I criticized the choice of Mattis ever since it was broached in 2016. I found it very problematic to have a very recently retired 4 star officer, especially a Marine, serve as SecDef. As I go around the world, asking folks about their civilian-military relations, I always find it problematic when the Ministry of Defense is occupied by former/active military officers. Why? Because civilian control of the military requires ... civilians to control the military.
Recently retired officers are far less likely to see their job as overseeing the armed forces and more likely to see their jobs as protecting the military from civilian interference. When Congress initially created the position, they required a ten year gap, which got reduced to seven, but let it all get waived if Congress felt like it. And, alas, they felt like it.
Folks might say that Mattis did a good job while he was in office. And I simply don't know if he did. What proof do we have? Trump's defense policy was awful before and since. People forget that Trump was risking war with North Korea in the spring of 2018, and this stopped not due to Mattis's interference but because Trump decided he could make a great deal (kind of like today's news where Trump takes credit for a deal the Taliban says does not exist). Folks could point to the continued investment in defending Europe, and that might be a Mattis initiative that avoided Trump's radar screen, but I really don't know if he should get credit.
I do know that Mattis was by Trump's shoulder when he signed the Muslim ban while visiting the Pentagon. I do know that Mattis went along with various policies aimed at kicking transgender folks out of the military, that turned away interpreters who risked their lives in American wars, and so on.
I think there was a whole lot of wishful thinking going on--that people were hoping that Trump's worst instincts were being blocked by Mattis.
And that is kind of awful. Because people were hoping a military man was defying the President or manipulating the President. That is horrible from the standpoint of civilian control of the military and from the standpoint of good civil-military relations. This erodes norms and encourages resistance and defiance and disobedience. I am not worried about coups, but I am worried about the military following orders. They don't always obey in the best of times (yes, sorry, but principal-agent problems are a thing).
Who has been making defense policy for the past three years? The Joint Staff, as Mattis found more common cause with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and Marine) Joseph Dunford. As someone who worked for a year on the Joint Staff, I have lots of respect for those folks, but I don't think they should be in charge. I now have to re-think how I felt about the Joint Staff making policy during Rumsfeld's first year or two....
About the Marine thing, I tend to have a sore spot there. Why? Because their desperate desire for autonomy and keeping their units together meant that they subverted the President's intent and disrupted the efforts to develop unity of command in Afghanistan--better to be on their own in Helmand than working with others in Kandahar despite the latter being far more relevant for population-centric counter-insurgency.
Anyhow, what irks me know is that Mattis wants to have it both ways: to be a retired general who is apolitical but to do book tours to promote his book. Would he be getting so much press coverage for his book about his life as a Marine (it does not cover his time as SecDef)? I don't think so.
Mattis's first mistake was not taking off his uniform when he became SecDef (I mean in terms of his own views/identity/etc).
Matti's second mistake is thinking he can take off the coat of SecDef that cloaked his uniform now. It is tainted and tattered, but it is on him for life. I will never refer to him as Gen (ret.) Mattis--he will always be former SecDef Mattis.
PS I didn't even mention his time shilling for Theranos.
No comments:
Post a Comment