James Mattis has resigned

...bowing to just about every head of State on the planet is not a good way to lead, either...

When an American President ACTUALLY does that, please do be sure to point it out to us. :rolleyes2:

1. He bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the 2009 G-20 meeting. He bent over at the waist into a right angle, he bowed so far.
2. He bowed to the Japanese Emperor in 2009.
3. He bowed to Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon during a G-20 summit.
4. He even bowed to the Mayor of Tampa, Florida for Pete's sake, while shaking hands with her.
5. Heck, he even bowed to a robot.

I didn't like it and I never voted for him. I still supported him, though. I did this because he was the President of The United States.

Oh...wait...you think a culturally customary greeting = how the President leads the country? Yikes, man. Just...yikes.

And that's to say nothing of the frothing-mouthed conservative obsession with trumping up every dip of Obama's head as "ZOMG HE'S BOWING TO A ROBOT." :confused1:
 
...bowing to just about every head of State on the planet is not a good way to lead, either...

When an American President ACTUALLY does that, please do be sure to point it out to us. :rolleyes2:

1. He bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the 2009 G-20 meeting. He bent over at the waist into a right angle, he bowed so far.
2. He bowed to the Japanese Emperor in 2009.
3. He bowed to Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon during a G-20 summit.
4. He even bowed to the Mayor of Tampa, Florida for Pete's sake, while shaking hands with her.
5. Heck, he even bowed to a robot.

I didn't like it and I never voted for him. I still supported him, though. I did this because he was the President of The United States.

Oh...wait...you think a culturally customary greeting = how the President leads the country? Yikes, man. Just...yikes.

And that's to say nothing of the frothing-mouthed conservative obsession with trumping up every dip of Obama's head as "ZOMG HE'S BOWING TO A ROBOT." :confused1:

@scoutpilot ,

I think you would agree that the depth of the bows was excessive. Yes, a bow in many cultures is the equivalent of a handshake. However, the depth of the bow has significance and President Obama's bows should have been no lower than that of any head of state he was greeting. As to whether this was a faux pas or an indicator of obsequiousness, I don't know. I do think it was a mistake. He's is a very smart guy and should have known better. His protocol chief should have been demoted.

I would be curious, @THParent , how you would characterize the appearance of President Trump's amicus briefs on behalf of Crown Prince MBS, AKA Mohammed Bone Saw? Taking sides against his own CIA Director? Is the President helping MBS by engaging in a quid pro quo with the Turks, trading US withdrawal from Eastern Syria for a promise to layoff of MBS?
 
"I would be remiss if I didn't add that bowing to just about every head of State on the planet is not a good way to lead, either.

James Mattis on the other hand, leads by example. He doles out authority to those who clearly have already demonstrated time and time again, that they are effective leaders who also lead by example. His call sign "CHAOS" means "Colonel Has An Outstanding Solution", and has nothing to do with actual pandemonium. Mattis stepped away from his post because he realized that he could no longer be effective. I am sure that it was a difficult decision for him, because he always thinks about his people in the field, first. Part of his decision probably weighs heavily upon him, because when he was SecDef, he was actively protecting those personnel in the field when his advice was being taken.

I don't think he'll take another high-profile job. He has plenty of money and he's not power-hungry. He knows he's awesome, and doesn't need people around him to tell him what he already knows.
I hope that he ends up doing whatever he feels like doing - in peace - for the rest of his days. He has earned it.[/QUOTE]
...bowing to just about every head of State on the planet is not a good way to lead, either...

When an American President ACTUALLY does that, please do be sure to point it out to us. :rolleyes2:

1. He bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the 2009 G-20 meeting. He bent over at the waist into a right angle, he bowed so far.
2. He bowed to the Japanese Emperor in 2009.
3. He bowed to Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon during a G-20 summit.
4. He even bowed to the Mayor of Tampa, Florida for Pete's sake, while shaking hands with her.
5. Heck, he even bowed to a robot.

I didn't like it and I never voted for him. I still supported him, though. I did this because he was the President of The United States.

Oh...wait...you think a culturally customary greeting = how the President leads the country? Yikes, man. Just...yikes.

And that's to say nothing of the frothing-mouthed conservative obsession with trumping up every dip of Obama's head as "ZOMG HE'S BOWING TO A ROBOT." :confused1:

@scoutpilot ,

I think you would agree that the depth of the bows was excessive. Yes, a bow in many cultures is the equivalent of a handshake. However, the depth of the bow has significance and President Obama's bows should have been no lower than that of any head of state he was greeting. As to whether this was a faux pas or an indicator of obsequiousness, I don't know. I do think it was a mistake. He's is a very smart guy and should have known better. His protocol chief should have been demoted.

I would be curious, @THParent , how you would characterize the appearance of President Trump's amicus briefs on behalf of Crown Prince MBS, AKA Mohammed Bone Saw? Taking sides against his own CIA Director? Is the President helping MBS by engaging in a quid pro quo with the Turks, trading US withdrawal from Eastern Syria for a promise to layoff of MBS?

Obama's bowing certainly takes a back seat (IMHO) to Trump's saluting a North Korea general (imagine if Obama did that!) while spewing almost daily hateful tweets against democratically-elected leaders of America's traditional allies, while worshiping Vladimir Putin like a 1940s bobby soxer would to Frankie Sinatra.

As far as the Turks, I imagine the promise of a Trump Tower in Istanbul was all it took to flip US foreign policy 180 degrees with zero consultation with our allies in the anti-ISIS coalition. I would normally fear that any future attempt at coalition-building or strong alliances would be an impossible task, but I realize that isolationism is now our official foreign policy for the first time since the 1920s, so no such coalitions/alliances will be in the offing.
 
I don’t like to make political contribution to this type of unfortunate loss of good man in the White House. I think the fear @Parent of 4 is speaking of is the fear for the country not fear of President Trump. I grew up in NYC since the 70s and grew up knowing the real Donald Trump before President Trump. Most NYC local elites and average Joe Castalano, Eddie Bauer, Sidney Cohen, Tom O’Connor and Jimmy Lee, all common names of New Yorkers, grew up knowing Trump very well, unlike the rest of the country. We stopped paying attention to him once he starred on the fiction Apprentice. Because by then we all knew the real Don. He was bankrupt and needed money to rebrand himself using his flamboyant and alternative fiction as facts to those who don’t know him, pretty much the rest of the country. The country is just beginning to know him. What the country knows of President Trump is still very little. So I have no fear of President Trump what he’s capable of or what he might do. He is Donald Trump and will always be the same Donald Trump. He’s not a politician nor a good business executive. He’s better in running a family business where he can tell people what to do and what he wants with a short stick and not a long stick. And definitely not good in running a large institutional enterprise. He ran all of those to the ground in bankruptcies. He’s now in licensing business and not in real estate business as people falsely believe. He’s in the business of licensing his name as a brand. He found this to be more risk averse, profitable, and asset light. That’s why he fiercely defends his image and cares about ratings than real facts and results. You hear him say it all the time. “We got good ratings.” He’s more influenced by media rating than what the population thinks of him. His biggest fear is not his political or business enemies but the media. The wealthy is paying more taxes, SMEs and Entrepreneurs are paying more taxes, only large listed companies are paying less taxes. He doesn’t want the media to hate him but love him. Unfortunately, he’s not doing a good job there either.

I think CEOs and Generals make great Ambassadors, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State representing our nation at the world stage with their sophisticated knowledge and experience dealing with global trade and global affairs. However, IMHO I think CEOs and Generals don’t make good sovereign nation presidents. They had been too long in places of authority and power where things can turn in a dime at their commands. It is too hard and frustrating to share their power with peers and bureaucrats to agree on policy and implementations. Eisenhower, was different because he spent most of his military career as a policy and administrative officer. Eisenhower was a Major and working as an Aid to a 4 Star General MacArthur. But his only combat leadership is when he as a general became the supreme allied commander of Europe. Eisenhower was uniquely a good General and a good President. Although I admire Gen Douglass MacArthur, he would have made a bad President because of his highness attitude. Many CEOs and Generals are not the best listeners and bureaucrats. Being a good bureaucrat and a politician have its own unique trade assets that are too numerous and important to outline here. Our country will figure it out in the end.
 
Last edited:
The ME (and Africa) and the relative lawlessness that these regions are characterized by have been shown to be incubation grounds for terrorist organizations. The argument is that if we just leave them alone because they’re “all the way over there” and not affecting us, one day, they’ll grow out of control and will affect us. Then, when we go to deal with them, they’ll be much more powerful and cost us even more resources (troops and $). I think at least part of Mattis’s point is that it is worth maintaining a certain number of troops in these regions to work with allies in the region to try to keep the bad guys at bay.

That is a way, but not the only way and not necessarily the best way. I propose we deal with terrorist organizations by selective kinetic strikes, third party intervention, going after their finances, and perhaps selective travel ban. Terroists don’t follow rules and if we insist we follow some arbitrary rules, it’s hard for us to keep terrorists out. How dare we conduct kinetic strikes when civilian bystanders can hurt or we violate another nation’s sovereignty? Innocent folks get kill all the time. I don’t think we cared about violating Pakistan sovereignty when went to get Osama. Do we really care about a democratic government in another country. Terrorism is not cheap. Israelis have been somewhat successful keeping bad guys out. Hard to win a fight by fighting “fair,” when your opponent does not fight “fair.”
 
That is a way, but not the only way and not necessarily the best way. I propose we deal with terrorist organizations by selective kinetic strikes, third party intervention, going after their finances, and perhaps selective travel ban. Terroists don’t follow rules and if we insist we follow some arbitrary rules, it’s hard for us to keep terrorists out. How dare we conduct kinetic strikes when civilian bystanders can hurt or we violate another nation’s sovereignty? Innocent folks get kill all the time. I don’t think we cared about violating Pakistan sovereignty when went to get Osama. Do we really care about a democratic government in another country. Terrorism is not cheap. Israelis have been somewhat successful keeping bad guys out. Hard to win a fight by fighting “fair,” when your opponent does not fight “fair.”

I certainly agree that isn’t the only way/the only thing we should do. That wasn’t clear with my response. The big point was that just pulling out doesn’t sound like a good solution. It’s also worth noting that we already do most of the ideas you proposed: CIA drone strike program, intelligence relationships with 3rd parties that go act on their own with that intel support (Israel, Pakistan even), one of the three divisions of IRS Criminal Investigation does exclusively terrorism financing investigations, etc. we also already screen people coming in from higher threat countries with more scrutiny than say the UK. I can’t tell whether you were anti-kinetic strikes b/c of limited (but much publicized) collateral damage, or are disappointed in the complaints saying we shouldn’t conduct strikes because collateral damage isn’t 0%. Those terrorists we kill would very possibly kill far more civilians/innocents than the number of civilians killed due to collateral damage of our strikes. Doing all of these things, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also do what I described. Surly, it also doesn’t mean we should. Personally, I think we need to do it, but on a limited (and sustainable) scale, not jacking up troop numbers to very high levels, but also not pulling em all out declaring we’ve beat ISIS.

I appreciate the response/debate.
 
To get us back on topic, here is what Mattis is planning for retirement.

https://www.duffelblog.com/2018/12/...rement-spent-firing-minigun-out-door-of-huey/

That is exactly what I imagined Mattis will do. I wonder if the writer of the article actually mistook A 10 Warthogs for actual warthogs and really thought that Mattis was going to be a farmer. Hehehe.
I could also imagine Mattis running a Young Marines unit or doing something to expose children to military careers and leadership and giving back to the community, like becoming leader of a military oriented charity.
 
I certainly agree that isn’t the only way/the only thing we should do. That wasn’t clear with my response. The big point was that just pulling out doesn’t sound like a good solution. . . .

I appreciate the response/debate.

I appreciate the debate also.te

If I may. I am not a Trump supporter. What I don’t like is people bashing Trump regardless. I do agree that annoucning a pull out from Syria is not the best way. However, in a big picture does it matter, as the end state is no US troops in Syria. When talking strategy, it needs to be discussed with ways, means, and ends. So when folks are bashing Trump, they just focus on one thing, not all three. So, if the President wants to pursue an end state of isolationism - it’s his decision. W can disagree why we should pursue an isolationism, but don’t pick on ways and means.
 
I appreciate the debate also.te

If I may. I am not a Trump supporter. What I don’t like is people bashing Trump regardless. I do agree that annoucning a pull out from Syria is not the best way. However, in a big picture does it matter, as the end state is no US troops in Syria. When talking strategy, it needs to be discussed with ways, means, and ends. So when folks are bashing Trump, they just focus on one thing, not all three. So, if the President wants to pursue an end state of isolationism - it’s his decision. W can disagree why we should pursue an isolationism, but don’t pick on ways and means.

Fair point, if it’s agreed that neoisolationism is the direction our country should head, the abrupt announcement, while not great, is also largely insignificant.

I don’t think we can afford to go that direction: with the now not only international trade (which isn’t new in history), but with such things as coproduction, the cyber/information domain, etc, I just don’t see isolationism as a sensible foreign policy strategy. As I said, that doesn’t mean I want to jack up troop numbers everywhere, but I do see a necessity for limited numbers of sustained presence it certain spots (ME/Africa), at least in the near to mid-term future. Big picture, we certainly need to focus on China as our long-term strategic threat, and Islam will just battle it out sort of like Christendom did a few hundred years ago.

Also, I totally agree with no useless bashing. I am farrr from a Trump fan, but it ticks me off when someone just says some stupid negative thing about Trump (or any person/issue) that is ignorant/naive/uninformed in its logic.
 
Fair point, if it’s agreed that neoisolationism is the direction our country should head, the abrupt announcement, while not great, is also largely insignificant.

Perhaps my International Relations professor might be proud of me or rolling his eyes as I talk about IR. Old days, two main theories - realism vs liberalism. Realism is something like each counties will act accrording to self interest. Liberalism is something like everybody working together. Well, I am a realist with a twist of globalism. China will disagree with US to a point, but not to a full conflict. Considering how much US treasuries China own and how much trade China does with US, for China to take any drastic actions against US will be like killing the goose that laid golden eggs. You could say many things about China, but one thing they are is parctical. Are we going to start a conflict with China because of their human rights abuse? China wants to exert control over Africa, let them. Oil is not a concern anymore. No point of controlling strategic minerals, if you don’t sell them. Media don’t report how there is push back against Chinse influence by locals in Africa. If an existing government in Africa goes belly up, whatever existing investment and deals won’t be honored. I believ China willl limit her imperialism as after WWII, imperialism don’t pay. Russia’s attempt to control former USSR countries, how did we survive when USSR was in existence? For some of us older folks might remember how Japan was considered as an economic threat against US.
 
Perhaps my International Relations professor might be proud of me or rolling his eyes as I talk about IR. Old days, two main theories - realism vs liberalism. Realism is something like each counties will act accrording to self interest. Liberalism is something like everybody working together. Well, I am a realist with a twist of globalism. China will disagree with US to a point, but not to a full conflict. Considering how much US treasuries China own and how much trade China does with US, for China to take any drastic actions against US will be like killing the goose that laid golden eggs. You could say many things about China, but one thing they are is parctical. Are we going to start a conflict with China because of their human rights abuse? China wants to exert control over Africa, let them. Oil is not a concern anymore. No point of controlling strategic minerals, if you don’t sell them. Media don’t report how there is push back against Chinse influence by locals in Africa. If an existing government in Africa goes belly up, whatever existing investment and deals won’t be honored. I believ China willl limit her imperialism as after WWII, imperialism don’t pay. Russia’s attempt to control former USSR countries, how did we survive when USSR was in existence? For some of us older folks might remember how Japan was considered as an economic threat against US.

I’m generally a realist as well actually, in that I don’t trust other countries to act charitably toward a country other than themselves. However, working together in areas of common self-interest seems sensible and efficient. It so happens that many many countries have a common interest in fighting terrorist organizations even if the reason for that interest aren’t always the same.

China’s a whole different issue. First, while China is certainly catching up technologically and economically (there’s a correlative, if not causal relationship b/w these two things). There is debate among IR/national security scholars as to whether China can ever really fully catch up. They’re trying to be almost an autarky. Designing and developing technology all on their own (or by committing espionage and trying to reverse engineer stuff). This approach historically (like USSR), just cannot compete with the wests’ embracement of coproduction. So theoretically, China will never catch up, but China is not nearly as isolationist as the USSR, and with the current trend, many experts believe they will absolutely catch up. I’m not sure which side I believe really because that’s well and far beyond my expertise and knowledge.
 
I am not sure which side I believe really because that’s well and far beyond my expertise and knowledge.

Don’t sell yourself short. I don’t pay too much attention to so call experts unless they talk numbers.

For example, some Naval experts talk about Chinese Navy catching up to US Navy using their first aircraft carrier as a proof. If an aircraft carrier has to rely on shore based aircrafts for her defense, it’s a limited threat. I haven’t heard too much out Chines aerial refueling capabilities. How is Chinese Navy is going to protect her aircraft carrier in the middle of say Pacific Ocean? How advance are Chinese submarines? So, having an aircraft carrier is a start, but far from catching up to the US Navy.

Lastly, China will keep on progressing as long as her leaders keep the system together. But, the odds are against them, as how do we keep a system that has more than billion people, aging population, increasing middle class that wants more, internet, enviornmental issues, ethnic issues, corruptions, and etc?

A small hope for US is we manage somehow regardless who is in the Oval Office.
 
Wow, I didn't think this thread would get so many people's attention! :) However, I should have put it in the military news section.

"He knows he's awesome, and doesn't need people around him to tell him what he already knows.
I hope that he ends up doing whatever he feels like doing - in peace - for the rest of his days. He has earned it.

I believe I have seen this picture surface somewhere on this thread, so I will repost it here
mattis.jpg
 

Mattis Didn't Resign, He Was Fired POTUS/45

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/govern...d-as-long-as-it-takes-updates-today-1-2-2019/

Where to start?.....

1. Mattis was "essentially fired" by the President. False. He resigned. No one has suggested otherwise over the last two weeks until now.

2. "But what's he (Mattis) done for me (Trump)?" Apparently the Secretary of Defense is a personal servant of the President. Imagine the reaction if Obama, or Bush, or Reagan, or Nixon or anyone spoke this way about a Sec of Defense, especially one with the credentials of General Mattis.

3. "...he was very and very thankful when I (Trump) got him (Mattis) $700 billion. And the following year $716 billion." So the money spent on the defense budget is essentially a bribe to guarantee the loyalty of the Sec of Defense. A payoff. Like he's making a campaign contribution to a city counselor to get a building permit or something. At least that's how the chief executive views it.
 
Back
Top