job, and had the potential to be the experienced adult in the room on US military policy. As a servicemember, having an important voice in DC with direct experience mattered to me.

I always presumed Mattis was going into this with his eyes open, trying to positively impact whatever he could in the position. I know you'll disagree, but I think it really was that simple.

 

[Spekkio]

I think you just made all this shit up. I'm too lazy to go through public government records

FIFY