Granting General Mattis a Waiver

[BmorePat87]

When the DOD was created after WWII, the law stated that any former officers must wait 10 years after retiring from the military before becoming the Secretary of Defense. In 2008, it was changed to 7 years. The idea is that this means that our military is civilian run.

However, one of the first Secretaries of Defense was George Marshall, who (technically) was still active duty but, technicality aside, had ended his active role only 2 years prior to becoming the Secretary of Defense in 1950.

So the question is this: is there a good argument for not granting Mattis, who has been retired for 4 years, a waiver? He is extremely qualified and there precedent is there. What will make him even more of a civilian in 3 years?

[GMDino]

(12-05-2016, 12:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When the DOD was created after WWII, the law stated that any former officers must wait 10 years after retiring from the military before becoming the Secretary of Defense. In 2008, it was changed to 7 years. The idea is that this means that our military is civilian run.

However, one of the first Secretaries of Defense was George Marshall, who (technically) was still active duty but, technicality aside, had ended his active role only 2 years prior to becoming the Secretary of Defense in 1950.

So the question is this: is there a good argument for not granting Mattis, who has been retired for 4 years, a waiver? He is extremely qualified and there precedent is there. What will make him even more of a civilian in 3 years?

I don't think there's any way he doesn't get a waiver and confirmed.

Also I think Trump only picked him because of his nickname.  I say that because very rightwing post and story I have seen makes sure to include it. 

[Belsnickel]

It's interesting how many retired generals are filling the Trump administration. Kind of makes one think about the administrations in certain other countries.

[Benton]

(12-05-2016, 12:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When the DOD was created after WWII, the law stated that any former officers must wait 10 years after retiring from the military before becoming the Secretary of Defense. In 2008, it was changed to 7 years. The idea is that this means that our military is civilian run.

However, one of the first Secretaries of Defense was George Marshall, who (technically) was still active duty but, technicality aside, had ended his active role only 2 years prior to becoming the Secretary of Defense in 1950.

So the question is this: is there a good argument for not granting Mattis, who has been retired for 4 years, a waiver? He is extremely qualified and there precedent is there. What will make him even more of a civilian in 3 years?

No issue with reducing the time frame. As you said, there's not much in three years that going to make him more civilian.

My issue is he was part of the CentCom leadership that manipulated reports that prolonged fighting in the Middle East, and encouraged ineffective strategies.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/centcom-employee-removed-blowing-whistle-misleading-isis-intel/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/centcom-accused-of-manipulating-intelligence-isis-fight-syria-iraq/

The links don't scratch the surface, but there's not a lot of stories about it. I know 60 Minutes and ABC have worked with some of the whistleblowers that testified in Congressional hearings about the chain of stupid that's been stretching out fighting and re-writing reports of success/failure that go to Congress and the President. Mattis was part of that chain, as were the people directly under him. If he was one of the ones having reports rewritten, I honestly don't know. But I know it was happening under his watch.

[Bengalzona]

(12-05-2016, 12:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When the DOD was created after WWII, the law stated that any former officers must wait 10 years after retiring from the military before becoming the Secretary of Defense. In 2008, it was changed to 7 years. The idea is that this means that our military is civilian run.

However, one of the first Secretaries of Defense was George Marshall, who (technically) was still active duty but, technicality aside, had ended his active role only 2 years prior to becoming the Secretary of Defense in 1950.

So the question is this: is there a good argument for not granting Mattis, who has been retired for 4 years, a waiver? He is extremely qualified and there precedent is there. What will make him even more of a civilian in 3 years?

I don't have a problem with him specifically. 

I do have a problem with the precedent it sets. 

[*wildcats forever*]

(12-05-2016, 01:27 PM)Benton Wrote: No issue with reducing the time frame. As you said, there's not much in three years that going to make him more civilian.

My issue is he was part of the CentCom leadership that manipulated reports that prolonged fighting in the Middle East, and encouraged ineffective strategies.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/centcom-employee-removed-blowing-whistle-misleading-isis-intel/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/centcom-accused-of-manipulating-intelligence-isis-fight-syria-iraq/

The links don't scratch the surface, but there's not a lot of stories about it. I know 60 Minutes and ABC have worked with some of the whistleblowers that testified in Congressional hearings about the chain of stupid that's been stretching out fighting and re-writing reports of success/failure that go to Congress and the President. Mattis was part of that chain, as were the people directly under him. If he was one of the ones having reports rewritten, I honestly don't know. But I know it was happening under his watch.

I'd like to see him cleared of any involvement with this before proceeding. Or prosecuted if appropriate. File it under accountability. 

[Benton]

(12-05-2016, 06:18 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: I'd like to see him cleared of any involvement with this before proceeding. Or prosecuted if appropriate. File it under accountability. 

Honestly, I'm not sure why there hasn't been a bigger deal made of it. There have been a handful of whitsleblowers trying to get any kind of attention outside of Congressional hearings and nobody is reporting on it. And Congress wasn't doing anything with it, which seemed weird given the election. Their intelligence community came to them (Congress) with proof reports have been manipulated and their answer was... dozens of Obamacare repeal votes? WTH? These are the guys creating reports that go to those making decisions on how we fight in the Middle East, not just vague accusations of military leadership ignoring the obvious or being ineffective.

[BmorePat87]

(12-05-2016, 05:18 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I don't have a problem with him specifically. 

I do have a problem with the precedent it sets. 

It really just continues off of the Marshall precedent that a well liked general can get a waiver. 

[*wildcats forever*]

(12-05-2016, 06:32 PM)Benton Wrote: Honestly, I'm not sure why there hasn't been a bigger deal made of it. There have been a handful of whitsleblowers trying to get any kind of attention outside of Congressional hearings and nobody is reporting on it. And Congress wasn't doing anything with it, which seemed weird given the election. Their intelligence community came to them (Congress) with proof reports have been manipulated and their answer was... dozens of Obamacare repeal votes? WTH? These are the guys creating reports that go to those making decisions on how we fight in the Middle East, not just vague accusations of military leadership ignoring the obvious or being ineffective.

All I can say is it's my gut feel that our society still imposes a stigma on whistleblowers. Ratting someone/something out is against such an old-school code. And there's another aspect of this, which is the arrogance of high ranking government officials holding a belief that nothing they do is wrong. There always seems to be a rationalization for bending the rules to protect themselves from any sort of scrutiny. These are only my opinions, based on very little evidence.....just my interpretation of the condescension I get from most governmental public reactions to any inquiries of their actions on such matters. It's the old 'say very little and shut it down' we get, with no reported follow up. Call me a cynic ...

[Bengalzona]

(12-05-2016, 06:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It really just continues off of the Marshall precedent that a well liked general can get a waiver. 

Marshall wasn't particularly well-liked (at least not in comparison to Eisenhower or MacArthur). He opposed recognition of the State of Israel out of concern that a war would start over it (which it did). Marshall was given a waiver because he had a plan for rebuilding the post-war world, a circumstance that was considered dire at the time. Because of his prior position of leading a two-front war, it was felt at the time that no one else had a comparable resume or knowledge of the social, economic, and political situations to create a more effective plan. It was truly felt, at the time, that this would be a unique situation.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-05-2016, 01:27 PM)Benton Wrote: No issue with reducing the time frame. As you said, there's not much in three years that going to make him more civilian.

It may have more to do with higher-ups you had close relationships becoming civilian.

I don't know what the shelf life is on top brass, but there's no doubt you're going to be at least a little less directly connected 7 years out relative even to 4.

Sort of like the idea of a waiting period for lobbyists - 5+ years after you leave Congress 75% (guessing) or more of your good connections could be gone.  Kind of a big difference maker.

[*wildcats forever*]

(12-05-2016, 06:32 PM)Benton Wrote: Honestly, I'm not sure why there hasn't been a bigger deal made of it. There have been a handful of whitsleblowers trying to get any kind of attention outside of Congressional hearings and nobody is reporting on it. And Congress wasn't doing anything with it, which seemed weird given the election. Their intelligence community came to them (Congress) with proof reports have been manipulated and their answer was... dozens of Obamacare repeal votes? WTH? These are the guys creating reports that go to those making decisions on how we fight in the Middle East, not just vague accusations of military leadership ignoring the obvious or being ineffective.

Here's an article by the WP addressing similar issues, and may shed a little light on who is responsible. It's disgusting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-banner-main_pentagon-0655pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d6007f0d336e

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Here's the thing with not granting the waiver; the Mattis pick is almost universally liked. Even some Democrats are on board and there certainly was a collective exhale following his nomination. Denying him a waiver merely means Trump picks someone else and I can almost guarantee you that the next pick would be far less palatable. As for Gillibrand, she's trying to make political hay out of this to set herself up for the future. She's one senator I have little to no respect for.