Officials said Mr. Mattis went to the White House on Thursday afternoon in a last attempt to convince Mr. Trump to keep American troops in Syria. He was rebuffed, and told the president that he was resigning as a result....
“One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships,” Mr. Mattis wrote. “Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position."...
The president’s tweets announcing the departure of his defense secretary shocked officials at the Pentagon, who as recently as Thursday afternoon were insisting that Mr. Mattis had no intention of resigning his post....
December 20, 2018
"Jim Mattis, the four-star Marine general turned defense secretary, resigned on Thursday..."
"... in protest of President Trump’s decision to withdraw 2,000 American troops from Syria, where they have been fighting the Islamic State," the NYT reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
103 comments:
Gen: You may be prepared to sit here while they torture our boys, I'm not.
Prez: We're not being passive. We're being patient and prudent.
Gen: It's my duty to tell you your lack of action is almost criminal.
Prez: Then you've done your duty. Now I'll do mine. I expect your resignation on my desk in the morning.
Gen: You shall have it.
Murder at 1600 (1997)
If you want to know what Trump is capable of, watch Air Force One (1997).
Well at lest Mattis, unlike most Washington weenies, is man enough to resign as a protest. But then Mattis is a real fighting general.
I respect them both. Trump for ending the war and Mattis for sticking to his beliefs.
Presidents were big deals in 1997.
Not many general officers made in the last non-interventionist period of American history (1919-1940). Ike's warning about the military-industrial complex he witnessed growing out of the Cold War probably wasn't appreciated by his junior West Point grads still in the military.
"I respect them both. Trump for ending the war and Mattis for sticking to his beliefs."
Agree. They are both right. Nice to live in a country where the military is subordinate to the top civilian who was elected to make these kinds of decisions, at least when Congress has not declared war.
Why in the hell would anybody want to work for this administration?
Sorry to see Mattis go, he seems to be a good man.
I do appreciate that he resigned in a dignified manner rather than try and make himself some sort of media darling, I mean he still will be as long as they think it'll hurt Trump but he's not actively auditioning for it.
“Why in the hell would anybody want to work for this administration?”
Most don’t. A sinking ship doesn’t have rats jumping on it.
We have "alliances and partnerships" in Syria? Who knew.
Obama had four Secretaries of Defense. Must've been rats jumping ship.
“We have "alliances and partnerships" in Syria? Who knew.”
What about the Kurds? What about the French?
And the Brits.
he gave mattis two years in Afghanistan, seeing no appreciable difference, as to Syria, well our new friends the turks, seem to be willing to sweep the board, the kurds well they get screwed at least once a decade,
I suppose it'll be entertaining to see all of the new neocons (neo-neocons?) suddenly appearing. Inga appears to already have gone full interventionist.
Anyway, I'm still unsure of how I feel about this. Not a fan of the suddenness though.
Inga: "What about the Kurds? What about the French?
And the Brits."
There are Kurds in Iraq. Obama pulled out anyway.
Number of Inga complaints about that action: approximately ZERO.
The Walls ARE Closing In!"
The media & the democrat party all speak the same talking points. Must be a coincidence.
Over the past 10 days, journalists on CNN and MSNBC have dutifully repeated the Democrats’ claim that “the walls are closing in” around President Trump.
As far as getting the hell out of the ME - I thought that's what you hypocrite leftists were yearning and yammering for for decades. Now all of a sudden you act concerned? Spare us.
narciso: "he gave mattis two years in Afghanistan, seeing no appreciable difference, "
Republicans had strongly criticized President Obama for setting a calendar timetable for ending the surge in Afghanistan.
What Trump is doing is worse. He's not ending a surge, he's completely ending U.S. military action in Syria.
I was NEVER a fan of intervening militarily in Syria. But once the decision was made, you have to stick with it to the end. A unilateral withdrawal followed by a defeat does not make America look good.
Any notable change in ROE under Mattis
"...you have to stick with it to the end." How will we know when we're at the end?
Mattis is right. Trump deserves someone who will support him as do most leaders. This is the right way to exit an organization.
What ROE were the soldiers under Gen. Flynn were fighting?
Anyway, I'm still unsure of how I feel about this. Not a fan of the suddenness though.
12/20/18, 5:48 PM
Suddenness? Wasn't it leaked like everything else?
As to who is right, we'll never know. I know I wouldn't disagree with Mattis. But I also don't have the same information as Trump's got. This is unfortunate but handled as best it was going to be I think.
so what is the endgame in Afghanistan, we had a slim chance with mcrystal and Flynn's counterinsurgency strategy back around 2009-10, but Obama chose to accept hastings lies in rolling stone, and joe biden's strategy, now coming up on our 18th year there, tell us a way out,
Are Generals who place their men in undue harm on the field good warriors?
Mattis is of course a beloved General Officer.
But then, so have many Generals before him.
The key question is which Flag Officers are most in tune with where we need to go as a nation from here. Older officers are notorious for always "fighting the last war" and maintaining a mindset that was formed at a particular point in time and not always the most adept at moving towards a new framework for strategic analysis and execution.
Mattis, as would be expected, "grew up" in the ranks over the end portion of the Vietnam war and then moved up during the horrific Carter-driven malaise-filled late 70's and all the way up to 2000's.
For Mattis, even questioning NATO members commitment to the alliance is an affront, whereas younger officers who are not wed to stories from the 50's and 60's look around and say, "hey, who are these free-loading countries that wont meet minimum funding requirements, divert military spending to their socialist programs, all the while undermining American foreign policy globally and screwing the US on trade deals that are structured to ensure they "win" everytime"?"
We need a younger, more "now" set of flag officers, but not, naturally, the politically correct obama-officers (that LLR Chuck would no doubt worship) who are more concerned with levels of Transgender Awareness Training than Combat Readiness.
Worthy of our respect?
What Trump is doing is worse. He's not ending a surge, he's completely ending U.S. military action in Syria.
Worse than Obama completely ending USMA in Iraq, with much more at stake? The difference is, Syria can be no worse than before. And if it requires more action, we withdrew an army from Iraq, and it's not so easy to replace; the US contingent on Syria was about a squadron of two's worth of C-17s, and can come in again as easy as it went out.
As I wrote to Howard a while back when he was worrying about being rayciss in Brooklyn: No, never. We'll just send unarmored convoys of 19yo Marines into downtown Crapistan to be torn to shreds by IEDs, until the natives get tired of blowing out convoys up with IEDs. Now that's resolve!
Mattis made his case to the President, the President disagreed and chose to go in a different direction. Mattis did the proper and honorable thing in response, he resigned. That's how it is supposed to be done. Spare me the caterwaul from the anti-Trumpers about a Cabinet disagreement over policy. Especially that which comes from the folks who screeched loudest in the past about 'Mad Dog' Mattis The Warmonger.
he's completely ending U.S. military action in Syria
It was reported that we'll still provide air support and training (and presumably weapons).
Who was the last major cabinet officer to resign on principle? Cyrus Vance? Jim Webb if SECNAV is major.
Drago seems unable to comment without sticking poor ol' Chuck in it somehow.
Tiresome.
Sorry, that’s a man with class resigning in a dignified letter, not an announcement on twitter. Would you work for Trump? He will not have your back for two seconds as was seen in his chaotic business career. Deal maker - Bah
I agree - Mattis, so far, handled his disagreement with Trump with class.
Opposite of that ego maniac clown liar - COMEY.
@Bad Lieutenant:
What Trump is doing is worse. He's not ending a surge, he's completely ending U.S. military action in Syria.
That is not exactly true, but I wish it were. US troops are in Syria with no Congressional authorization. The Russians and Iranians are there at the invitation of the government. The US is not, which puts us in a precarious position with much to lose and little to gain. ISIS is not a particularly sophisticated group and has only been able to thrive in areas where state control has receded. The best thing the US can do is help Assad get control back of his country.
“Especially that which comes from the folks who screeched loudest in the past about 'Mad Dog' Mattis The Warmonger.”
Red herring or straw man? I didn’t hear much if anyone on the left disrespecting General Mattis. Most liberals were relieved that a normal intelligent principled man was the Secretary of Defense, we saw him as a bulwark against Trump’s idiocy.
This resignation is more worrying than the next Pelosi denunciation. I don't know if Mattis knows more about these things than Trump, but it's quite possible. We'll see how it goes, but I take a Pelosi protest to be a good sign and this to be a bad augury........I heard someone say that a whole generation of Afghan women have learned how to read and write because of our presence there. Maybe something good will come from our efforts.
Hahaha,Trump said Mattis was “a sort of a Democrat”...
Gen. Matt is acted on principle. Kinda refreshing .
Dickin why don't you just come out and say what you really think about St. James, The Leeser Weasel Comey. He's not quite as bad as Brennan and Clapper, but that's a very low bar.
Eh. What if he is? So is Trump in a lot of ways
The French and the British are capable of providing the support that was being provided by the US troops. And their leadership is SO much more sophisticated and knowledgeable than Trump is, right? That's what EVERYBODY says. So since this is such an obvious mistake, I'm sure they will just step in to fill the void.
yet half the country is in Taliban hands, this is in part because of pakistans doing, and the scorpions will feed on it's carcass next,
Inga: "Hahaha,Trump said Mattis was “a sort of a Democrat”..."
That's a great line, since Trump was a sort of a Democrat too and so was Reagan at some point.
I don't expect Inga to remember that as it all occurred before this morning.
Now, once again, since Inga has asserted that Putin controls Trump, how do you think that phone call between Trump and Putin went when Trump okayed the whacking of the 400 russians in Syria?
"Hey Vlad, you have about a Battalion sized group of russian merc's heading toward a group of Americans in Syria, would it be okay if I allowed the Americans to totally obliterate them?"
"Why sure Donald! Why not! It will work out best for all of us because...because....because....COLLUSION!!!"
Hmmmmm
Nope. That doesn't seem to really make any sense at all, except, of course, to Inga and LLR Chuck.
Most liberals were relieved that a normal intelligent principled man was the Secretary of Defense, we saw him as a bulwark against Trump’s idiocy.
That is simply a lie, and Inga is simply a liar.
Where does Trump get this idiots? And why does everyone have so little regard for public service?
Truman and FDR made HUGE decisions that Eisenhower, MacArthur, King, Marshall, and Stimson disagreed with yet, but they never resigned. They made their disagreements known and moved on.
Mattis disagrees over Syria and flounces off over a 2,000 troop deployment. Ryan - and 40 of his playmates, don't want to work with Trump and Retire. Same with Flake and Corker.
Military genius Trump...
Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
....Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy about the U.S. leaving, despite what the Fake News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us. I am building by far the most powerful military in the world. ISIS hits us they are doomed!
6:16 AM · Dec 20, 2018 · Twitter for iPhone
———————————-
“Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed President Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria—during his annual marathon press conference—suggesting that it was long overdue.
“American troops should not be in Syria and have been there illegally,” he said, according to a ticker-tape account from the Russian news agency RT. “If the decision to withdraw them was taken, that’s the right decision.””
I follow the news carefully, and I don't have the slightest idea why we're still in Syria and what EXACTLY is the USA interest.
Evidently, the Syria Civil war and our involvement is part of some super-complex, 4-D global chess match, between six countries.
And what difference it makes to the average American has NEVER been explained.
Inga's here, so our course, our discussion of Syria will move to a higher level.
You explain it all to us, Inga.
Word is an Army General, Mark Milley, who is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will be running things Military for Trump now. Mattis was a famous military commander. But the Sec'y of Defense is a political job doing the budgets and picking weapons systems, which is 90% political in DC.
The CIA is the problem. They are in a panic because they have not killed Trump yet, and Trump is fully running the show now. It may be too late to keep the CIA's eternal Wars going everywhere because no other nation is attacking us anymore. And the Sunni v. Shia sects of Mohammed's guerilla army are going to have to fight it out with each other alone. Because the world's Oil producing giant is now Trump's Nation.
I am sad about this.
The company is nowhere near that company, otherwise they wouldn't have committed the brigade force to front of Fidel's summer cottage, kind of like parachuting into berchtesgarden, what are really the options
“And the Sunni v. Shia sects of Mohammed's guerilla army are going to have to fight it out with each other alone. Because the world's Oil producing giant is now Trump's Nation.”
Oh what? Trump’s not withdrawing US military support to Saudi Arabia in Yemen? They can’t do it alone?
“Trump’s Nation”? Is the US being renamed in Trump’s honor?
@rcocean:
I follow the news carefully, and I don't have the slightest idea why we're still in Syria and what EXACTLY is the USA interest.
The Syrian policy was driven, as of late, by a desire to contain Iran. James Jeffrey was made a special envoy for Syria back in August and all but announced this policy. Bolton similarly said that the US planned to keep troops in Syria so long as Iran had troops there.
The entire reason the US got so involved in Syria was out of some foolish notion that we could hand a defeat to the Iranians by bringing down Assad, who is a major regional ally of Tehran's. Saudi Arabia and the UAE were more than happy to go along with such a policy. The whole thing blew up in our face though with the advent of ISIS.
No we got into Syria because it was the seat of Islamic state, but that is less likely the case now,
Competent, the same folks who insist we must stay in Syria say we must abandon the kingdom
What Would Hillary Do?
@narciso:
No we got into Syria because it was the seat of Islamic state, but that is less likely the case now,
US involvement in Syria's civil war predates the rise of ISIS. While it is true that US forces did not become overtly involved until the rise of ISIS, we had been working to aid rebel groups in making war against Syria with the goal of bringing Assad down.
Inga: "I didn’t hear much if anyone on the left disrespecting General Mattis. Most liberals were relieved that a normal intelligent principled man was the Secretary of Defense, we saw him as a bulwark against Trump’s idiocy."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Yes as we were in Vietnam before 1965, however the larger contingent was after 2015,
Yes prince bandar spent 500 million on these rebels his brother was given the thankless job of reconciling accounts
Sorry to see Mattis go. I understand why he would leave, though.
The cognitive dissonance the Left has to deal with is just amazing to me. Under Obama ISIS was no big deal and anyone who said they were was a lying warmonger. Anyway they couldn't be defeated and working WITH Iran was the only sane choice. Trump shows up and unleashes the military to kick the shit out of ISIS, vastly reducing their capabilities and size. Trump announces he's going to pull us out of Syria and suddenly the Left is wailing that ISIS is such a terrible threat that it's irresponsible to leave before they're dealt with. Back when they were 4-5 times as large and dangerous (under Obama) they weren't worth worrying about but now they're a deadly threat we must deal with by keeping American personnel in harm's way in Syria forever. With no shame, mind you!
It's impressive in a way. I don't think I could pull it off.
@narciso:
The fact remains that we were involved in Syria before the rise of ISIS and therefore it is incorrect to say "we got into Syria because it was the seat of Islamic state." That is like saying we got involved in Iraq because of the insurgency.
"US involvement in Syria's civil war predates the rise of ISIS. While it is true that US forces did not become overtly involved until the rise of ISIS, we had been working to aid rebel groups in making war against Syria with the goal of bringing Assad down."
Yep, the previous administration supported the civil war in Syria as part of the larger Arab Spring bullshit. Incidentally their support for the Arab Spring has proven to be amongst their most disastrous decisions if not the most.
BTW, here's a nice little Christmas story that's right up Inga's alley:
"Beheading of Female Scandinavian Hikers in Morocco Now Investigated as Terrorism.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/shocker-beheadings-were-terrorist-act.php
I know what you're thinking!
How soon can our lefties slap together a GoFundMe to get those little lovely killers, who only want a better life and can't wait to become valedictorians in our universities and win a Nobel prize, over to America where they can increase our diversity, which is our strength, and help dems achieve a bullet-proof (all puns intended) majority!
@Christopher:
Yep, the previous administration supported the civil war in Syria as part of the larger Arab Spring bullshit. Incidentally their support for the Arab Spring has proven to be amongst their most disastrous decisions if not the most.
I don't think it is really correct to say that the administration supported "the Arab Spring." They opportunistically supported elements that they though would be advantageous to US interests. So, for example, when Bahrain simply gunned down their Arab spring protesters, the US did next to nothing about it because of US strategic interests in Bahrain.
We have less than three thousand troops in Syria. The Brits and the French can sport that number of troops between themselves. Between the Russians, the French, the British, the Turks and the Syrians that is more than enough to crush ISIS. Between low oil prices and sanctions and the cost of propping up the Assads the Iranians and the Russians are getting stretched thin.
Note that general mattis didn't quit because he couldn't work for President trump or because President Trump was dangerous or deranged in general.
Nor was he asked to resign.
Nor did he stay in place and try to sabotage the policy.
He did what ANY subordinate should do when they have a strong disagreement with a policy. He made his best effort to convince the boss he is wrong, failed, said he couldn't, in good conscience carry it out and resigned.
As an honorable man or woman should do in this kind of situation. In govt or private.
Thank you for your service, General Mattis. Thank you for being honorable. I don't know who's right. Should we or shouldn't we be in Syria? It is the president's responsibility to decide. I hope he decided right.
I do trust his judgment based what he's done so far. I'll not second guess him on this.
John Henry
Inga's right Drago. I was never concerned about Trump because he hired Mensches like Mattis, Kelly, McMasters and Tillerson. Now it's down to Javanka Steven Miller, Uday and Khousay
“Inga's right Drago. I was never concerned about Trump because he hired Mensches like Mattis, Kelly, McMasters and Tillerson. Now it's down to Javanka Steven Miller, Uday and Khousay.”
Don’t forget Trump himself, he “knows more about ISIS than the generals” and he’s “like smart”. Dont’cha know?
Everything is under control, don’t be alarmed.
@Howard:
Inga's right Drago. I was never concerned about Trump because he hired Mensches like Mattis, Kelly, McMasters and Tillerson
I think this is essentially correct. Mattis was regarded as an "adult" in the room who could potentially curb Trump's decision-making. But I think this says much more about the Establishment than it does about Trump. The mainstream media is essentially a mouthpiece of the Establishment, and the Establishment generally is very pro-intervention. One of the few instances of Trump receiving respect from this group was when he made the foolish decision to bomb Syria in response to its alleged chemical weapons attack.
"They opportunistically supported elements that they though would be advantageous to US interests."
I disagree. They may have started that way but I think they genuinely started to buy their own press by the end of it.
It didn't help the US to overthrow Mubarak (giving Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood) nor did it help to take out Ghadaffi (even as annoying as he was).
@Inga:
Don’t forget Trump himself, he “knows more about ISIS than the generals” and he’s “like smart”. Dont’cha know?
Trump was obviously being a blowhard here but don't miss the forest for the trees. Trump earlier made the mistake of being far too willing to concede important national security issues to "the generals." In reality, a general does not have any special knowledge about ISIS, and their skill set is not in the area of international affairs but rather the waging and winning of wars. It is an important development that Trump has displayed a willingness to overrule the military brass. Civilian control of the military is a very important component of our Republic.
And that wasnt what was voted for, as far as Israel is concerned their major is Hezbollah and they were decimated in the Syrian civil war as proxies.
J. Farmer said..US involvement in Syria's civil war predates the rise of ISIS. While it is true that US forces did not become overtly involved until the rise of ISIS, we had been working to aid rebel groups in making war against Syria with the goal of bringing Assad down.
True, especially if "we" means "John McCain and pals."
McCain's animosity towards Trump over Syria is well known. The fact that McCain and friends thought the $1B the CIA spent to arm Syrian rebels and the $500M the Pentagon spent to train Syrian rebels was an example of smart US policy should inform out judgement...especially since a TON of those arms ended up in the hands of ISIS and ISIS-affiliated terror groups and the half a billion in the end bought us inferior training for fewer than 100 troops. If only we'd doubled our efforts, think of how much more we could have achieved! How did the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated governments in Libya and Egypt work out for us, again? Anyone who isn't familiar with the IRI's recent track record of backing winners should do some research.
Obama wasn't willing to confront Russia. He wasn't willing to confront Russia and keep them from intervening, decisively, on Assad's side because Obama needed Russia to keep the Iran deal. Without stopping the Russians there was no plausible way for our money to make any difference in the Syrian civil war...it was a pure waste. It still is. If the idea was to remove Assad we failed. If the idea was to fight ISIS we had success doing that not by funding rebels (many of whom were of dubious loyalty and all of whom, naturally, had their own agendas) but by bombing the shit of out their bases of operation. We did that and actors in the region still have the ability to do that.
The Kurds deserve better from us. They have for QUITE some time. The Kurds should figure out a way to rein in their own terrorist arm, but nonetheless we owe the Kurds protection from the Turks at a minimum. People saying a precipitous withdrawal will endanger the Kurds are correct and Trump needs to work that out--Mattis resigning probably has a lot to do with him believing Trump won't/isn't. But people arguing that our leaving will somehow lose an otherwise-winnable or in-the-middle-of-being-won war against Assad are delusional.
Lefty shows up to backup other lefty.
First lefty claims vindication
LOL
Its literally that easy.
Oh, on the cognitive dissonance front I forgot to mention the loads of people who simultaneously believe Trump is a stooge of Russia and supporting the Russia/Iran axis AND that Trump is a stooge of Saudi Arabia and doing SA's bidding in a proxy war against Iran.
He stays busy fighting against himself, I guess!
Hey Inga, why havent your laughable "New Leaders of The Free World" Merkel, May, Macron and Trudeau (yes, Inga annointed each one of these leaders as just that) scrounge up a measely 3,000 troopsto takeover from the US in Syria?
4 different leaders of the freeworld--just 3,000 troops?
Piece of cake, right?
@Christopher:
It didn't help the US to overthrow Mubarak (giving Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood) nor did it help to take out Ghadaffi (even as annoying as he was).
I completely opposed the Libya operation, but it is not correct to say that the US overthrew Mubarak. The Egyptian people overthrew Mubarak, and he lacked any kind of legitimacy that the US could potentially support. Yes, Egyptians if given the chance at self-determination will choose an Islamic government. This is true of pretty much the entire Arab world. Part of US strategy in the middle east has been to support autocrats explicitly on the premise that they will keep a lid on populist (i.e. democratic) forces within their country.
The Iraqi constitution, for which trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives were spent to bring into existence, states the following: "First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation."
@HoodlumDoodlum:
Obama wasn't willing to confront Russia. He wasn't willing to confront Russia and keep them from intervening, decisively, on Assad's side because Obama needed Russia to keep the Iran deal.
Why in god's name would we want to keep the Russians from intervening? The Russians and Iranians were attacking ISIS in support of the Assad government. We were supporting, arming, and funding radical jihadist groups to make war on the Syrian state. Which of those policies do you think were more aligned with American national security interests?
Mattis has been a good Secretary of Defense, but now there is disagreement about what to do next. We will have to wait and see what Trump may have on his mind, if anything.
I doubt it is leaving the Middle East though. He knows that even if he would like to leave, the Middle East is not going to leave him.
For Afghanistan, I still would like to see him put an end to "the graveyard of empires, i.e., pull out and invite all of the neighbors to step in and grab a piece. None of them are big enough to deal with all of Afghanistan (except China, but China has plenty of trouble with their Moslem western provinces already), but each could handle a piece of it next to their existing border with a familiar population.
Well general asisi, has been able to hold out for five years, so it might be more accurate to say Mubarak was a bad figurehead
Mubarak stepped down to a regime like the one general huyser tried in iran
We may have a self-licking ice cream cone in the middle east.
Oil closed today at $46.48.
All those countries in the middle east that need $100 oil to survive?
They can go fuck themselves.
President trump's adoption of palin's "drill, baby, drill" seems to be working.
And Mexico just announced a huge new discovery that will be coming online in 2022.
How much trouble will these countries can't even feed themselves?
John Henry
How much trouble will these countries cause when they can't even feed themselves?
John Henry
J. Farmer said...
@Bad Lieutenant:
What Trump is doing is worse. He's not ending a surge, he's completely ending U.S. military action in Syria.
That is not exactly true, but I wish it were
I failed to italicize or include the commenter's name, so it's reasonable, I suppose, that you did not observe that I was quoting another commenter with that paragraph.
I did notice, though I refrained from remarking on it earlier, that you have done a pretty good job of minimizing your praise for President Trump's withdrawal from Syria. You're not the hosannas type, but you're rather difficult to please, aren't you?
It's called the devils (redacted) for a reason, exclusively petroleum based economies whether Venezuela nigeria or the kingdom are not sustainable.
Blogger narciso said...
Competent, the same folks who insist we must stay in Syria say we must abandon the kingdom
12/20/18, 7:00 PM
A pertinent comment. The Democrat leadership approves of making Trump look bad, regardless of effect. There is no truth, merely politics.
Drago flailing about like his CiC.
Blogger Howard said...
Drago flailing about like his CiC.
12/20/18, 8:55 PM
Flailing about? Talk about projection! You can't hold the same thought two threads running.
I'm not sure of this, but I gather that a large part of Mattis' disagreement with Trump was over NATO.
Whoever replaces him had best be ready for the NK situation. Kim has to know there is no chance we are going to pull our military assets out of the entire region, yet that is what he is demanding. Back to the starting blocks on that one.
If anyone's interested, here's Mattis's full letter:
Dear Mr. President,
I have been privileged to serve as our country’s 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.
I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department’s business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.
One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO’s 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.
Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model – gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions – to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.
My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.
Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department’s interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability within the Department.
I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.
(signed)
James N. Mattis
Our next president - you heard it here first.
@Bad Lieutenant:
I did notice, though I refrained from remarking on it earlier, that you have done a pretty good job of minimizing your praise for President Trump's withdrawal from Syria. You're not the hosannas type, but you're rather difficult to please, aren't you?
Yes, I certainly am. And I am not a praiser or flatterer of politicians. I was never a supporter of a US troop presence in Syria, and now that that mistake is being corrected, I am pleased with the decision but am not going to lick Trump's ass for making it. I will leave that to the sycophants and the partisan fanboys. I have never given a shit about Trump personally. He is only useful to me to the degree that he implements policies that I support. And that is the metric by which I will judge him.
@narciso:
Well general asisi, has been able to hold out for five years, so it might be more accurate to say Mubarak was a bad figurehead
Mubarak held out for 30 years. How many people here have castigated Obama for not supporting the Green Movement in Iran? Why do we give a shit about democracy in Iran? Let me give you a hint, if the Iranians were given total democratic power tomorrow, they would in all likelihood elect an Islamist government.
In Afghanistan, 2/3 of the casualties of the NATO coalition are US soldiers. The US is about 1/3 of the total population of the NATO countries. Germany is the most populous country in Western Europe. Germany has under 60 casualties in Afghanistan.
Most NATO countries spend less than the required 2% of GDP on defense.
These are not allies or partners. These are acquaintances. People who know is by our first name at most. Mattis is a decent man but this letter is horseshit. He may believe in allies or partners but most of our allies or partners don’t believe in shared sacrifice. They are selfish.
Well because as much as we've faced nasty Egyptians, like Zawahiri and the blind sheikh , the govt of Egypt was not at war with us.
I refer to the fact that he has held out for the last five years, which suggests he has some legitimacy it has many problems admittedly but islamism will not solve any of them
@narciso:
I refer to the fact that he has held out for the last five years, which suggests he has some legitimacy
The Soviet Union held out for a lot longer than five years. Did that suggest to you that they had some "some legitimacy?" This is absolutely pathetic on your part. You want to caterwaul about the lack of democratic legitimacy in Cuba but you are more than willing to deny others that legitimacy if they dare make a choice contrary to your own personal opinion. Please get off your fucking high horse and have the guts to admit what a hypocrite you are.
I am inclined to like Gen. Mattis. My son, and other Marines who served under him revere him. That said, I am inclined to look with a jaundiced eye on American officers above the grade of captain, given the political nature of the service. I have never seen a purpose for the United States in Syria. When, in the past 60 years has Syria done a kind service for the United States of America? If all Syrians are dead tomorrow, what is it to me? If they suffer, what is it to me? And then there is Afghanistan, where after 17 years we are still piddling around. Had student of history James Mattis never heard of William Sherman? Have the Afghanis pioneered fire-resistant poppy fields? Did we lack the capacity to kill sufficient military age Afghani men?
Ambrose: "Our next president - you heard it here first."
Democrats are going to vote for an old, while, heterosexual military guy?
Has someone told Occassional-Cortex about this?
Howard: "Drago flailing about like his CiC."
Stop drunk-posting.
As a twice wounded veteran, I back Trump's decision. Next on the list. Afghanistan. A place that we've been in for, what, 17 years? The place isn't a country, but a bunch of different tribes that have been killing each other for centuries. Enough.
Fine you always want the moslem brotherhood or Iran in charge.
Post a Comment