Granting General Mattis a Waiver

[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.