What is Wrong With Mattis/Trump Dynamics? Let Me Count The Ways

The WashPo put out a great piece last night that is getting a lot of attention, asking whether Mattis can "check an impulsive president and still retain his trust?"  Lots of great details into the dynamics within American civil-military relations as the US barrels towards another war or two.  And the piece absolutely drives me nuts.  There is so much wrong both about how the US is operating and how the press is depicting the bizarro world we are now in, so I decided to enumerate my problems with both the facts that are reported and how they are reported:

Civ-Mil Pet Peeve: Trump and "His Generals"

I will be meeting General Kelly, General Mattis and other military leaders at the White House to discuss North Korea. Thank you.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2017

FFS!!  How many things are wrong with this statement? 

1. Kelly is not a general anymore.  His title is now Chief of Staff.
2. Mattis is not a general anymore.  He is the Secretary of Defense
3. Neither are "military leaders."  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dunford is our military leader.  Perhaps if there were a service chief of staff or combatant commander in the room along with Dunford, then we would have military leaders.
4. McMaster?  He is a military leader, but currently is National Security Adviser.  Again, very problematic--he should have resigned his commission when he became NSA to prevent any confusions when he, as NSA, promotes the President's policies.   
5. This is one time where Trump doesn't say "my generals," but he often does.  They aren't his.  They are generals (and admirals) of the United States. Their oath is to the Constitution and not to the President.  This is a huge distinction that Trump doesn't get, and one that is likely to cause big breaches in civil-military relations.
6. No mention of civilians, such as #worstSecState Tillerson, the various intel folks, other civilians who are important in managing this situation.  Perhaps twitter is too short or perhaps Trump does not value folks who are not in uniform or who were not recently in uniform.

 I get it--that folks are relieved that adults (Mattis, Kelly [that same Kelly who was superenthused about banning Muslims]) are in the room.  But I continue to fear for civilian control of the military.  As I have long contended, Mattis does not really count as a civilian--his mindset is still military has he has little time to develop a more civilian perspective.  The law required a seven year break for a reason, even if Congress waived it this time.   I have argued since the appointments started being named that relief about the right generals being appointed was driven largely by tyranny of low expectations.  "Woot, Mattis" is really code for "Trump could have named someone far worse, so yeah!"  Just because Mattis is smart and well-read and cautious does not mean things are in great shape.

Yes, we are willing to violate the norms of civilian control of the military because we think that Mattis and McMaster can restrain Trump from starting a nuclear war with North Korea.  But two things are important--this ain't good for the future AND it hangs on us thinking that Mattis and others have the right ideas when they want to manipulate the President.  Given that some of these folks, including Mattis and McMaster might just want to attack Iran (something that caused Mattis to have friction with Obama), they might just get their way: "Mr. President, Obama wouldn't attack Iran... "  So, yeah, good to see these guys manipulate the President to avoid war.... but not really since the manipulation of a President by military guys is bad, bad, bad, and they might just manipulate him into a war.  We have long forgotten the failed Yemen raid of late January, but that was an escalation caused by the military folks goading on Trump.

So, once again, I think we are a severe crisis of civil-military relations.  Where is Congress, as it should be exercising oversight?  Anyone?  Anyone?

SecDef Mattis: Another Thin Reed

Apparently, the allies see SecDef Mattis as the canary in the coal mine. "If Mr. Mattis were to leave the job or lose influence within the administration, it would be seen as a troubling omen, said one foreign official."  I have only one reaction to that:



That the canary is already mostly dead. Why?  Because Mattis was left out of the Muslim Ban executive order.  Why is this problematic?  The ban had significant military equities (a term I learned in 2001-02 referring to when the US military had some stakes in a policy):

1. The ban means that Iraqi pilots were supposed to come to the US to train to fly the planes the US sold them can't.
2. Some of the folks whose travel to the US was blocked were interpreters who had served in harm's way to help American forces.  So, who is going to serve as interpreters now that the promise of a life in the US (staying in one's country is often no longer possible after working closely with foreign forces) is gone?
3. Predictably, Iraq may ban Americans, including the contractors who provide vital support for the war effort.
4. Previous American generals have noted that Islamophobia in the US is a recruiting tool for Islamist terrorsts.  ISIS is already making much of this ban.  Indeed, Islamophobia in the US may endanger American troops.  Remember green on blue attacks where the people the US trains shoot at the trainers?
5. Many members of the US armed forces either themselves are green card holders or their families are (or both). So, this executive order directly impacts a significant number of the troops. (Thanks to Heather Hurlburt for reminding of this).

 I could go on.  The key here is that Mattis was presented with a fait accompli.  So, why should any foreign leader buy his reassurances that he will make sure that Trump respects American alliances?  Mattis is already tainted, and it has been less than a week he has served as SecDef.  As violence escalates in Ukraine, Mattis will have to shrug his shoulders since it is highly unlikely that the US will do anything to help Ukraine.  While Ukraine is not Estonia and the US doesn't owe it the same level of support, consider it another wheeze from the dying canary.

I am not sure what the allies should do, but counting on Mattis is a thin reed upon which to rest their hopes.  As I discussed on twitter with Colin Kahl, an academic and former National Security Adviser to the Vice President, there will be a lot of self-help going on, and with that, spirals of increasing insecurity.

Sorry to be a Debbie downer, again....