Wondered how long it would take, since Trump seems to be hell-bent on getting rid of everyone who's competent.
The official version:
The reality is somewhat different. You can find Mattis' letter of resignation here, but I want to give you the core slap-down:
Mattis is articulating what has been for over sixty years a (mostly) successful foreign policy, which is diametrically opposed to Trump's vision -- if, in fact, he has one. I'm not at all convinced on that score.
And of course, we can't help but wonder what incompetent sycophant Trump will pick as Mattis' successor.
(Stray thought: I wonder how long it's going to be before Trump decides that he needs a war to rile up his base. And who do you suppose he'll attack? Canada?)
Update: Digby has more background on the decision to withdraw from Syria that triggered Mattis' resignation. This, I think, is key:
With Trump, it's always about the money.
The official version:
....equipment. General Mattis was a great help to me in getting allies and other countries to pay their share of military obligations. A new Secretary of Defense will be named shortly. I greatly thank Jim for his service!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 20, 2018
The reality is somewhat different. You can find Mattis' letter of resignation here, but I want to give you the core slap-down:
One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked
to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While
the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or
serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those
allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States
should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to
provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances.
29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside
us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further
proof.
Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those
countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China
and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model
gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions to
promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is
why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.
My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign
actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of
immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order
that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this
effort by the solidarity of our alliances.
Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better
aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my
position.
Mattis is articulating what has been for over sixty years a (mostly) successful foreign policy, which is diametrically opposed to Trump's vision -- if, in fact, he has one. I'm not at all convinced on that score.
And of course, we can't help but wonder what incompetent sycophant Trump will pick as Mattis' successor.
(Stray thought: I wonder how long it's going to be before Trump decides that he needs a war to rile up his base. And who do you suppose he'll attack? Canada?)
Update: Digby has more background on the decision to withdraw from Syria that triggered Mattis' resignation. This, I think, is key:
Trump was reported to have told off Erdogan on Friday, but a Pentagon source told Newsweek that it was after this discussion that the president made his intentions to withdraw U.S. troops known to officials over the weekend.
But on Monday, Erdogan renewed his threats for a Turkish offensive in the U.S.-controlled territory in northeast Syria during a speech in Turkey's central Konya province. The Turkish president vowed that American forces would not be harmed in pending operations set to commence soon in the region.
At the same time, Congress was notified of a potential arms sale to the Turkish government of 140 Patriot surface-to-air missile variants and equipment worth $3.5 billion, according to a press release from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Did he do this for arms sales? To wag the dog? Because Erdogon strong-armed him? Does he have a clue about the potential ramifications of doing this, particularly is there is a Kurdish bloodbath? (Not bloody likely.)
With Trump, it's always about the money.
No comments:
Post a Comment