I think the editors of the Wall Street Journal have this about right:
Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’s denunciation of President Trump on Wednesday isn’t surprising, but it still looks like an important political moment. Mr. Trump’s polarizing and hyper-personal governance is catching up with him, as we and so many others warned.
Mr. Mattis, the former four-star Marine General, is a man of accomplishment and dedication to country. He made the decision to join Mr. Trump’s Administration despite the misgivings he must have had about the President’s foreign-policy views. He served loyally until he resigned on Dec. 20, 2018 after Mr. Trump’s abrupt decision to withdraw troops from the Syrian border with Turkey after a telephone call with Turkey’s President.
But as he so often has, Mr. Trump couldn’t resist kicking Mr. Mattis as he was going out the door. His initial tweets were supportive, but within two days he was criticizing Mr. Mattis for not helping enough to dun allies for more cash for U.S. foreign deployments. “General Mattis did not see this as a problem. I DO, and it is being fixed!†he tweeted.
He told a cabinet meeting that “I wish him well. I hope he does well. But, as you know, President Obama fired him and essentially so did I.†Mr. Mattis said in his resignation letter he’d stay until Feb. 28, but Mr. Trump ordered him out on Jan. 1.
In his statement to the Atlantic, Mr. Mattis denounced in particular Mr. Trump’s threat this week to order the military to restore order amid riots in U.S. cities. He said this threatens the Constitution, which is overwrought given that George H.W. Bush and other Presidents have done this. Mr. Mattis also undersold the significant harm that riots have done in many cities (see nearby).
But the general’s real motivation here is to tell the public that Mr. Trump lacks the character to be President and should be defeated in November. “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us,†Mr. Mattis said. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.â€
There is a reason that presidents of the last 60 or more years have followed one of two paradigms: either they have been micro-managers like Clinton or Carter, “policy wonks” attempting to run every detail of the federal government themselves, or staff managers like Eisenhower or Reagan who appointed good subordinates, established the objectives, let the subordinates work out the details for themselves, and supported them. The reason is that those approaches can be made to work. What President Trump has been doing cannot, particularly when so much of the appointed and permanent civil bureaucracy disagrees with you or even despises you.
Message to Trump? (Washington monument last nite)
https://twitter.com/i/status/1268711125555838977
Jim Mattis wrote that op ed piece before checking his facts, getting many of the Lafayette Park details wrong – i.e. tear gas, rubber bullets not deployed, no national guard present, crowd throwing frozen water bottles etc. at and injuring people, baseball bats and other menacing items found stashed away along the route to be transversed by POTUS (not signs of a peaceful crowd as described by Mattis).
Consequently, Mattis has been roundly criticized by former military people for not exercising better judgment, by remaining apolitical in these heated, difficult times.
My remarks on Gen. Mattis’s reaction have been limited to a reaction that too much is being made of it–other presidents have done much the same (as noted by the editors).
I think the general should be cautious. My understanding is that retired or not he is still eligible for court martial for insubordination.
I wasn’t aware Mattis would be subject to any accountability measures, other than a lowering of regard for him from those in the military. The inscrutable thing about his attacks, though, is he was otherwise so disciplined in not making any untowards remarks following his retirement from WH service. Why now? And, why after having built such an admirable legacy for so many years in the service? It seems unusual to break with the conduct carefully cultivated over decades of military service, and detailed in a recent book published.
The choice in the fall will be between Trump and a Nazi-like coalition of anti-White racists and communists. We are now an empire of warring tribes. There is no healing or unifying force, because none is wanted by any of the major players. thank God we are largely segregated. With 300 million guns in civilian hands, the possibility of serious, large-scale violence is all too real.
As to Mattis and the other generals attacking Trump, it seems they are trying to whip up a military coup d’etat. That won’t happen, even though there would be significant support for a coup in Congress. One always has to remember that flag officers are political appointments, and that they are carefully vetted as to their loyalties, which are not to the Constitution or the American people. It’s been that way a long time. Macarthur used cavalry to remove protesting WW I veterans from the same park.
IMO this may be conspiracist, but I think Mattis was speaking to men and women still in uniform more than to the general public, especially to those promoted or sponsored by Obama and his team while he was in office. Implying that they would be within their rights to refuse to obey OMB, because his orders could be considered to be illegal. Very dangerous stuff.
‘What President Trump has been doing cannot, particularly when so much of the appointed and permanent civil bureaucracy disagrees with you or even despises you.’
We pay the appointed and permanent civil bureaucracy to carry out orders and implement policies authored by the people we elected. Not the other way around. If they don’t like it, they can leave the government, and we’d probably be better off for it. Our endless wars and foreign aid fiascoes and bathroom wars and so much other crazy regulatory BS are a result of allowing the bureaucracy to have its way with policy too long. Running the country to suit themselves and increase their power, both personally and departmentally. Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy. You’ve pointed that out yourself. The status quo ain’t working for us, why should we keep voting in people enamored of it? Especially when it’s found that they’re personally benefiting from it, at our expense?
“My remarks on Gen. Mattis’s reaction have been limited to a reaction that too much is being made of it–other presidents have done much the same (as noted by the editors).”
Nope, what Trump is doing really is different. If this were only Mattis then it could be sour grapes, but even Dempsey has agreed. Milley and Esper both made negative comments about Trump’s mgt. Now John Kelly has also come out in agreement. This is not a coup but generals speaking out to try to preserve an important part off our tradition. The military is not used within the US against US citizens especially for the personal gain of a politician.
“Why now? And, why after having built such an admirable legacy for so many years in the service? It seems unusual to break with the conduct carefully cultivated over decades of military service, and detailed in a recent book published.”
He had a moral responsibility to speak up, so he did. He spent his life in the military. He is a well read historian. He understands this at a gut level and has the credibility to be taken seriously.
Steve
Over the last 65 years the following presidents have used the military against American civilians domestically:
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
George H. W. Bush
Trump
It has been rare and they have generally been used to quell riots or stop looting.
Article conflates National Guard with active duty military. In the few actual cases where active duty military were used they were asked for by local officials, or there were constitutional rights at risk. In none of those instances were troops used so that a politician could have a photo op. Remember that Trump was threatening to deploy troops against the will of local officials.
So you had a lot of generals with a much better knowledge of military history than you or I speaking out against the way Trump used troops and the way he was threatening to use them. Intent matters.
Steve