Do you care about our military and national security?

[Dill]

(06-13-2020, 04:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I did assume comparing Trump to these folks implies they have the same kind of power. Of course I trust everyone to not start a war who won't come in a position to decide that in the first place.

Mattis and Kelly were part of the Trump system. And for me that does not come without some lasting scrutiny, especially since they backed his lies and indecencies and have quite some comments on the record doing so, especially Kelly. But ok, I trust them probably more than Trump still, even when it comes to conflict, but only just. Sitting in the Trump admin imho is a character flaw and this whole narrative of "I had to stay to hold him back" seems semi-persuasive at best. They supported his back while doing so, hence being complicit in bad developments.

[Mullen] did also say that Al Qaeda in Iraq thing though. But nice quotes. I always considered the US tendency of making generals politicians quite strange. Defense secretary, ok, but aside from that, why not keep them in their field of expertise, advising the president or doing their thing when it comes to war (which is not always condemnable, eg. Afghanistan, imho). I do have a hard time trusting their peacekeeping after being concerned with war for so long. I always fear it might dull the sense for the horrors of war.

 Eisenhower made a decent president. Some feel Washington did an ok job too.  Grant so so at best.
Mullen's quote, by the way, was made in 2010, and not a wildly inaccurate characterization of whom the US had identified as its primary enemy. I suspect his view of the causes of insurgency in both Iraq and A-stan are not as narrow as you suppose.

As a rule, we don't make generals politicians. We do use them for secretaries and advisors. And in that role, their job is often to shut up and do what  they are told. Which they do until they just can't.  Administrations--the US Government--would be unable to function if these advisors quit every time they did not agree with the boss. One may totally disagree with Trump about Korea, but repeat administration talking points because that is part of the job. The same guy may also stay on because he feels he is making a difference somewhere else, like with China and the ME. POTUS is listening maybe, so there, not Korea, lies his legacy.

Agree with you that joining Trump's administration did not show good judgment.  Many would NOT come aboard that ship, recognizing the danger to reputations, not to mention the country. But some of these guys really define their lives via concepts of "duty" and "service" that simply don't operate in the civilian world.  Mattis, Kelly, Flynn--all generals, but very different. Flynn seems the most "trump-like" of all, ready to promote conspiracies, work for other governments, and other unstable behavior (Fired by Obama).  He was as unstable as Trump, but not on Fred's list. I find it doubtful that Mattis would have initiated a war in the ME on his own. Kelly might have, with provocation, but following protocol for escalation.

Based on their own opinions and actions, where these can be accessed in writing and speeches, neither Mattis nor Kelly nor George W. Bush would have undone a treaty with Russia, China, Iran, UK, France, Iran and the whole EU, disrupting their economies and shattering our credibility, and then marched us into hostile "coin-toss" situations again and again, had any one of them become president in 2017. Hard to imagine what Trump would have done after 9/11--gone for the nuclear option? at least tactical nukes? Invaded Iraq AND Libya? Shot off tomahawk missiles and a battery of tweets--then done nothing?

Sorry for going on about this, but I get worried when someone as discerning as yourself starts going "tomato/tomahto" with Trump and men who have viewed the effects of war first hand, trained as managers, learned to take orders, and read books.  Many books. About war, diplomacy, history--and failed, nationally embarrassing, career killing military adventures.