http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/14/AR2010061405172.html?wpisrc=nl_fed " That's pretty interesting. I don't know what this means. I find it really strange that Gen Mattis didn't get the job- in the middle of a ground war they picked an aviator to run the Corps. The Post talks about the Commandant's role in plotting the future course of the USMC - which is undoubtedly true, but that doesn't explain this choice. Gen Amos is supposed to be something of an intellectual, but Mattis is no slouch himself as a thinker and student of warfare as well as a warrior leader. I don't understand this choice. TPG: what's your take?