Risk of
Unleashing ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis
Despite a constructive meeting between Donald
Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G-20, Official
Washington’s hawks still hold a strong hand, in
part, because Trump has ceded broad power to the
military, says David Marks.
By David Marks
July 09,
2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump
boasted that he would “bomb the hell out of
ISIS,” but he also suggested a reversal of the
“regime change” strategies of his recent
predecessors. So, some peace voters thought
Trump might actually be preferable to Hillary
Clinton, who often came across as the more
hawkish candidate.
However, in Trump’s near-half-year in office, he
has slid more into line with the war hawks both
by continuing to beat his chest over his own
application of military force and by shifting
control over many attack decisions to military
field commanders and the Pentagon high command.
In
mid-April, after a U.S. airstrike in
Afghanistan, President Trump explained his
thinking as he reveled in the first use of the
massive “mother of all bombs” that was dropped
on an Islamic State target in Afghanistan.
Trump
said, “What I do is I authorize my military, we
have the greatest military in the world, and
they’ve done the job, as usual. We have given
them total authorization, and that’s what
they’re doing. Frankly, that’s why they’ve been
so successful lately. If you look at what’s
happened over the last eight weeks and compare
that really to what has happened over the last
eight years, you’ll see there is a tremendous
difference.”
That
bombing in Afghanistan followed Trump’s order to
fire 59 Tomahawk missiles aimed at a Syrian
government airfield that he alleged to be the
launch point for an April 4 chemical weapons
attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun.
Besides
the missile strike – for which Trump got no
authorization from either Congress or the United
Nations Security Council – U.S. warplanes bombed
pro-government forces inside Syria for allegedly
getting too close to U.S.-backed rebels and shot
down a Syrian plane for the same reason. These
attacks against Syrian government targets
represented an escalation of U.S. participation
in the six-year-old conflict. President Obama
had limited direct U.S. attacks against ISIS
positions inside Syria.
Meanwhile, the number of U.S. military personnel
in the Middle East has been slowly but surely
rising since Trump took office. Yet, these
actions have not evoked much protest from the
public or Congress and have even been praised by
many as a sign of strength by Trump.
The
Pentagon’s ‘Mad Dog’
Trump’s
Secretary of Defense James Mattis, nicknamed
“Mad Dog” from his days a Marine general, has a
unique relationship with Trump. He reportedly
dines alone frequently with the President and
has served as the point man for those acquiring
“total authorization” to launch attacks. Due to
his combination of access to Trump and Trump’s
readiness to cede decisions to the Pentagon,
Mattis has an unprecedented ability as Secretary
of Defense to elevate the U.S. military’s role
in world affairs.
Although Mattis intentionally limits his contact
with the public and the press, some of his past
statements reveal his mindset. In Iraq in 2003,
Mattis coached arriving Marines, “Be polite, be
professional, but have a plan to kill everybody
you meet.” And in 2005, the man who has been
unleashed by the President said, “You go into
Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around
for five years because they didn’t wear a veil.
You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood
left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to
shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight
them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun
to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there
with you. I like brawling.”
The man who likes “brawling” is also the first
Secretary of Defense since George Marshall in
1947 confirmed with a waiver of the
National Security Act.
By law, members of the armed forces must have a
seven-year waiting period before becoming
Defense Secretary. The reason for the
legislation was to respect civilian control of
the military and to keep those favoring military
solutions — as an early recourse — away from the
levers for taking the country to war. The
Congress after World War II attempted to prevent
the very situation that is now unfolding.
In
George Marshall’s case, the waiver recognized
his deep experience in statesmanship, since he
served as Secretary of State and directed the
Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe before he
became Defense Secretary. “Mad Dog” Mattis
received his waiver without mention of his
diplomatic abilities. Yet, the waiver for Mattis
easily passed the Senate, 81-17, and the House,
235-188. He was then confirmed by the Senate in
a 99-1 vote.
Leading
what little debate there was over the Mattis
waiver and confirmation, Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand, D-New York, said, “While I deeply
respect General Mattis’s service, I will oppose
a waiver. Civilian control of our military is a
fundamental principle of American democracy, and
I will not vote for an exception to this rule.”
Worked Up
Over Russia
In his
confirmation hearings, Mad Dog supported what in
Official Washington are the most conventional
perspectives, including referring to Russia as a
“principal threat.”
The
sentiment of the vast majority of Congress was
summed up by Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, a member of
both the Senate Armed Services and Foreign
Relations Committees, saying “In his testimony
before the Senate Armed Services Committee
yesterday, he demonstrated a clear-eyed view of
our current national security environment and a
deep appreciation for the challenges facing U.S.
service members and their families.”
Kaine,
who was Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential
running mate, added, “I believe he is
well-prepared to lead the Department of Defense
and provide the incoming administration with
wise and strategic counsel on matters of
national security.”
Kaine’s
comments highlight a bizarre twist in the Trump
presidency: the first Cabinet member approved by
the Senate became an important neoconservative
plant inside the administration despite Trump’s
rhetorical rejection of neocon “regime change”
policies. The incoherence of Trump’s emerging
foreign policy appears to be directly related to
Mattis and the interventionists – both neocons
and liberals – who supported his ascent.
With
Mattis at the Pentagon’s helm, the Trump
administration has rapidly shifted toward a
military dynamic, taking aim at many of the old
neocon targets, including Syria and Iran.
Mattis’s combative perspective seems to be at
the core of these policies although – as a
military officer – he does recognize the
realities of war.
In late
May, Mattis gave a rare interview to CBS’s
Face The Nation. Speaking about North
Korea, he declared that the conflict could turn
“catastrophic” and “would be probably the worst
kind of fighting in most people’s lifetimes.”
In
early June, Mattis went before the Senate Armed
Services Committee to make his case on the need
for more military resources. Significantly, he
requested more money for an increase of troops
that he claims will check the Taliban in
Afghanistan.
His
comments overtly revealed his disdain for the
legislative branch, citing inadequate funding as
a chief cause of the military’s problems, having
“blocked new programs, prevented service growth,
stalled industry initiative, and placed troops
at greater risk.”
Since
2001, the Afghan War has cost hundreds of
billions of dollars with over 2,000 deaths of
U.S. soldiers and civilian casualties in the
tens of thousands. With this in mind, Mattis’s
complaints raise more questions about his
objectives and what’s really achievable. Yet,
Official Washington’s elite opinion circles
regard his proposed escalation and his money
requests as serious and rational.
But at
least Mattis doesn’t sugarcoat prospects for war
in the “cakewalk” terms favored by some neocons.
Shortly after his Senate testimony, Mattis
appeared before the House Appropriations
Committee and described a war scenario with
North Korea:
“I
would suggest that we will win. It will be a war
more serious in terms of human suffering than
anything we’ve seen since 1953. It will involve
the massive shelling of an ally’s capital, which
is one of the most densely packed cities on
earth,” referring to Seoul, South Korea, with a
population of 25 million.
“It
would be a war that fundamentally we don’t
want,” Mattis said, but “we would win at great
cost.”
Mattis
added that because the threat and consequences
were so great, he and President Trump, along
with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, were
considering non-military options. He added,
“We’re exhausting all possible diplomatic
efforts in this regard.”
Hammering
a Nail
But
there is an old saying that if all you have is a
hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And,
that is a danger if international policy is
deeply influenced by a hard-charging Marine
general, especially with an inexperienced
President prone to accepting simple and direct
“solutions.”
In the
wake of Trump’s meeting on Friday with Russian
President Vladimir Putin, the real question
becomes whether Putin’s more complex
understanding of the world’s problems will
influence Trump on flashpoints such as Syria,
Iran, Ukraine and North Korea.
Or put
somewhat differently, will Trump heed the
inclinations of Secretary of State Tillerson,
the former Exxon chief executive officer known
for international wheeling-and-dealing, or will
Trump lean toward Mattis and his readiness to
mix it up militarily in places like Afghanistan,
Syria and possibly even Ukraine?
The
last thing that the neoconservatives and the
liberal interventionists want is accommodation
and compromise on some of these high-profile
issues, which might envision a negotiated
settlement in Syria that doesn’t result in
Bashar al-Assad’s ouster, or a peace deal in
Ukraine that doesn’t force Crimea back under the
control of Ukraine, or an arrangement in Europe
that lowers tensions with Russia.
Resolutions of these issues would not serve the
interests of the Military-Industrial Complex
well, nor those of Official Washington’s think
tanks that rely on the largesse of military
contractors and provide comfortable salaries for
many of the key neocons and liberal hawks.
Those
interests would be best served if “Mad Dog”
Mattis is let off the leash as often as
possible, if worldwide conflicts escalate, and
if the Pentagon budget continues to swell. If
that happens, Trump will not be the only one
responsible; you can blame Congress for its
readiness to sacrifice the principle of civilian
control over the military to an aggressive
military man.
The
shallow compliments showered upon men like
Mattis are symptoms of a country blindly
embracing an egotistical and militaristic
mindset.
David
Marks is a veteran documentary filmmaker and
investigative reporter. His work includes films
for the BBC and PBS, including Nazi Gold, on the
role of Switzerland in WWII and biographies of
Jimi Hendrix and Frank Sinatra.
This article was first published by
Consortium News
-
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.