Richardcyoung.com

The Online Home of Author and Investor, Dick Young

  • Home
  • Debbie Young
  • Jimmy Buffett
  • Key West
  • Your Survival Guy
  • How We Are Different
  • Paris
  • About Us
    • Foundation Principles
    • Contributors
  • Investing
    • You’ve Read The Last Issue of Intelligence Report, Now What?
  • The Great Reset
  • The Swiss Way
  • My Rifles
  • Dividends and Compounding
  • Your Security
  • Dick Young
  • Dick’s R&B Top 100
  • Liberty & Freedom Map
  • Bank Credit & Money
  • Your Survival Guy’s Super States
  • NNT & Cholesterol
  • Your Health
  • Ron Paul
  • US Treasury Yield Curve: My Favorite Investor Tool
  • Anti-Gun Control
  • Anti-Digital Currency
  • Joel Salatin and Alfie Oakes
  • World Gold Mine Production
  • Fidelity and Vanguard Since 1971

Questions for General Mattis

December 6, 2016 By Justin Logan

President-elect Trump has nominated retired Marine General James “Mad Dog” Mattis as the nation’s 26th secretary of defense. It was, and will be, a controversial pick, since by law a military officer must be retired for seven years to serve in a civilian capacity, but Mattis only retired four years ago. Despite his rock star status in the Marine Corps and on Capitol Hill, there are likely to be thoroughgoing hearings on his nomination. Below are a few questions General Mattis should be asked.

You are no doubt familiar with the law preventing military officers from serving as civilians immediately following their retirement. One of the nation’s leading scholars of civil-military relations remarked after a meeting with you that you “understand the importance of civilian control of the military.” But you are also a student of history. What is your sense of the anti-military tradition in the United States? Do you worry that our republican character has been eroded by seventy years of militarization? How does the prospect of a retired Marine general as defense secretary affect that tradition, or not?

The important part here is whether Mattis recognizes not just an anti-militarism tradition, but our anti-military tradition. The Founders of this country loathed standing armies. In 1783, Revolutionary War veteran Aedanus Burke warned, “military commanders acquiring fame … are generally in their hearts aristocrats, and enemies to the popular equality of a republic.” John Randolph saw no serious threats to the Republic and accordingly denounced the Army as “loungers, who live upon the public, who consume the fruits of their honest industry, under the pretext of protecting them from a foreign yoke.” Randolph sneered at the idea that a country of virtuous and self-sufficient republicans would be forced to seek “the protection of a handful of ragamuffins.” Benjamin Rush suggested placing signs above the entrance to the Department of War reading “An office for butchering the human species” and “A Widow and Orphan making office.”

Will Mattis acknowledge this, but protest that the world has changed since then? It has changed, but for the better. These men were writing at a time when three European empires were rampaging across the North American continent, and ultimately burned the White House to the ground during the War of 1812. Were the Founders wrong to be anti-military? Is the world today more dangerous than it was when foreign troops were fighting wars on North American soil? What is his view of the threat environment today as compared to the time when these anti-military sentiments held sway in the halls of power?

What is your sense of the Iran nuclear deal, Iran’s role in the fight against ISIS so far, and the prospect for US-Iran relations going forward?

An article in Politico details what the author describes as Mattis’ “anti-Iran animus.” While animus is understandable, some of the claims he has made about Iran are not. For instance, he is quoted at an event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies last April as saying that “I would just point out one question for you to look into: What is the one country in the Middle East that has not been attacked by ISIS? One. That is Iran. That is more than happenstance, I’m sure.”

What did he mean by this? Was he really suggesting that Iran was collaborating with, rather than fighting, ISIS? What is his view of the role Iran plays in the Middle East in the context of American strategy there?

Given Congress’ emphasis on Iran, and the importance of civilian control of the military, there should be ample room to explore the next defense secretary’s positions on these issues.

 

Related Posts

  • Trump: The Impressive Mattis a "General's General"
  • Asking Hard Questions
  • Jeff Sessions Attorney General an A
  • Author
  • Recent Posts
Justin Logan
Justin Logan is a contributing editor for RichardCYoung.com. Formerly the Cato Institute's director of foreign policy studies, Logan writes primarily about politics and American foreign policy. He holds a master’s degree in international relations from the University of Chicago and a bachelor’s degree in international relations from American University. He is an expert on U.S. grand strategy, international relations theory, and American foreign policy. He has lectured on American strategy across the country and across the world, and his articles have appeared in International Security, the Journal of Strategic Studies, Foreign Policy, the National Interest, the Harvard International Review, Orbis, National Review, the American Conservative, Reason, Politico, and the American Prospect, among others. A native Missourian, Logan currently lives in Washington, DC with his wife and two sons, where they are opening a Latin American wine and spirits bar, Ruta del Vino.
Latest posts by Justin Logan (see all)
  • The Case for Zero-Based Strategy - December 4, 2018
  • Thinking About a Noninterventionist Political Alliance - October 29, 2018
  • The Iran Issue Is Not Going Away …and All of the Wrong People Are in Charge - September 25, 2018

Dick Young’s Must Reads

  • Globalism Has Made America Dependent on Foreign Countries
  • Richard Feynman Solved the Space Shuttle Disaster Mystery
  • America’s States Rights Revolution
  • The Simple, Elegant Power of the Retirement Compounders
  • The Fed – “Independent” and “Non Political” – Joins The Resistance
  • Can Curcumin Help in Fighting Cancer?
  • When Is the Best Time for You to Do This?
  • Being Fully American Means Americans First
  • ENERGY FREEDOM ACT: Ted Cruz Introduces Bill for Energy Independence
  • “I Need Preservation of Principal and Growth”

Compensation was paid to utilize rankings. Click here to read full disclosure.

RSS Youngresearch.com

  • Will the Fed Hold Up Its End of the Bargain?
  • Should America Move Closer to the Saudis, or Push them Away?
  • Don’t Ask Me When to Haul Your Boat
  • Robot Warehouses Need Better Internet
  • California Mandates Drive Diesel Truck Buying Spree
  • Americans Are Not Happy with Bidenomics
  • Paris’s Big Plans for the Champs-Elysées
  • A Plan for Cutting Federal Government Spending
  • Investing Mistakes to Avoid: #1 Y-O-U
  • Mr. Protect and Preserve: For Where We’re Going

RSS Yoursurvivalguy.com

  • Will the Fed Hold Up Its End of the Bargain?
  • Are Most NFTs Now Worthless?
  • 2ND AMENDMENT ALERT: Biden to Create New Anti-Gun Office
  • Don’t Ask Me When to Haul Your Boat
  • You May Be Surprised by America’s “Least Woke City”
  • GREENWASHING: What’s in a Name?
  • Americans Are Not Happy with Bidenomics
  • “Oh, That Wasn’t So Bad”
  • Prepared for When the Next Black Swan Swoops In?
  • Investing Mistakes to Avoid: #1 Y-O-U

US Treasury Yield Curve: My Favorite Investor Tool

Five Year Treasury Yield

Skyrocketing Costs of Building a Green Grid Are Starting

The Constitutional Case Against CBDCs

Doctor Faust and the Devil Come Looking

Will the Fed Hold Up Its End of the Bargain?

Copyright © 2023 | Terms & Conditions | About Us | Dick Young | Archives