The Man Who Couldn’t Take It Anymore

The subject of North Korea represented my best chance to wrench a direct answer from Mattis. I had collected some of Trump’s more repellent tweets, and read aloud the one that I thought might overwhelm his defenses. It is a tweet almost without peer in the canon...

Mattis looked at his hands. Finally he said, “Any Marine general or any other senior servant of the people of the United States would find that, to use a mild euphemism, counterproductive and beneath the dignity of the presidency.”

Source

A rather interesting article on Mattis and his time in the Trump administration.

As one would expect, Mattis is fairly tight lipped about his opinion on Trump. That said he does let some things slip.

Mattis may never openly reveal his true thoughts, but reading through this, I think his views are pretty clear.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I started having doubts about our current administration about the same time Mad Dog left.

There are not many that I respect more than Gen. Mattis.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen the article.

Mattis and Trump disagree on Afghanistan and Syria.

Mattis left after he and Trump argued over staying in Afghanistan. No one likes to be wrong. Mattis was definitely wrong and I have a great deal of respect for Mattis. But he likes war, most Americans don't.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Mattis and Trump disagree on Afghanistan and Syria.

Mattis left after he and Trump argued over staying in Afghanistan. No one likes to be wrong. Mattis was definitely wrong and I have a great deal of respect for Mattis. But he likes war, most Americans don't.

I've met and spoken to the man. Twice.

I think you may be a little off-base in your characterization of him.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot


No I'm not.

He wanted more Afghanistan, Trump was talking about leaving. They disagreed because Mattis, like Dan Crenshaw and other war hawks, think there's still something to do there.

There isn't.

Mattis likes to fight. He has said so on many occasions. He thinks war is fun and likes to engage in combat. I don't hold that against him, but he shouldn't be making policy, that's for sure.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: 35Foxtrot


No I'm not.

He wanted more Afghanistan, Trump was talking about leaving. They disagreed because Mattis, like Dan Crenshaw and other war hawks, think there's still something to do there.

There isn't.

Mattis likes to fight. He has said so on many occasions. He thinks war is fun and likes to engage in combat. I don't hold that against him, but he shouldn't be making policy, that's for sure.

I feel you're not understanding where he is coming from.

If you're sent to war, you fight to win.

I've been there and I agree.

I hate war. It really sucks. 4 deployments and now my sons are in ROTC.

They'll probably be fighting the same wars I did.

Because people like Trump and Obama and Bush half-a$$ed things.

a reply to: projectvxn

I've never met the man, so I'll have to defer to Foxtrot on this, but it always seemed like he put the well being of his troops above all else.

So I can't imagine he would sacrifice so many of his men just because, "he likes to fight."

I can however understand that he believes that by leaving we were abandoning our allies. Which does seem to be a trend with this administration.

Trump continuously throws our longtime allies under the bus while getting DP'd by Li'l Kim and Putin. So I can understand where Mattis was coming from even if I think we should've pulled out of both countries under Obama.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

I feel you're not understanding where he is coming from.

If you're sent to war, you fight to win.

I've been there and I agree.

I hate war. It really sucks. 4 deployments and now my sons are in ROTC.

They'll probably be fighting the same wars I did.

Because people like Trump and Obama and Bush half-a$$ed things.

I totally agree that your sons will probably end up fighting the same old wars, but I'm not sure our presidents are the ones to blame. What do you think Mattis would have done differently? Honestly, no matter what any of them do, the radicals will always rise up out of somewhere. The Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other for over a thousand years and there's not much we can do to stop that. The most we can do is limit it. If you've got a better plan, I'd like to hear it.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

I feel you're not understanding where he is coming from.

If you're sent to war, you fight to win.

I've been there and I agree.

I hate war. It really sucks. 4 deployments and now my sons are in ROTC.

They'll probably be fighting the same wars I did.

Because people like Trump and Obama and Bush half-a$$ed things.

I totally agree that your sons will probably end up fighting the same old wars, but I'm not sure our presidents are the ones to blame. What do you think Mattis would have done differently? Honestly, no matter what any of them do, the radicals will always rise up out of somewhere. The Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other for over a thousand years and there's not much we can do to stop that. The most we can do is limit it. If you've got a better plan, I'd like to hear it.

Actually, I feel if Mattis was in charge and making the decisions, he - much like I - would have not gotten involved in Afghanistan or Iraq to the extent we were/are.

Unfortunately, as you seem to have missed, soldiers don't make those decisions. Presidents and Congress do.

A solution?

Listen to your generals.

Too late for that, though.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

So, in other words, you have no idea what Mattis would have done or have your own ideas on how to remedy the situation in the Middle East. Hint, there isn't any good remedy and the extent of how much we do/don't do doesn't matter when you're dealing with terrorists and radicals. Any amount of force encourages them to retaliate. It may take them longer to rebuild after using strong force against them, but it won't stop them.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Listen to your generals.

Like when Patton wanted to roll on against the Soviets in Germany?
Like when MacArthur wanted to take the Korean War directly to China?

Listen to Generals.... but don't follow them blindly.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

So, in other words, you have no idea what Mattis would have done or have your own ideas on how to remedy the situation in the Middle East. Hint, there isn't any good remedy and the extent of how much we do/don't do doesn't matter when you're dealing with terrorists and radicals. Any amount of force encourages them to retaliate. It may take them longer to rebuild after using strong force against them, but it won't stop them.

I was replying to your comment that maybe presidents aren't to blame.

They are.

But, yeah. They've been fighting forever and will keep doing so.

We can't lift them out of the past.

That's why I said we shouldn't have gotten as involved as we did in those places.

Maybe you missed that part.

I forgive you.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Mattis may never openly reveal his true thoughts, but reading through this, I think his views are pretty clear.

He'll definitely reveal his true thoughts someday; however, he's military to the core, and the sense of duty attached to such dedication definitely prevents him from undermining our active military by unleashing full-bore on a sitting Commander in Chief.

Once Trump leaves office the can of worms will burst open.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Listen to your generals.

Like when Patton wanted to roll on against the Soviets in Germany?
Like when MacArthur wanted to take the Korean War directly to China?

Listen to Generals.... but don't follow them blindly.

Yes. Following anyone blindly would be a bad idea.

Thinking you know more about NATO than the former Supreme Commander for Transition is also a bad idea.

Trump did one of those things. Mattis, zero point zero.

And if we had rolled up the Soviets and the Chinese while we were already mobilized for war (WWII and Korean War), it would have saved us a lot of hassle in the following decades.

Again, if you want us to fight, we should fight to win.

Patton was right.

Mac was right.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

That's why I said we shouldn't have gotten as involved as we did in those places.

Maybe you missed that part.

I didn't miss anything. I heard you state that we shouldn't have been "AS involved", yet earlier you said that we should fight to win. What do you think a winning solution would have been?

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

That's why I said we shouldn't have gotten as involved as we did in those places.

Maybe you missed that part.

I didn't miss anything. I heard you state that we shouldn't have been "AS involved", yet earlier you said that we should fight to win. What do you think a winning solution would have been?

Seems like you did.

But, OK, here.

Retaliation for 9/11 and decapitation of Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership.

Removal of Saddam.

Then let them sort themselves out.

If they can't do that on their own and become a threat to us again; rinse and repeat.

Few boots on the ground.

No FOBs.

I have the utmost respect for General Mattis... have had pretty much since I first heard of him, long before he was a part of the Trump administration. I respect Donald Trump's business abilities as well; I think he has proven they work. Since this all began the day Donald Trump rode an escalator down to announce his candidacy, my respect for both has only grown.

With that said, I don't think I would be comfortable with General Mattis as President. He has not the temperament for it. As a military commander, I cannot think of a better man to fill the office, but that is simply different than a President. Conversely, I would be quite worried if Donald Trump were leading our troops into battle. That is simply not something he has the temperament for. As has been said, once the fighting begins one must fight to win at any cost... but prior to the first shot, diplomacy is always the best option. Mattis will fight to win at any cost; Trump will use words and signals to try and avoid the fighting.

I was disappointed when Mattis left. To be perfectly honest, I was a bit concerned over Trump's abilities the day Mattis left. We lost a great asset that day. But General Mattis did, as he tends to do, what he believed was right, as did Donald Trump. Sometimes the inherent biases present in all people clash, and sometimes that clash is so severe that two people can no longer work together.

Now that I have that out of the way, I did read the linked article. It struck me as another attempt at a "hit piece" on President Trump. Just another reporter who hates a man for existing, engaged in this endless quest for self-vindication of why he feels such hatred and animosity. I did find something quite interesting, though... buried in the middle of the article are some wise words spoken by a wise man who has the ability to see what is going on around him:

“And don’t you have a duty to warn the country if it is endangered by its leader?”

“I didn’t cook up a convenient tradition here,” he said. “You don’t endanger the country by attacking the elected commander in chief. I may not like a commander in chief one fricking bit, but our system puts the commander in chief there, and to further weaken him when we’re up against real threats—I mean, we could be at war on the Korean peninsula, every time they start launching something.”

Wise words spoken by a wise man. I wish we could all abide by them.

We get it; you hate Donald Trump. What we do not get is why... and I feel even those who hate him so much don't really understand why either. But the hatred for one man, when it actually endangers the country, is poisonous. That poison affects us all.

At the end of the day, we all either support the United States or we do not. There is no middle ground. We can debate policy, we can disagree about our country's actions, we can even express outrage at some of those actions. That's fine. But there is a line where anger and outrage at the problems we encounter as the planet turns becomes hatred for the country, and we are far, far past that line. It has become a literal obsession, a drug cocktail from which we drink continuously. A poisonous cocktail that will kill everyone who drinks from it.

Every four years, the people get a chance to choose who will lead this great nation. Sometimes we make a good choice; sometimes we make a bad choice; usually we get a mixture of both. That's not what is important, though. What is important is that we get to choose, and that choice is respected. There will always be some of us who will disagree, and that's fine... but when that disagreement becomes hatred, it is not fine any more. When it is hatred for one's fellow countrymen, that is hatred for one's own country. The United States is "We The People." One cannot hate "We The People" without hating the United States.

If someone holds respect for General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, that someone will listen to those words above and respect the office of the President and work with the system, not against it, to Make America Great Again.

TheRedneck

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

No, more like...don't get involved in a war with no clear "win".

I'm all about fighting to win, but what was/is the win in Iraq or Asscrackistan? Surrender???? Surrender to what? Surrender to whom?

I agree with BG...had MacArthur been given his way we'd still be fighting a war with China, and so would our great grandchildren's grandchildren. Had Patton been given his way the planet would be in ashes. But even there, there was a clear "win". Not in Iraq and Asscrackistan. What's the "win"?

Trump was right. Get out!

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot


Because people like Trump and Obama and Bush half-a$$ed things.

what should be done then?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Yeah, he thinks that war is good and productive and Trump thinks war is stupid and counterproductive, how could someone who got fired be sour?