Streetwise Professor

December 4, 2016

A Mad Dog, Not a Caesar

Filed under: History,Military,Politics — The Professor @ 10:15 pm

Ever since Gen. James Mattis (USMC Ret.) had been suggested as a possible candidate for Trump’s Secretary of Defense, I was fervently hoping that he would be chosen, and that hope was realized. Mattis has a long and storied career as a warrior–a true warrior–and is widely acknowledged as a thoughtful, scholarly man who thinks deeply on strategic issues. He also has a long history of blunt outspokenness, which is sorely needed in these PC times–and in particular, is sorely needed in a Pentagon in which PC rot spread deeply during the Obama administration.

Mattis is a throwback in many ways, not least in that he has the kind of background and biography more typical of 19th or early-20th century figures. No over-credentialed Ivy Leaguer he. He grew up in the wheat fields of Washington state, enlisted in the Marines at 19, and attended Central Washington University. He then worked his way up through the Marine Corps, earning promotion to four star rank on the basis of performance.

Mattis’ appointment has drawn almost universal praise in DC and the media centers, including from the New York Times. Truth be told, this is the only thing that makes me temper my enthusiasm for him.

The one possible objection that has been raised by the usual array of chin-pullers is that he only retired from the USMC a little over three years ago, thereby requiring Congress to pass a waiver to circumvent a 1947 law that requires seven years between the time an officer retires and he (or she) can become SecDef. Mattis’ appointment, the chin-pullers intone, threatens to undermine civilian control of the military.

Really? Dwight Eisenhower retired from the Army on May 31, 1952, and assumed the presidency in January, 1953. Ulysses S. Grant remained as Commanding General of the US Army while running for president in 1868, and only resigned shortly before assuming office in 1869. Neither turned into Caesars. (By the way, did you know that in 1789 Congress passed a law that prevented those who had been engaged in commerce from becoming Secretary of the Treasury?)

Further, I would note that the principle of civilian control of the military is drilled into US military officers from day one of their service–as I experienced personally at the Naval Academy. What’s more, any officer whose commitment to that principle comes into question is never going to make it to flag rank. Nor would Donald “You’re Fired!” Trump–of all people–brook mutiny at the Pentagon.

But it is best to hear Mattis out on this in person. In this 2015 interview–recorded before his appointment was even a remote possibility, and indeed, would have been reckoned to be a zero probability event, not least of all by him–his commitment to the principle comes through loud and clear. He states forthrightly that an officer’s duty is to give his civilian superiors his honest opinion, but that it is also his duty to defer to the authority of those civilian superiors. This was clearly not a calculated statement intended to help secure an appointment (which was hardly imaginable, let alone on offer), but a reflection of his beliefs.

In sum, the thought that James Mattis is a threat to civilian control of the military is inane.

The entire interview is worth watching, because it shows Mattis to be an articulate and thoughtful man who speaks frankly, with an almost world-weary mien. He speaks with authority on a variety of strategic, military and geopolitical issues, is persuasive, and has Trump’s respect and ear. He gave evidence of this even before being nominated, when he convinced Trump to backtrack on the torture issue. This is exactly the kind of man we need in office. The fact that he will be an articulate advocate and explainer of administration policy is also invaluable. (Mattis is far more articulate than General Flynn, in particular.)

Some have also questioned Mattis’ ability to handle the challenges of managing the vast Pentagon bureaucracy. Here the interview is also instructive, because it shows that Mattis has observed the closely managerial and process dysfunction in Defense, and in particular how the mega-contractors have warped the system. No babe in the woods he. Fixing the Pentagon is a Herculean task, and I doubt that Mattis can do it, but he can probably make more progress than anyone with a more conventional resume for the job could.

As commenter aaa noted, one blot on Mattis’ record is his role as a director at Theranos, which has proved to be a colossal con. In his defense it can be said that he was hardly alone: the list of directors and big money investors who were taken by Elizabeth Holmes’ shtick is a who’s who of American business and politics (e.g., George Schultz). This endeavor was outside of Mattis’ expertise, and the main criticism he deserves is for taking a position for which his training and experience did not particular suit him. That’s not the issue at Secretary of Defense.

In sum, “Mad Dog” Mattis is exactly the kind of figure the US needs at the Pentagon right now, and poses no threat to the institutions of the Republic. To the contrary, he is uniquely qualified to serve as an intermediary between the citizenry and the uniformed military, particularly given that he knows the uniformed military, and those in the military know and respect him. The country will be stronger with him serving in a civilian role so close in time to the end of his 44 years of active service.

 

Print Friendly

6 Comments »

  1. @Professor
    As you note great pedigree for the position. Someone that knows you can’t declare victory in a war but that the enemy must tell you when you are victorious. Someone that knows it is immoral to send US troops into harms way with rules of engagement hat guarantee defeat. Someone that knows why the Spartans refused to leave Leonidas in Thermopylae Pass and fought so gallantly to retrieve his body. I know that he knows these things because as you point out no way he would have risen through the Corps (corpse to the Progressives you will remember corpsman) otherwise.

    I give him the benefit of the doubt on Theranos. He would naturally be attracted to the technology since portability would be so useful in combat zones.

    Secretary of Semper Fi mfers-Oorah.

    Comment by pahoben — December 5, 2016 @ 2:23 pm

  2. I’m always amused by the fact, if fact it be, that American generals always sport some purported nickname: “Mad Dog”, “Old Blood and Guts”, or whatever. I have a picture that somewhere there is a governmentoffshoot, the Ministry of Military Monikers. I imagine the conversations: “No, you can’t be called Mad Cat: how about Furious Feline?” “No.” “Or Murderous Moggie? Or Tickly Tabby?” “No.” “Hm, you don’t like the sound of ‘Tabby’? Then we propose Terrifying Tomcat.”

    “Done!”

    Comment by dearieme — December 6, 2016 @ 6:55 am

  3. I’m always amused by the fact, if fact it be, that American generals always sport some purported nickname

    So do a few of ours: Brigadier “Sandy” Lane, for example. Mike Jackson was known as “The Prince of Darkness” by his men. The Americans seem to make theirs stick better, though.

    Comment by Tim Newman — December 6, 2016 @ 7:15 am

  4. The moniker Joint Chiefs of Staph applies to that group in recent years.

    Comment by pahoben — December 6, 2016 @ 2:53 pm

  5. I like him. He’s a fine example that a short man (not the six foot + with the heavy, squared jaw) can rise to executive level all without an elite-level education. There is still hope for me 🙂

    Comment by EconMaestro — December 6, 2016 @ 10:13 pm

  6. @EconMaestro
    Secretary of State is still open. Mad Dog will have your back.

    Comment by pahoben — December 7, 2016 @ 5:59 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress