Gen James Mattis
- Thread starter Suudy
- Start date
Mattis was kicking around when I was in the Marines. He was responsible for some of the more memorable signage you would see around base. One of my personal favorites (see Corollary 2):
He's also got some radical tattoos for a 66-year-old:
He's also got some radical tattoos for a 66-year-old:
Thanks Chip! If I recall correctly General Mattis gave our football team a pre-season speech this year. Those tats are crazy!
Yep.
Also gave a speech to WSU at large. Rumor has it, despite being a CWU grad, he is a Coug fan.
Maybe Leach and Mattis can coax a few bucks out of Trump for stadium expansion. Trump Field.
Yep. The only previous waiver was given to George C. Marshall during the start of the cold war. That was an understandable exception. Mattis may be a good candidate but I do not like the establishment of this precedent.
I think he'll get it. A waiver does not constitute a precedent, in fact, it implies this is an exception, thus supporting the original rule.
I agree that he will be confirmed unless something comes out to his detriment. My point was that the appointment of G.C. Marshall was unique is that he was a remarkable individual and the circumstances of the time were also unique. Mattis may well be exceptional but not on the level of Marshall. Our current problems may be difficult but not to the level of the beginning of the cold war. His appointment would weaken the requirements for a waiver such as this. The "camel's nose in the tent" of civilian control of the military, so to speak. This makes me a bit nervous. I wish that Trump had chosen a civilian for the position. I just do not see the need for creating an exception under the current circumstances.
He was remarkable and his legacy as architect of the plan named after him is secure (although his actions leading up to Pearl Harbor are open to critique). But my point is not about him or some comparison with 1941/1945 with the current time, only that a waiver for Mattis hardly sets any precedent. In another forum, however, it would not be hard to draw significant linkages between the two eras, as the critical issue in both would be: What ought to be the place of American power in a world in which fanaticism is running rampant? During Obama's regime, there has been a significant erosion of American power overseas, and our prestige as a reliable ally, and it's clear that Trump wants his appointees/candidates to swing the pendulum back the other way. I would gauge this aim to be perhaps the second most important issue of the new era....
