Trumps Picks Gen. James Mattis for Defense Secretary

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/donald-trump-james-mattis-defense-secretary

I'm against this.

Why, seems like a good choice to me?

I'm against anyone who has recently been in the active duty military being defense secretary.

Can't be worse than Kerry or Clinton.

I don't recall Kerry or Clinton being defense secretary.

Sorry, I misspoke.

You realize don't you that if he were "in it for the money" that he could write his own ticket as a private contractor? Maybe you don't realize just how much us retired/ex military earn as private contractors. And being very recently in the military is very important! Trust me, military technology/tactics change at breakneck speed. If you are out a few years and come back in you are way behind the "power curve." For example I can compare the equipment & capabilities of when I exited the army, taking a job doing the same shit I did in the army (2006) and the equipment, tactics & capabilities in 2016 and it's like comparing night to day. New equipment & technologies are coming out 24/7. The last thing you want is someone not running this race coming straight out of the starting blocks. I don't think anyone with military experience opposes this pick - he's a perfect fit.

Where did you get the idea I thought he was "in it for the money"?

I could support this.

My mistake - I thought you figured he's jumping on the Trump train for personal gain, being political or financial or to stroke his ego. Because that is one big reason (insider information for financial gain in lucrative government contracts) why they try to limit people coming straight from the military into GS/federal jobs.

The position of Defense Secretary is arguably the most difficult one in Washington. No Secretary of Defense has ever served a full 8 years of a two term presidency and the first one killed himself.

That's why you need somebody with a lifetime of experience who can handle responsibility/adversity and has tangibly proven that they can. BTW when he retired he drove around the country meeting the families of people that died while under his command. So I'm going to go out on a limb and say this guy is the "real deal" and has serious convictions & intestinal fortitude.

Well, he has a plan to kill everyone in the room with him at any given time.

A CNN article has an interesting quote from Trump when talking with Mattis.

Source

By all indications it looks like America will be returning to torture. But this gives me a little hope the country won't backslide so quickly into the era when America collectively lost it's mind.

I just hope we don't get dragged into another conflict.

In the case of James Forrestal, his suicide was the result of some rather unique events in American history. Forrestal was the subject of constant media harassment by Drew Pearson, who was the Steve Bannon, or Matt Drudge, of his day (i.e. sleazeball who pretended to be a journalist). Pearson hated Forrestal's tough stance on Stalin, as Pearson liked Stalin, and used his newspaper columns and radio programs to condemn everything that Forrestal did. Even after Forrestal resigned, Pearson continued to harangue Forrestal, ending only with Forrestal's death.

Pearson, I should note, was also responsible for destroying the Tucker Corporation. A relative of Pearson attempted to buy a Tucker dealership, but was rebuffed after he demanded special terms be granted to him. Shortly thereafter, Pearson attacked Tucker on his radio program, causing Tucker stock prices to collapse, this, followed by the SEC investigation, cause the price of Tucker stock to collapse, and led to the ending of the company.

And Article 3 of the Constitution says the SecDef can waterboard a former Secretary of State if there is reason to think she's committed treason.

Bombastic chest-thumping and macho posturing goes over well with the insecure and the stupid (that is to say, Ramen).

As national policy, it leaves something to be desired.

Your comments shows you know nothing about Mattis.

But you not knowing about something, yet opining as if you do, is par for the course.

You really think the Defense Secretary wants another conflict?

I think it's more a worry that Trump might get us into one. I don't think he's a hawk, like Clinton was, but given how quickly he is to butthurt, or just say stupid things in general, it might escalate into a conflict that might have been avoided by someone a bit more ... diplomatically minded.

Here's my take - you can sympathize with other nations on financial matters, or political matters, or religious matters, or whether or not to use the metric system, but there comes a time when our citizens might be endangered that you just have to kick ass and take names, and not be ashamed of being a winner.

Yeah, that's not the issue. There is a law on the books requiring that an ex-officer be retired for seven years before s/he can be considered for Secretary of Defense. And it's a good law, too, because it is important that the line between civilian and military authority not be blurred. More recently retired officers haven't had enough time out of uniform to not be viewed as still in uniform. There is a question, then, of where their loyalties lie. Congress will have to vote to override that law before he can be confirmed.

But seven years away might as well be a lifetime - shit changes that much in seven years. So would you rather have his loyalty lie with the military mindset (the job for which he needs military experience) or the civilian mindset where he is motivated by profit?

I'm less worried about the seven years thing and more worried about having a military man or woman as head of the CIA like we did under Obama.

The head of the CIA was an Air Force General under Bush II, as well.

Yeah, but there is no issue there regarding military chain of command. I don't want the CIA chief to be an asshole, but I don't care whether he's ex-military.