• 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!

You’re Supposed to ‘Completely Blindside’ the Enemy, Not the Pentagon

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,977
Reaction score
58,575
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You're Supposed to 'Completely Blindside' the Enemy, Not the Pentagon | National Review

James Mattis - Former Secretary of Defense said:
It was no secret in Washington that the White House was wary of my command at CENTCOM and increasingly distrusted me. While I fully endorse civilian control of the military, I would not surrender my independent judgment. In 2010, I argued strongly against pulling all our troops out of Iraq. In 2011, I urged retaliation against Iran for plotting to blow up a restaurant in our nation’s capital. In 2012, I argued for retaining a small but capable contingent of troops in Afghanistan. Each step along the way, I argued for political clarity and offered options that could give the Commander in Chief a rheostat he could dial up or down to protect our nation. While I had the right to be heard on military matters, my judgment was only advice, to be ignored or accepted. I obeyed without mental reservation our Commander in Chief and carried out every order to the best of my ability.
1

In December 2012, I received an unauthorized phone call telling me that in an hour, the Pentagon would be announcing my relief. I was leaving a region aflame and in disarray. The lack of an integrated regional strategy had left us adrift, and our friends confused. We were offering no leadership or direction. I left my post deeply disturbed that we had shaken our friends’ confidence and created vacuums that our adversaries would exploit.

I was disappointed and frustrated that policymakers all too often failed to deliver clear direction. And lacking a defined mission statement, I frequently didn’t know what I was expected to accomplish… We must mean what we say, to both allies and foes: no more false threats or failing to live up to our word.
 
Quote was from actions in 2011 and 2012. Its 2019. What am I missing?

And yet still a valid point. I do not always agree with Mattis, and some of what he, in that quote, advocates I disagree with, but he is both smart, and honorable. Also note that the source article, from the National Review, is also critical of Trump for doing basically the same thing. And it is valid criticism in both cases.
 

When Trump was elected, he went through scores of interviews at Trump Tower with possible candidates to fill positions in his administration. Luckily there's an automatic revolving door at the entrance, some would be leaving while others entering. He picked some, like Mattis, McMaster, Preet Bhara, Dina Powell, Rex Tillerson and Walter Shaub to name some of them, who knew what they were doing, experienced and knowledgeable and yet couldn't last in the Trump administration and left for ethical reasons.

He hired all the best people, as promised. But once that promise was fulfilled, he got rid of all the best people. He's running his administration without it being fully staffed. That's how he wants it. Trump won't listen to experts. Trump doesn't want any dissenters in his administration, he want's people that do as their told to do, not what's right or best for the country.
 
And yet still a valid point. I do not always agree with Mattis, and some of what he, in that quote, advocates I disagree with, but he is both smart, and honorable. Also note that the source article, from the National Review, is also critical of Trump for doing basically the same thing. And it is valid criticism in both cases.

Problem is we have been there for a good while and we need to be gone. I disagree with leaving the Kurds in a bind, and am game to arm them to the teeth. But this is their fight not ours.
 
Problem is we have been there for a good while and we need to be gone. I disagree with leaving the Kurds in a bind, and am game to arm them to the teeth. But this is their fight not ours.

Give them a boatload of Javelin anti-tank missiles and wish them well.
 
Problem is we have been there for a good while and we need to be gone. I disagree with leaving the Kurds in a bind, and am game to arm them to the teeth. But this is their fight not ours.

I agree that it is time to get out. His point however was that we need to let the military know what we are going to do so they can, you know, plan for it kinda thing.
 
What I am finding particularly interesting is seeing the flip-flop of Democrats over this.

When President Trump took office, he said he wanted to get the US out of Syria, and the Democrats objected because it was President Obama that got us involved there.

Then 2.5 years ago when President Trump increased actions in Syria and even bombed some Syrian targets, they then screamed he was going to get us into WWIII.

Now he is talking about pulling out again, and they are still having fits.

Overall, it really does not seem to matter anymore. He can do A, B, or C (or even nothing) and the Democrats will still complain. I have tuned then out a long time ago now. I am sure that if President Trump announced that he liked nylon jackets, the Democrats would then announce that he hated wool jackets. This has seriously become a mental illness.
 
Back
Top Bottom