26 Inf
09-23-18, 21:59
I'm surprised that I hadn't read something on here before I found it elsewhere.
To me I think this would be a bad thing. On the other hand, it gives Mattis two years to get things in place for a run for office. Well, a girl can dream, can't she?
The following article is somewhat critical of Secretary Mattis:
'Mad Dog' Defanged: How A Missing Missile Defense Report Explains Mattis' Impending Departure
On January 27, 2017, shortly after his inauguration, President Donald J. Trump directed the Pentagon to undertake a Nuclear Posture Review and a Ballistic Missile Defense Review. Trump had spoken frequently about nuclear threats during the campaign season, so he wanted to make an early start on evaluating the adequacy of both the offensive and defensive features of U.S. strategic policy.
The posture review of offensive forces -- nuclear missiles and bombers -- was completed on time in January of this year. It proved to be a status quo document, upholding precepts that had guided Washington's approach to nuclear deterrence since the Cold War. Most observers agreed it was compatible with the nuclear plans of the Obama administration.
The Ballistic Missile Defense Review was another matter, because the White House had been signaling since inauguration day that it wanted to significantly strengthen the nation's ability to intercept and destroy nuclear weapons posing the greatest threat to the American homeland. That goal went well beyond what the Obama administration had planned. In fact, Obama's advisers feared too much investment in missile defense of the homeland might lead to a destabilizing arms race with Russia and/or China.
That is at least part of the reason why the missile defense review never quite got completed. At first the Pentagon said it would be done in the same time frame as the study of offensive nuclear forces. Then it said maybe in February of 2018. Then it said maybe in May of 2018. Today, as midterm elections approach, we still have no missile defense review. Some insiders say it might be released in October. Others say it might never be released.
The Pentagon has offered explanations along the way for why one report was completed on time, and the other seems trapped in bureaucratic limbo. Key political appointees took a long time to confirm. The department lacked sufficient staff to complete two major reports at the same time. The missile defense review needed to look beyond ballistic threats to the danger posed by long-range cruise missiles and "hypersonic" weapons that might appear in the future.
These explanations may have some validity, but there's one other factor that got in the way of promptly completing what amounts to a glorified term paper. The missile defense review was a threat to the military and political status quo, in much the same way that President Trump has posed other challenges to cherished beliefs of the nation's security establishment. And because it would have signaled a departure from conventional wisdom, it got bottled up by players who didn't want to see security priorities rearranged.
Preventing deviations from conventional wisdom by the Trump White House has become a core competency of Secretary James Mattis during his tenure at the top of the Defense Department. He convinced the president to send more troops to Afghanistan rather than pulling out. He contradicted criticisms the White House leveled at NATO allies who spent too little on their own security. He tried to persuade the president not to withdraw from the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Trump was willing to listen during his first year in office because he was new to the job, Mattis was a distinguished warfighter, and other security advisers around the president echoed the concerns of the defense secretary. But as time went on, Trump began to doubt whether he and Mattis shared the same views on national security. That became especially evident after hardliners Mike Pompeo and John Bolton joined the administration as, respectively, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor.
Much of this was laid out in a September 15 story in the New York Times, which predicted -- correctly -- that Mattis will soon be departing his Pentagon job. Trump's preferred successor is another retired general, but one who shares the president's approach to protecting the nation. Not surprisingly, the Times relates all this as part of an ongoing decline in the quality of U.S. leadership:
"Mattis himself is becoming weary, some aides said, of the amount of time spent pushing back against what Defense Department officials think are capricious whims of an erratic president."
That's one way of looking at the prospect that Mattis will soon be forced out. Another interpretation is that Trump, as an outsider, has noticed defects in the nation's defense posture that are not obvious to people who made their careers in the current security establishment. For instance, is it sensible to have almost no defenses against nuclear attack when the future sanity of leaders in other nuclear states is unknowable? Is it smart to be spending more money on the security of Afghanistan than on intercepting the greatest military threat to our democracy?
Trump, a product of the dog-eat-dog environment that is New York real estate, never assumes we can count on our allies or that common sense will prevail. He has a penchant for stating uncomfortable truths. He upset the security establishment by saying that maybe Japan and South Korea needed their own nuclear deterrents, but this was just his way of pointing out that the main reason North Korea has been seeking nuclear weapons capable of hitting America is that U.S. forces are in South Korea and Japan.
For Trump, it isn't so obvious why the U.S. should be helping two of the world's biggest economies to counter the threat posed by a country -- North Korea -- that has a GDP smaller than that of metropolitan Los Angeles. He looks at Europe and the Middle East the same way, because as a nationalist he believes first and foremost in protecting America. That doesn't mean keeping troops in Afghanistan, but it does mean taking missile defense of the homeland and our overseas forces more seriously.
For some reason, this view is not considered sophisticated among the current crop of security experts. They think offensively-based deterrence is going to last forever, so we don't need to spend much money on active protection. They think we need to maintain our commitment to NATO even if members like Germany can't bring themselves to spend more than 1% of GDP on mounting a defense against Russian aggression. James Mattis has been the keeper of the flame for such views during his tenure at the Pentagon.
Which is the biggest reason why Secretary Mattis will soon be gone. The long delayed report on building better missile defenses for America is emblematic of the way Mattis has ordered Pentagon priorities. He has protected a status quo that drains national resources to compensate for the failings of our allies, and will leave the nation naked to aggression on the day deterrence collapses. You don't have to love Trump to see that he understands human nature better than most of the "experts" do.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/09/21/mad-dog-defanged-how-a-missing-missile-defense-report-explains-the-impending-mattis-departure/#24bdaf3c1c04
This article speaks of Secretary Mattis's potential successors:
The White House is discussing potential replacements for Jim Mattis
Trump: Mattis doing 'fantastic job,' will remain in role
This post has been updated, 5:12 p.m.
Well before this week’s revelations about President Trump’s interactions with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in Bob Woodward’s new book, officials inside the White House have been actively discussing who will replace Mattis at the Pentagon — whenever he might step down.
Of course, in light of Woodward’s reporting that Mattis told associates Trump “acted like — and had the understanding of — ‘a fifth- or sixth-grader,’ ” internal speculation about Mattis’s potential departure has intensified. (Mattis issued a statement Tuesday calling the book “fiction.”) Many officials inside the White House and around the administration had already expected that Mattis would leave his post sometime over the next few months, completing a respectably long two-year stint at the helm of the Defense Department........
..........“The speculation about who replaces Mattis is now more real than ever,” said a senior White House official who was not authorized to speak about internal matters. “The president has always respected him. But now he has every reason to wonder what Mattis is saying behind his back. The relationship has nowhere to go but down, fast.”
No decisions have been made. A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.........
But several administration and congressional officials said that a shortlist for his successor is already being constructed in an informal manner.
At the top of the list is retired four-star Army Gen. Jack Keane, administration and congressional officials said. Keane retired in 2003 and served as vice chief of staff of the Army. Unlike Mattis, Keane would not need a congressional waiver to serve as defense secretary because he’s out of military service more than seven years. He is widely respected in Congress, inside the administration and by the president himself.
“He has strong relationships across the administration and the president likes his TV profile,” the senior White House official said. “He comes across as strong and competent — like a more partisan Mattis.”
Having another retired general run the Defense Department could raise concerns about deterioration of civilian control over the military, as it did when Trump chose Mattis. But multiple congressional officials told me that a Keane nomination would be met with broad support in Congress, given the even greater concerns on Capitol Hill about Trump’s handling of national security amid a range of complex and growing threats.
“Trump needs somebody he respects and he respects General Keane,” a senior GOP congressional aide told me. “I think he has the right skill set and attributes to be effective with this administration. And he’ll work well with the rest of the Cabinet.”
Other names under discussion inside the White House include Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ala.), Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), former Treasury Department official David McCormick and former senator Jim Talent of Missouri. Depending on the party balance in the Senate after the November elections, Republican leadership may not want to risk losing one its caucus members, especially Cotton, who defeated a Democrat for his seat in 2014.
Graham has repeatedly said he is not interested in serving in the Cabinet. McCormick was considered during the transition for deputy positions in both the Defense and Treasury departments. Talent was also considered for defense secretary in late 2016.
Keane declined to comment. Sources said Keane has not had any recent discussions with White House officials about being considered for the defense secretary job. Keane spoke broadly about his vision for national security and defense policy at Wednesday’s conference at the Institute for the Study of War, a think tank whose board he chairs.
Keane endorsed Trump’s National Security Strategy and Mattis’s own National Defense Strategy, released this year, which calls for a return to great power competition with “revisionist powers” Russia and China. Keane warned about Iran’s regional expansion, noted North Korea’s pledge to denuclearize and highlighted the continuing threat from radical Islamic groups, including the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.
Tracking closely with Trump’s own philosophy, Keane called for a reinvestment in the U.S. military, which he said has suffered from years of insufficient funding and support.
“I believe the security of the United States is at greater risk than at any time in decades,” Keane said. “America’s military superiority, which has been the backbone of our global influence and national security, has eroded to dangerous levels. America’s ability to defend its allies, partners and our own vital interests is increasingly in doubt.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/09/05/the-white-house-is-discussing-potential-replacements-for-jim-mattis/?utm_term=.af02b7f16b14
To me this is a potential turning point for some folks. Mattis was/is almost universally respected by members of this forum; as is President Trump, although I don't believe quite as unanimously.
What does everyone think?
To me I think this would be a bad thing. On the other hand, it gives Mattis two years to get things in place for a run for office. Well, a girl can dream, can't she?
The following article is somewhat critical of Secretary Mattis:
'Mad Dog' Defanged: How A Missing Missile Defense Report Explains Mattis' Impending Departure
On January 27, 2017, shortly after his inauguration, President Donald J. Trump directed the Pentagon to undertake a Nuclear Posture Review and a Ballistic Missile Defense Review. Trump had spoken frequently about nuclear threats during the campaign season, so he wanted to make an early start on evaluating the adequacy of both the offensive and defensive features of U.S. strategic policy.
The posture review of offensive forces -- nuclear missiles and bombers -- was completed on time in January of this year. It proved to be a status quo document, upholding precepts that had guided Washington's approach to nuclear deterrence since the Cold War. Most observers agreed it was compatible with the nuclear plans of the Obama administration.
The Ballistic Missile Defense Review was another matter, because the White House had been signaling since inauguration day that it wanted to significantly strengthen the nation's ability to intercept and destroy nuclear weapons posing the greatest threat to the American homeland. That goal went well beyond what the Obama administration had planned. In fact, Obama's advisers feared too much investment in missile defense of the homeland might lead to a destabilizing arms race with Russia and/or China.
That is at least part of the reason why the missile defense review never quite got completed. At first the Pentagon said it would be done in the same time frame as the study of offensive nuclear forces. Then it said maybe in February of 2018. Then it said maybe in May of 2018. Today, as midterm elections approach, we still have no missile defense review. Some insiders say it might be released in October. Others say it might never be released.
The Pentagon has offered explanations along the way for why one report was completed on time, and the other seems trapped in bureaucratic limbo. Key political appointees took a long time to confirm. The department lacked sufficient staff to complete two major reports at the same time. The missile defense review needed to look beyond ballistic threats to the danger posed by long-range cruise missiles and "hypersonic" weapons that might appear in the future.
These explanations may have some validity, but there's one other factor that got in the way of promptly completing what amounts to a glorified term paper. The missile defense review was a threat to the military and political status quo, in much the same way that President Trump has posed other challenges to cherished beliefs of the nation's security establishment. And because it would have signaled a departure from conventional wisdom, it got bottled up by players who didn't want to see security priorities rearranged.
Preventing deviations from conventional wisdom by the Trump White House has become a core competency of Secretary James Mattis during his tenure at the top of the Defense Department. He convinced the president to send more troops to Afghanistan rather than pulling out. He contradicted criticisms the White House leveled at NATO allies who spent too little on their own security. He tried to persuade the president not to withdraw from the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Trump was willing to listen during his first year in office because he was new to the job, Mattis was a distinguished warfighter, and other security advisers around the president echoed the concerns of the defense secretary. But as time went on, Trump began to doubt whether he and Mattis shared the same views on national security. That became especially evident after hardliners Mike Pompeo and John Bolton joined the administration as, respectively, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor.
Much of this was laid out in a September 15 story in the New York Times, which predicted -- correctly -- that Mattis will soon be departing his Pentagon job. Trump's preferred successor is another retired general, but one who shares the president's approach to protecting the nation. Not surprisingly, the Times relates all this as part of an ongoing decline in the quality of U.S. leadership:
"Mattis himself is becoming weary, some aides said, of the amount of time spent pushing back against what Defense Department officials think are capricious whims of an erratic president."
That's one way of looking at the prospect that Mattis will soon be forced out. Another interpretation is that Trump, as an outsider, has noticed defects in the nation's defense posture that are not obvious to people who made their careers in the current security establishment. For instance, is it sensible to have almost no defenses against nuclear attack when the future sanity of leaders in other nuclear states is unknowable? Is it smart to be spending more money on the security of Afghanistan than on intercepting the greatest military threat to our democracy?
Trump, a product of the dog-eat-dog environment that is New York real estate, never assumes we can count on our allies or that common sense will prevail. He has a penchant for stating uncomfortable truths. He upset the security establishment by saying that maybe Japan and South Korea needed their own nuclear deterrents, but this was just his way of pointing out that the main reason North Korea has been seeking nuclear weapons capable of hitting America is that U.S. forces are in South Korea and Japan.
For Trump, it isn't so obvious why the U.S. should be helping two of the world's biggest economies to counter the threat posed by a country -- North Korea -- that has a GDP smaller than that of metropolitan Los Angeles. He looks at Europe and the Middle East the same way, because as a nationalist he believes first and foremost in protecting America. That doesn't mean keeping troops in Afghanistan, but it does mean taking missile defense of the homeland and our overseas forces more seriously.
For some reason, this view is not considered sophisticated among the current crop of security experts. They think offensively-based deterrence is going to last forever, so we don't need to spend much money on active protection. They think we need to maintain our commitment to NATO even if members like Germany can't bring themselves to spend more than 1% of GDP on mounting a defense against Russian aggression. James Mattis has been the keeper of the flame for such views during his tenure at the Pentagon.
Which is the biggest reason why Secretary Mattis will soon be gone. The long delayed report on building better missile defenses for America is emblematic of the way Mattis has ordered Pentagon priorities. He has protected a status quo that drains national resources to compensate for the failings of our allies, and will leave the nation naked to aggression on the day deterrence collapses. You don't have to love Trump to see that he understands human nature better than most of the "experts" do.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/09/21/mad-dog-defanged-how-a-missing-missile-defense-report-explains-the-impending-mattis-departure/#24bdaf3c1c04
This article speaks of Secretary Mattis's potential successors:
The White House is discussing potential replacements for Jim Mattis
Trump: Mattis doing 'fantastic job,' will remain in role
This post has been updated, 5:12 p.m.
Well before this week’s revelations about President Trump’s interactions with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in Bob Woodward’s new book, officials inside the White House have been actively discussing who will replace Mattis at the Pentagon — whenever he might step down.
Of course, in light of Woodward’s reporting that Mattis told associates Trump “acted like — and had the understanding of — ‘a fifth- or sixth-grader,’ ” internal speculation about Mattis’s potential departure has intensified. (Mattis issued a statement Tuesday calling the book “fiction.”) Many officials inside the White House and around the administration had already expected that Mattis would leave his post sometime over the next few months, completing a respectably long two-year stint at the helm of the Defense Department........
..........“The speculation about who replaces Mattis is now more real than ever,” said a senior White House official who was not authorized to speak about internal matters. “The president has always respected him. But now he has every reason to wonder what Mattis is saying behind his back. The relationship has nowhere to go but down, fast.”
No decisions have been made. A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.........
But several administration and congressional officials said that a shortlist for his successor is already being constructed in an informal manner.
At the top of the list is retired four-star Army Gen. Jack Keane, administration and congressional officials said. Keane retired in 2003 and served as vice chief of staff of the Army. Unlike Mattis, Keane would not need a congressional waiver to serve as defense secretary because he’s out of military service more than seven years. He is widely respected in Congress, inside the administration and by the president himself.
“He has strong relationships across the administration and the president likes his TV profile,” the senior White House official said. “He comes across as strong and competent — like a more partisan Mattis.”
Having another retired general run the Defense Department could raise concerns about deterioration of civilian control over the military, as it did when Trump chose Mattis. But multiple congressional officials told me that a Keane nomination would be met with broad support in Congress, given the even greater concerns on Capitol Hill about Trump’s handling of national security amid a range of complex and growing threats.
“Trump needs somebody he respects and he respects General Keane,” a senior GOP congressional aide told me. “I think he has the right skill set and attributes to be effective with this administration. And he’ll work well with the rest of the Cabinet.”
Other names under discussion inside the White House include Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ala.), Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), former Treasury Department official David McCormick and former senator Jim Talent of Missouri. Depending on the party balance in the Senate after the November elections, Republican leadership may not want to risk losing one its caucus members, especially Cotton, who defeated a Democrat for his seat in 2014.
Graham has repeatedly said he is not interested in serving in the Cabinet. McCormick was considered during the transition for deputy positions in both the Defense and Treasury departments. Talent was also considered for defense secretary in late 2016.
Keane declined to comment. Sources said Keane has not had any recent discussions with White House officials about being considered for the defense secretary job. Keane spoke broadly about his vision for national security and defense policy at Wednesday’s conference at the Institute for the Study of War, a think tank whose board he chairs.
Keane endorsed Trump’s National Security Strategy and Mattis’s own National Defense Strategy, released this year, which calls for a return to great power competition with “revisionist powers” Russia and China. Keane warned about Iran’s regional expansion, noted North Korea’s pledge to denuclearize and highlighted the continuing threat from radical Islamic groups, including the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.
Tracking closely with Trump’s own philosophy, Keane called for a reinvestment in the U.S. military, which he said has suffered from years of insufficient funding and support.
“I believe the security of the United States is at greater risk than at any time in decades,” Keane said. “America’s military superiority, which has been the backbone of our global influence and national security, has eroded to dangerous levels. America’s ability to defend its allies, partners and our own vital interests is increasingly in doubt.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/09/05/the-white-house-is-discussing-potential-replacements-for-jim-mattis/?utm_term=.af02b7f16b14
To me this is a potential turning point for some folks. Mattis was/is almost universally respected by members of this forum; as is President Trump, although I don't believe quite as unanimously.
What does everyone think?