The Mess

[Paulo]

And as it is a hour long clip and many don't have the time (and interest) to listen to it, here are some points that I picked up from Mattis.

- The enemy will naturally engage on fronts that the US and it's allies are weak, not were the US dominates.
- The US has to create irregular warfare capabilities without endangering conventional superiority.

Mattis is a sceptic when it comes to technology. Technology itself doesn't win wars (and hence Mattis is totally against the ideas that for example Rumsfeldt ran on), yet naturally the US needs the best technology there is, so he is no Luddite.

- We have to moderate our natural American pension, diminish perhaps our idea that technology will solve this human problem called war. Not going to happen, never happened in the history of war.
- The idea of US technological superiority is probably overrated.
-the land forces have to use simulators as the air force has used for decades. The simulators are used to present hundreds of tactical and ethical dilemmas before they troops go into their first fight. There is a moral and mission reason to do this.
- hybrid threats are going to characterize the future. Irregular warfare may be the primary focus of future ground forces.
-"I believe in NATO, lock stock and barrell, we need it."

Meh. Not impressed.
"The enemy will naturally engage on fronts that the US and it's allies are weak, not were the US dominates.", wow, that is genius!
Smitty could say that and much more.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Here's a gem for the Mess, to those that are interested in the military.

General Mattis speaking of Irregular and Hybrid Warfare in 1st of June 2009. Now the timing is important, as this was far earlier than the Ukrainian war happened and hence hybrid warfare wasn't a word commonly used. There is only the Russo-Georgian war and the Lebanon war of Israel to look at then. Hence Mattis isn't speaking here with hindsight, he is actually forecasting the future, and with hybrid warfare here he isn't just referring to the jihadists. Also what is clear that Mattis has ideas and views that are persistent, similar things he repeats in later speeches even from this year and hence will likely go with when he assumes the position of secretary of defence. (It would be a tragedy, if he wouldn't be the secretary of defence). I urge those interested in military matters to listen to this seven year old lecture.

Mattis from 2009:


And as it is a hour long clip and many don't have the time (and interest) to listen to it, here are some points that I picked up from Mattis.

- The enemy will naturally engage on fronts that the US and it's allies are weak, not were the US dominates.
- The US has to create irregular warfare capabilities without endangering conventional superiority.

Mattis is a sceptic when it comes to technology. Technology itself doesn't win wars (and hence Mattis is totally against the ideas that for example Rumsfeldt ran on), yet naturally the US needs the best technology there is, so he is no Luddite.

- We have to moderate our natural American pension, diminish perhaps our idea that technology will solve this human problem called war. Not going to happen, never happened in the history of war.
- The idea of US technological superiority is probably overrated.
-the land forces have to use simulators as the air force has used for decades. The simulators are used to present hundreds of tactical and ethical dilemmas before they troops go into their first fight. There is a moral and mission reason to do this.
- hybrid threats are going to characterize the future. Irregular warfare may be the primary focus of future ground forces.
-"I believe in NATO, lock stock and barrell, we need it."

I am totes interested of him running around good stuff if there is no black budget. As long as there is a black budget i have 0 trust in US Foreign policy.

[Smitty-48]

Americans of course build cults of the personality around their Generals, since 1776 in fact, it's what they do, and the cult of Saint Mattis is the ascendant one at the moment, indeed, that does not mean he will be an effective SECDEF in terms of reforming the Pentagon, probably not, however, since no SECDEF is likely to make much headway against the deeply entrenched multigenerational issues at DoD, he's as good a choice as any.

As I've said, where Mattis specifically would be of greater utility to the American people, would be as the 2IC of the NCA in the event of a major national security crisis, particularly if the President was rendered disabled. To wit, if Nightwatch is up through the Looking Glass at DEFCON 2, that's where you're going to want a Warrior Monk calling the audible.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Americans of course build cults of the personality around their Generals, since 1776 in fact, it's what they do, and the cult of Saint Mattis is the ascendant one at the moment, indeed, that does not mean he will be an effective SECDEF in terms of reforming the Pentagon, probably not, however, since no SECDEF is likely to make much headway against the deeply entrenched multigenerational issues at DoD, he's as good a choice as any.

As I've said, where Mattis specifically would be of greater utility to the American people, would be as the 2IC of the NCA in the event of a major national security crisis, particularly if the President was rendered disabled. To wit, if Nightwatch is up through the Looking Glass at DEFCON 2, that's where you're going to want a Warrior Monk calling the audible.

Why would anyone do anything to the US president exactly?

[Smitty-48]

Why would anyone do anything to the US president exactly?

Decapitation attack, of course.

[ssu]

As I've said, where Mattis specifically would be of greater utility to the American people, would be as the 2IC of the NCA in the event of a major national security crisis, particularly if the President was rendered disabled. To wit, if Nightwatch is up through the Looking Glass at DEFCON 2, that's where you're going to want a Warrior Monk calling the audible.

What is important is what he is not. A neocon. An ideologue. Somebody who doesn't know war. And Mattis obviously has firm and clearheaded ideas where the department of defence ought to go. He has many times, including in the 2009 lecture, said that the US lacks a Grand Strategy. Now when thinking about Trump, I assume he just would love that idea: a grand strategy. And since Trump doesn't know much about things, I assume his Grand Strategy for America could have a lot of influence from Mattis. And there is one even more important aspect, Mattis is likely somebody that Trump could perhaps listen. Or put in another way, someone that could perhaps make Trump listen.

The Secretary of State pick will really show just what kind of foreign policy team it will be. If it would be Petraeus, then you have really a Armed Forces foreign policy & security policy in the Trump cabinet. Bush had Colin Powell, but Powell was there alone and Rumsfeldt-Cheney axis ruled the cabinet then. If you have Mattis, Petraeus and Flynn in the cabinet, add the joint chiefs of staff on the other side, and it's quite a military cabinet.

With picking Romney, it would show Trump is really savvy... or Machiavellian. Picking up the old drag-queen idiot asshole, would be a bad pick. Rudy has nothing to give to a Trump cabinet. Except we could wait what kind of dress Mr. Giuliani will wear at the Inauguration. It's time for Trump to dump the has-beens that were his first supporters, because they don't serve him at all now. Christie is already a nobody.

[Smitty-48]

Well said I suppose, with the caveat that, a Mattisian Grand Strategy would no doubt be in direct contravention of the isolationist desires of Trump's base. To adopt a Mattisian Grand Strategy would be a de facto Flip Flop of serious magnitude. <clutches pearls>

[ssu]

Well said I suppose, with the caveat that, a Mattisian Grand Strategy would no doubt be in direct contravention of the isolationist desires of Trump's base. To adopt a Mattisian Grand Strategy would be a de facto Flip Flop of serious magnitude. <clutches pearls>

But the thing is Trump isn't an ideologue. This isn't a Ron Paul figure we are talking about.

Trump is a salesman and the average Trump supporter wouldn't see any Flip Flop, because, and let's be honest, people don't follow security policy. After all, wasn't Bush supposed to focus on the US and not on Foreign Policy? If Trump picks a 17 year veteran from GS and will listen to Jamie Dimon and similar Wall Street fat cats, he surely isn't on the Crusade that some people thought he was when listening to him on campaign (or looking at the campaign ads).

It might be behind closed doors a Mattisian Grand Strategy, but likely it would be called Trumpian, part of the Trump doctrine. Or sold as one. But for Trump a "US Grand Strategy" would feel better than just a "doctrine" among others.

Besides, if Trump would try to approach for example Russia, then it would be good that the Russians know that there is a serious old-school cabinet behind Trump. And he has one ace in his pocket when meeting Putin: the Russian people love him. That's something one should use, just like Gorbachev used a similar liking of the West. I'm not sure if Trump can use that card well or not. If there would have been the lightweights of only the Christie-Giuliani-Gingrich type crowd in the cabinet (which now obviously isn't going to happen), Russia could have mop the floor with the new American administration. I don't think that will happen.

Anyway, it's interesting to see what the pick for secretary of state will be.

Petraeus with Mattis when changing guard in Afghanistan:

And after all, Trump wants to make America Great Again. Well, if the domestic thing and the economic side don't play so well, guess what field there is for the President to play on?

[Okeefenokee]

Petraeus with Mattis when changing guard in Afghanistan:

That's a knife hand fight. Someone's about to get cut.

[Xenophon]

And as it is a hour long clip and many don't have the time (and interest) to listen to it, here are some points that I picked up from Mattis.

- The enemy will naturally engage on fronts that the US and it's allies are weak, not were the US dominates.
- The US has to create irregular warfare capabilities without endangering conventional superiority.

Mattis is a sceptic when it comes to technology. Technology itself doesn't win wars (and hence Mattis is totally against the ideas that for example Rumsfeldt ran on), yet naturally the US needs the best technology there is, so he is no Luddite.

- We have to moderate our natural American pension, diminish perhaps our idea that technology will solve this human problem called war. Not going to happen, never happened in the history of war.
- The idea of US technological superiority is probably overrated.
-the land forces have to use simulators as the air force has used for decades. The simulators are used to present hundreds of tactical and ethical dilemmas before they troops go into their first fight. There is a moral and mission reason to do this.
- hybrid threats are going to characterize the future. Irregular warfare may be the primary focus of future ground forces.
-"I believe in NATO, lock stock and barrell, we need it."

Meh. Not impressed.
"The enemy will naturally engage on fronts that the US and it's allies are weak, not were the US dominates.", wow, that is genius!
Smitty could say that and much more.

It may sound obvious, Paulo, but that's the opposite of what the US has been doing since the Bush administration. Mattis made that comment because he has to. Our current SECDEF was never in the military, hence all of the political nonsense going on in the armed forces. We need a guy who has felt the desert air on his face, not some pen jockey.