• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Considering Gen. James 'Mad Dog' Mattis for defense secretary

S

sanman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
12,014
Reaction score
4,643
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Retired US Marine Corps General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis may be a leading choice for US Secretary of Defense, going by Donald Trump's tweets:

Donald Trump considering Gen. James 'Mad Dog' Mattis for defense secretary - UPI.com

s2u_bor.jpg

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 (UPI) -- President-elect Donald Trump said retired Marine Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis is being considered to serve as secretary of defense.

"General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General's General!" Trump tweeted on Sunday.

"All I can say is he is the real deal. He is the real deal," Trump said of Mattis when reporters asked if he would be his pick for defense secretary.

Mattis is a four-star general who retired in 2013 after serving in the military for 44 years. He is widely known for his leadership role during the 2004 Battle of Fallujah in the Iraq War. In recent years since retirement, he has been a sharp critic of President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran and the Obama administration's hesitance to enter military conflict.

Congress would need to provide Mattis a waiver to pursue the position due to Title 10 of the U.S. Code that mandates the president must nominate someone "from civilian life." The same rule says a person "may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force."
Click to expand...


I think it's no surprise, when you remember some of Trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail - on various occasions, he asked aloud what generals like Patton or MacArthur would think of today's wishywashy approach to ISIS. So, as per his past pronouncements, he may be looking for a Patton or MacArthur to meet the needs.
 
i had to wait seven years before i could be active in my business community of expertise after ending federal service; mattis should similarly be required to recuse himself for a federal position until 2020

[below emphasis added by bubba]
Mattis is a four-star general who retired in 2013 after serving in the military for 44 years. He is widely known for his leadership role during the 2004 Battle of Fallujah in the Iraq War. In recent years since retirement, he has been a sharp critic of President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran and the Obama administration's hesitance to enter military conflict.

Congress would need to provide Mattis a waiver to pursue the position due to Title 10 of the U.S. Code that mandates the president must nominate someone "from civilian life." The same rule says a person "may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force."
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
i had to wait seven years before i could be active in my business community of expertise after ending federal service; mattis should similarly be required to recuse himself for a federal position until 2020
Click to expand...

But Mattis is being slotted for SecDef, not a business position. What exactly is the conflict of interest? The Title 10 stipulation about nominating a civilian doesn't really have anything to do with conflict of interest between personal gain and public duty. If Congress is willing to give him a waiver, then he should be given first crack at the job. If that doesn't happen for whatever reason, then they can go with a backup candidate.

Here's some interesting commentary about Mattis:

Mattis as defense secretary: What it means for us, for the military, and for Trump | Foreign Policy
 
sanman said:
Retired US Marine Corps General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis may be a leading choice for US Secretary of Defense, going by Donald Trump's tweets:

Donald Trump considering Gen. James 'Mad Dog' Mattis for defense secretary - UPI.com

View attachment 67210178




I think it's no surprise, when you remember some of Trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail - on various occasions, he asked aloud what generals like Patton or MacArthur would think of today's wishywashy approach to ISIS. So, as per his past pronouncements, he may be looking for a Patton or MacArthur to meet the needs.
Click to expand...
my favorite wine is named after him
 
 
sanman said:
But Mattis is being slotted for SecDef, not a business position. What exactly is the conflict of interest? The Title 10 stipulation about nominating a civilian doesn't really have anything to do with conflict of interest between personal gain and public duty. If Congress is willing to give him a waiver, then he should be given first crack at the job. If that doesn't happen for whatever reason, then they can go with a backup candidate.

Here's some interesting commentary about Mattis:

Mattis as defense secretary: What it means for us, for the military, and for Trump | Foreign Policy
Click to expand...

what is the point of even having a seven year recusal period if only to waive it
 
justabubba said:
i had to wait seven years before i could be active in my business community of expertise after ending federal service; mattis should similarly be required to recuse himself for a federal position until 2020

[below emphasis added by bubba]
Click to expand...

You got the specific rule, because it doesn't apply to everyone. I see military turn civil servant all the time.
 
Maybe "Mad Dog" should be put in charge of the VA. He could set up firing squads for cruel and incompetent VA administrators. :lol: :yes:
 
American said:
You got the specific rule, because it doesn't apply to everyone. I see military turn civil servant all the time.
Click to expand...

i realize that the rule does not apply to every veteran/fed for every position in government
but the recusal does apply to him just as it applied to me (as a warranted federal contracting officer not permitted to engage in business with any entity with which i entered into a contract on behalf of my employer)
there are legitimate reasons for such recusal provisions ... such as this one prohibiting mattis from being on the white house staff
 
justabubba said:
i had to wait seven years before i could be active in my business community of expertise after ending federal service; mattis should similarly be required to recuse himself for a federal position until 2020

[below emphasis added by bubba]
Click to expand...

Congress can issue him a waiver. If he turns out to be the best person for the job, then they should do so.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Congress can issue him a waiver. If he turns out to be the best person for the job, then they should do so.
Click to expand...

then why even impose a waiting period?
 
American said:
Maybe "Mad Dog" should be put in charge of the VA. He could set up firing squads for cruel and incompetent VA administrators. :lol: :yes:
Click to expand...

No one will be able to fix the VA or any other federal agency (except DOD) until Congress fixes the unbelievable protections that federal employees enjoy. Until federal bureaucrats are no longer "bullet proof" from being fired, nothing can be done. That should be one of the very first acts in the new year. That, and make it illegal for public employees to join or form a union - SEIU, NEA, etc.

Until those two things are done, at least the first one, then we can't even get a boat into the swamp much less drain it.
 
justabubba said:
then why even impose a waiting period?
Click to expand...

Actually, that's a great question. IMHO, because the average person isn't going to be named SecDef, and in most other situations it makes sense to do so, especially with the open doors on K Street and with government contractors.
 
That dude has some awesome quotes. :lol:
 
Beaudreaux said:
No one will be able to fix the VA or any other federal agency (except DOD) until Congress fixes the unbelievable protections that federal employees enjoy. Until federal bureaucrats are no longer "bullet proof" from being fired, nothing can be done. That should be one of the very first acts in the new year. That, and make it illegal for public employees to join or form a union - SEIU, NEA, etc.

Until those two things are done, at least the first one, then we can't even get a boat into the swamp much less drain it.
Click to expand...

Are you certain that's all it is? And that's a pretty big generalization about federal employees.
 
justabubba said:
i realize that the rule does not apply to every veteran/fed for every position in government
but the recusal does apply to him just as it applied to me (as a warranted federal contracting officer not permitted to engage in business with any entity with which i entered into a contract on behalf of my employer)
there are legitimate reasons for such recusal provisions ... such as this one prohibiting mattis from being on the white house staff
Click to expand...

Usually there is language about direct and substantive activity on related contracts as a acquisition professional. Was he in acquisition?
 
'In recent years since retirement, he has been a sharp critic of President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran and the Obama administration's hesitance to enter military conflict.'

Oh great...that is just what America needs - more brave Americans dying in the middle of nowhere, fighting hopeless causes at taxpayer expense.

:roll:
 
Beaudreaux said:
No one will be able to fix the VA or any other federal agency (except DOD) until Congress fixes the unbelievable protections that federal employees enjoy. Until federal bureaucrats are no longer "bullet proof" from being fired, nothing can be done. That should be one of the very first acts in the new year. That, and make it illegal for public employees to join or form a union - SEIU, NEA, etc.

Until those two things are done, at least the first one, then we can't even get a boat into the swamp much less drain it.
Click to expand...
Yes, its crazy incredible just how hard, apparently, it is to discipline or fire anybody in the federal bureaucracy. I watched some Gowdy/Chaffetz youtube vids last night and the porn surfing on the job, the stealing money from the government going on trips, to party at wildly extravagant taxpayer expense, drunkenness by senior level Secret Service personnel, involvement with prostitutes while on mission by lower agents, even assaults ignored... all for months, years and still nothing done... but, they are "looking into the matter"... my god this system needs to suffer its own earthquake and completely collapse.

Out of the rubble we should rebuild a system without all those many pitons hammered so deep in the face of a now cracking, crumbling wall of bureaucracy.
 
American said:
Are you certain that's all it is? And that's a pretty big generalization about federal employees.
Click to expand...

That's not all, but that's the root cause. When there's no fear of reprisal, very few people will act within normal expectations. It's tribal human characteristics. Sadly, there are very few of us that would act properly without outside influence to make us do so. I've seen it in combat areas and following some major disasters. People will rebel against authority, and most people will only do the minimum required to survive.

It seems to me to be a lack of two major influences - reward for merit, and consequences for failure. Government employees tend to get raises and bonuses regardless of actual performance, or actual budgets, or even actual orders to the contrary from above:



Most people would ask themselves that if you're going to get a raise and a bonus for screwing up and not doing your job, then why try to do any differently? They can't fire you, and you get paid more money?

The VA is no different.

However, there are other problems with the VA, such as their culture of complacency and having more concern over cost than care of the veteran. But, those cannot be addresses until the items I mentioned are addressed and fixed first.
 
justabubba said:
i had to wait seven years before i could be active in my business community of expertise after ending federal service; mattis should similarly be required to recuse himself for a federal position until 2020

[below emphasis added by bubba]
Click to expand...

From what I understand, the man is well regarded in all circles and exceptionally competent to boot. Be worth looking at giving the man a waiver, and utilizing his service IMO.
 
justabubba said:
i realize that the rule does not apply to every veteran/fed for every position in government
but the recusal does apply to him just as it applied to me (as a warranted federal contracting officer not permitted to engage in business with any entity with which i entered into a contract on behalf of my employer)
there are legitimate reasons for such recusal provisions ... such as this one prohibiting mattis from being on the white house staff
Click to expand...

That language doesn't apply to General Mattis.
 
sanman said:
Retired US Marine Corps General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis may be a leading choice for US Secretary of Defense, going by Donald Trump's tweets:

Donald Trump considering Gen. James 'Mad Dog' Mattis for defense secretary - UPI.com

View attachment 67210178




I think it's no surprise, when you remember some of Trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail - on various occasions, he asked aloud what generals like Patton or MacArthur would think of today's wishywashy approach to ISIS. So, as per his past pronouncements, he may be looking for a Patton or MacArthur to meet the needs.
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of waiving the 7 years rule. There are reasons for such rules and precedent to bending rules is not, what the US needs now. Make him an advisor.
 
apdst said:
That language doesn't apply to General Mattis.
Click to expand...

It appears to. Top contender for defense secretary faces legislative hurdle - CNNPolitics.com When the position was created, Congress wanted to preserve the idea of civilian control of the military.

(Sec. 903) Reduces from ten to seven years the period that a regular commissioned officer must wait after being relieved from active duty in order to become eligible for appointment as the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Click to expand...

Of course, he'll probably be able to easily get the waiver if Trump decides to go that way, but the language does apply to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom