Five years ago I described a talk I heard given by retired General James Mattis, and the exchange that I had with him during the Q & A about Donald Trump, whom he had served for some time as Secretary of Defense. Here are the key portions of that post.
Sunday, November 03, 2019
The Impeachment Debate--a Barometer
Last week I attended a talk by General James Mattis (ret.), the former Secretary of Defense, at the JFK School in Cambridge. General Mattis is a history buff, and he talked a great deal about how history can enhance your perspective and help you make better decisions. His host was Prof. Graham Allison, the head of the school's applied history project, whose roots I helped grow myself about 40 years ago. He also talked about the crisis in our democracy and the problems of tribalism and partisanship. He did not specifically discuss his tenure as secretary of defense, although he alluded more than once to the great difficulty of making or executing any coherent policy in this administration.
I decided to participate in question time.
I began by introducing myself as a former member of the Strategy and Policy Department in Newport. "General," I said, "I share you concerns about the crisis in our democracy. Recently it seems to have entered another phase. During the next year, both the House and Senate and the American people will have to decide whether our President should continue in office. One critical question bearing on their decision--and I don't think that it should be a partisan political question--relates to his intellectual and managerial competence and whether he is really capable of doing the job. It seems to me that men like you, and General McMaster, and General Kelly, and Mr. Tillerson have a lot of information bearing on that point. Whether or not you want to comment on this now, I hope that some of you will take an opportunity in the next year to make the information you have available to the Congress and the public so that they may make a more informed decision." (That's a paraphrase but it is certainly very close to what I said.)
The general replied emphatically, making clear that he had already settled this question in his own mind. The American military, he said, has a non-political tradition going back to the Newburgh conspiracy during the Revolutionary War. It must not set itself up as some kind of Praetorian guard. I certainly did not think that I was asking him to do that. I suspect that if Donald Trump were a serving officer commanding a battalion in General Mattis's division, that he would understand that he had to be relieved, but he still feels that his years of military service debar him from exercising his rights as a citizen to pronounce upon his fitness as commander in chief.
General Mattis, then, refuses for his own reasons to enter into a discussion of whether Donald J. Trump can adequately perform the duties of President of the United States. Yet the issue of why that question isn't at the forefront of our political discussion generally, and why it seems very unlikely that it will be the specific basis for an article of impeachment, goes well beyond his personal views of the duties of military officers. It goes to the question of whether the citizens of the United States now have enough understanding of, or belief in, our government, to make it work effectively. I feel more and more forced to believe--by evidence--that they do not.
I decided to participate in question time.
I began by introducing myself as a former member of the Strategy and Policy Department in Newport. "General," I said, "I share you concerns about the crisis in our democracy. Recently it seems to have entered another phase. During the next year, both the House and Senate and the American people will have to decide whether our President should continue in office. One critical question bearing on their decision--and I don't think that it should be a partisan political question--relates to his intellectual and managerial competence and whether he is really capable of doing the job. It seems to me that men like you, and General McMaster, and General Kelly, and Mr. Tillerson have a lot of information bearing on that point. Whether or not you want to comment on this now, I hope that some of you will take an opportunity in the next year to make the information you have available to the Congress and the public so that they may make a more informed decision." (That's a paraphrase but it is certainly very close to what I said.)
The general replied emphatically, making clear that he had already settled this question in his own mind. The American military, he said, has a non-political tradition going back to the Newburgh conspiracy during the Revolutionary War. It must not set itself up as some kind of Praetorian guard. I certainly did not think that I was asking him to do that. I suspect that if Donald Trump were a serving officer commanding a battalion in General Mattis's division, that he would understand that he had to be relieved, but he still feels that his years of military service debar him from exercising his rights as a citizen to pronounce upon his fitness as commander in chief.
General Mattis, then, refuses for his own reasons to enter into a discussion of whether Donald J. Trump can adequately perform the duties of President of the United States. Yet the issue of why that question isn't at the forefront of our political discussion generally, and why it seems very unlikely that it will be the specific basis for an article of impeachment, goes well beyond his personal views of the duties of military officers. It goes to the question of whether the citizens of the United States now have enough understanding of, or belief in, our government, to make it work effectively. I feel more and more forced to believe--by evidence--that they do not.
In Bob Woodward's new book, War, former JCS Chairman Mark Milley took a different tack and labelled Donald Trump as "Fascist to the core." and pleaded with Woodward to help stop Trump's bid for re-election. According to Woodward, as reported here, General Mattis told Woodward that he agrees with Milley's concerns and encouraged him to bring the threat Trump poses to the attention of the American people. I regret that it took General Mattis so long to come around to the view that the nation needs his testimony, but I appreciate that he finally did.
2 comments:
Dear Prof Em, mr Kaiser. It is impossible to disagree with your post, as it is factual and hermetic. There is, however, something that I'd like to draw your attention to. I think it is also a fact that Donald Trump is too stupid to hold any function, be it at MacDonalds behind the counter or in any organisation, doing whatsoever. He'll screw up any task he's given, be it scrubbing the floor, doing basic maths, or taking every wrong turn in any itinerary. He has shown in four years in office that he simply can't do anything right. He is the embodiment of Dunning/Kruger; in his case Dunning 100, Kruger 0. He really believes he knows everything about everything, while knowing nothing about anything. But that is not the point. Donald Trump is a symptom of something very wrong with the world. About 47 percent of the population votes for this idiot. That is the problem. People are wildly disenchanted and angry with something that they perceive as wrong. It is apparent with you overthere, as well as overhere in Europe. People vote for parties that they know will destroy the system and its institutions. They really, really even want that. So, in the end, they destroy the solution to their problems. Where are we going with this? To me, the destruction of our society began in the early '80's with Reagan and Thatcher. Neoliberalism. We chose economy over wellbeing, money over health, and the state of the economy and big corporations over individual prosperity. Everything is twisted to that end.It is more important nowadays for a nation to have a growing GDP than for the middle class to have growing income. We the people have to suffer for the nation's wellbeing. As you know, that in essence is fascism. So, Trump or no Trump, that is where we are. With the real problems we're facing, I don't see a way out. Too bad for us. I hope the dolphins come out well...
He did seem to argue with his generals in his first term and be generally inexperienced as a national office holder. As a businessman and later TV personality he had certain skills which were not always applicable in the new situation as President. He was in effect naive and inexperienced against the Congress, bureaucracy in setting an agenda realistically. Now however he has molded a national coalition of politicians, businesspeople, citizens and had time with them to set a realistic agenda and how to achieve that. The people rebelled by electing him, a protest vote, one may say. The system seems to be failing in many ways and an alternative is needed. This is why we elect new leaders to bring a fresh wind.
Post a Comment