Thread: After Mattis, Trump needs a very different kind of defense secretary

After Mattis, Trump needs a very different kind of defense secretary

By Christian Whiton | Fox News
OPINION
Published 28 mins ago

President Trump’s decision to replace Defense Secretary James Mattis on Jan. 1 – rather than allowing him to stay on the job until Feb. 28, as the retired Marine general requested when he resigned Thursday – was the right move.

Mattis no doubt thought a two-month transition would be helpful to his successor and minimize any disruption caused by his departure. But no president would want an avowed opponent of his foreign and national security policies to continue running the Pentagon for that long.

As Mattis correctly stated in his resignation letter to the president: “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.”

President Trump announced that Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, a former Boeing executive, will serve as acting secretary of defense. That’s understandable for the short-term to fill a sudden vacancy. But the president should choose a long-term replacement for Mattis who supports Trump policies priorities and who has more political and communications skills.

Mattis did a masterful job at accomplishing the urgent mission of defeating ISIS. Although remnants of jihadist group exist, its one-time caliphate is now just another bloody chapter in the history of radical Islamist depravity.

But while Mattis had the proven skills of a highly successful combat commander to battle our enemies abroad, his strength was not fighting for the president’s policies in the halls of Congress or in media appearances to influence public opinion.

With Democrats gaining control of the House of Representatives on Jan. 3, it will become far more important for President Trump to have a defense secretary who can be an effective advocate for presidential polices. The combination of Mattis’ limited advocacy skills and his opposition to many of the president’s policies requires that he be replaced quickly.

Despite his dedicated and outstanding service in the Marines, in his job heading the Defense Department Mattis was ill-suited to helping a president who ran for office on a promise to break from the foreign policies of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

As a presidential candidate, Trump made clear that he wanted to end the failed nation-building gambits and prolonged wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria that his predecessors pursued. As President Trump sought to implement a new path, Mattis resisted.

And Mattis had many other disagreements with Trump policies as well.

The defense secretary opposed the president’s decision to withdraw from the deeply flawed Iran nuclear deal. Mattis was against moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Avis to Jerusalem. He wanted to the U.S. to support the Paris climate agreement – a boondoggle that President Trump rightly opposed because it would have disadvantaged the U.S.

A president expects the opposing political party in Congress to fight against his priorities and initiatives. He doesn’t expect to have to battle members of his Cabinet.

Mattis resisted sending U.S. troops to the Mexican border. He opposed strongly pressing NATO allies to spend what they pledged on their own defense.

Mattis also misspent the hard-won increases in defense spending that President Trump secured from Congress, devoting the money to wars in the greater Middle East rather than to buying new ships, planes and missiles. The defense secretary conducted fewer freedom-of-navigation exercises against the Chinese than his Obama-era predecessors.

A president expects the opposing political party in Congress to fight against his priorities and initiatives. He doesn’t expect to have to battle members of his Cabinet.

The next Pentagon chief needs to be both an advocate for President Trump’s vision of America’s military role in the word and a political pro who can install a pro-Trump network at the Defense Department.

Instead of a nominee who will go before the Senate and downplay the president’s decision to withdraw from Syria and the expected troop drawdown in Afghanistan, President Trump needs a defense secretary who will unabashedly remind Washington that the public wants an end to nation-building and wars that go on and on and on.

Our heroic American troops have been fighting in Afghanistan for over 17 years – slightly longer than earlier generations fought in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War combined. U.S. forces have been fighting in Iraq for over 15 years.

Congress likes to bellyache about not being sufficiently consulted on war and foreign policy, so let’s have a debate. For example, President Trump’s nominee for defense secretary should remind senators that polls have recently shown that Americans want a troop drawdown in Afghanistan as opposed to build-up by a margin of two to one.

And the polls show that only 20 to 25 percent of Americans think we’re winning in Afghanistan. Furthermore, only 15 percent of Americans think we have a clear strategy in Afghanistan.

In addition to explaining what the Trump administration won’t do, Trump’s nominee for defense secretary should explain what the administration will do.

Withdrawing ground forces from Syria does not amount to abandoning the region. Rather, it can be a chance to return to America’s Reagan-era military posture in the Middle East, which centered around naval and air power, especially in the Persian Gulf.

This will be far cheaper than continuing the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, which cost more than $60 billion per year. It would also mean building more military platforms that can be useful in a crisis with China or Russia – something that is not true with ground forces skilled primarily in counterinsurgency.

Indeed, the most important reason to draw down U.S. troops in the greater Middle East and Europe is to focus instead on deterring war with an increasingly belligerent and capable China.

President Obama boasted of a “pivot” to Asia and a “rebalancing,” but our real presence in the Pacific atrophied over the past decade as our Navy and Air Force shrank.

The current fiscal year’s defense budget of $717 billion is probably the high-water mark of military spending in the Trump administration. With a House run by Democrats, the only direction for military spending to go is down.

Putting more forces in the Pacific to deter war with China means making cuts elsewhere, not increasing the overall budget. We have to start making choices.

Finally, bringing on a new secretary of defense gives President Trump a chance to make a bold move in Europe. The president should turn our military bases in Europe over to our NATO allies and withdraw most U.S. troops.

We have kept troops in Europe since World War II, and that war ended 73 years ago. Our European bases have been obsolete since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and they’ve been of no use to us in the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

Why should U.S. troops defend Germany, for example, where polls show only 30 percent of Germans have a favorable view of America? On top of that, Germany treats us unfairly on trade, fabricates anti-American news, and is rich enough to defend itself.

What’s the point of U.S. bases in Spain and Italy? Instead, we should pre-position heavy weaponry in pro-American Poland to deter Russia, because it would be cheaper than relying on NATO.

Finally, we should move more naval forces out of the Atlantic and into the Pacific.

These are the practical steps to further implement President Trump’s America First foreign policy. But all of them require a secretary of defense with vision and political skill. Mattis didn’t fit that bill, despite his skills on the battlefield.

President Trump should take the time to find someone who agrees with his campaign promises and agenda, and who can build support for his policies in Congress and with the public.

The American people elected Donald Trump to be our president because of the policies he advocated. The president needs a defense secretary and other Cabinet members who will help him implement those polices.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/afte...ense-secretary

Nice article. Mattis turned out to be a terrible choice for any purpose other than killing ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Definitely time for him to go. It's sad too, because Trump really admired Mattis and was so happy to have him as his Secretary of Defense. Who knew you would need to question a 4 star general on "if we need troops to our own border, will you support that?" Same with "do you support withdrawing from the horrible Iran Nuclear Deal, the Paris Climate Accord, and demanding NATO allies pay their fair share?"

Who would think you would need to put all that on your interview list of questions for a Secretary of Defense who is a 4 Star Marine General??!!!

Geez. I'm telling you, we may need a little "check" on all of our generals.

Flashback: Trump is no stranger to making poor cabinet choices.

What Trump's Cabinet picks reveal

BY JONATHAN SWAN AND ALLIE BICE - 12/09/16 06:00 AM EST 5,376

3,880

As President-elect Donald Trump fills out his Cabinet, a few things are becoming clear: He loves generals, he prizes loyalty and he especially values the loyalty of those who funded his presidential campaign.

Trump has so far chosen four major donors or fundraisers to join his Cabinet. With just over half of the jobs filled, he already has more high-end campaign donors in his Cabinet than either President Obama or President George W. Bush did when taking office.

Obama’s first Cabinet had more campaign donors — at least eight — in total than Trump, but the most any of them gave Obama was $9,000, according to Federal Election Commission records. Many of Obama’s initial picks were Democratic politicians.

Presidents often reward campaign donors with foreign ambassadorships — France is an especially prized posting — and donors are sometimes offered top Cabinet positions. The current Commerce secretary, Penny Pritzker, was Obama’s national finance chairman in the 2008 campaign.

Trump, however, has gone further in rewarding his biggest donors.

Former Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin, the president-elect’s choice for Treasury secretary, served as Trump’s top fundraiser and personally contributed $430,000 to Trump and to the Republican National Committee’s joint fundraising account.

Pro wrestling magnate Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick to head the Small Business Administration, gave $6 million to Rebuilding America Now, a super PAC that backed Trump. She also gave $153,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account and more than $400,000 to the RNC.

Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, Trump’s choice for Commerce secretary, had a senior role on Trump’s fundraising team. He gave $200,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account and $117,000 to the RNC.

Andy Puzder, the fast-food CEO chosen for Labor secretary, raised campaign cash for Trump and personally contributed $388,000 to the RNC and $150,000 to Trump’s joint fundraiser. He also gave $10,000 to Rebuilding America Now.

Another Trump Cabinet selection, Betsy DeVos, belongs to one of the top Republican donor families in the country. The Education secretary pick, however, was no booster of Trump’s. She gave $50,000 to a super PAC supporting Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Trump’s rival in the GOP primaries. She also wired the maximum amount to another of Trump’s primary rivals, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Trump is taking a political gamble by choosing major donors for such lofty posts.

One of his biggest campaign promises was to “drain the swamp.” And for 18 months he campaigned, theatrically, on the most populist message seen in recent Republican politics. He thrilled his crowds by ridiculing the donor class that he said dictates much of the Washington agenda.

Trump’s first campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, says that a big part of Trump’s appeal was that the billionaire self-funded his primary campaign. Despite Trump’s reversal in the general election — he began soliciting campaign donations and tacitly blessed outside super PACs — many of his fervent supporters believe he is beholden to no one.

Democrats are seeking to portray the incoming president as a man more likely to fill Washington’s swamp rather than drain it.

And some of Trump’s staunchest allies aren’t pleased with some of the Cabinet selections, particularly Puzder.

Hours before Trump had announced Puzder on Thursday, three hard-line immigration groups criticized the fast-food CEO’s selection on the grounds that he would be too sympathetic to foreign workers.

“President-elect Trump’s choice of Andrew Puzder to run the Department of Labor raises questions and concerns about whether he will vigorously defend the interests of American workers,” Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said in a statement.

“Puzder has served as an executive of a fast food conglomerate,” he added, “an industry that has thrived on low-wage labor, illegal workers, and which has lobbied for greater access to foreign guest workers to maximize corporate profits.”

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, was even rougher on Puzder.

“Bad news,” Krikorian told The Hill in an email Thursday. He sent The Hill a link to an article Puzder wrote in The Wall Street Journal last June.

In the section of the article most troubling to Krikorian, Puzder praises the contribution of immigrant workers. He writes: “The American Enterprise Institute found in 2011 that ‘temporary foreign workers — both skilled and less skilled — boost U.S. employment’ and that immigrants with advanced degrees working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields ‘boost employment for U.S. citizens.’”

“Considering that managing the importation of guest workers is part of the Labor Department’s responsibility, Puzder’s views on other immigration issues are irrelevant, ” Krikorian said.

“He’s full-on Gang of Eight when it comes to the piece of immigration policy he’ll be responsible for,” added Krikorian, referring to Congress’s failed attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Trump’s top allies argue that the donors picked for the president-elect's Cabinet are, for the most part, in lock step with his agenda.

A senior source in Trump’s close orbit told The Hill that it would be wrong to see the Cabinet selections as a move toward the agenda of the donor class. The people Trump has chosen, the source said, are not the kind of free-market purists who have long held power in the Republican Party.

The source singled out Wilbur Ross as a case in point.

Ross is a billionaire who made his fortune by investing in distressed businesses. The New York Times’s DealBook depicted Ross as a complicated character, a risk-taker who could be viewed either as a "vulture" picking off the carcasses of American companies or as a “phoenix” raising them from ashes.

But Ross is not seen as coming from the free-trade school dominant in conservative Washington politics.

For one thing, he’s a former Democrat. For another, he is down in writing agreeing with Trump’s nationalist prescriptions for protecting American jobs.

In the senior Trump source’s telling, Ross is “one of these anti-offshoring billionaires.”

Ross co-authored the Trump campaign’s economic white paper, which proposed “eliminating America’s chronic trade deficit.”

“And if we have to use tariffs, so be it,” the source added. “We’re not bringing in outsourcing CEOs. We’re bringing in guys who challenged conventional wisdom.”

Trump will likely respond to criticisms about these donors the same way he’s dealt with criticism throughout his campaign: He’ll shrug it off.

And he wrote the playbook for doing so.

In a triumphal rally in Cincinnati last week, Trump hit back at those criticizing his decision to nominate a billionaire donor to run his Commerce Department.

“The guy knows how to make money, folks,” Trump said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...t-picks-reveal

It's been the most amazing group of people ever assembled to do certain jobs and do them fast. Once that job was done, some couldn't travel on with the program because of their own philosophies. That doesn't take away from what they accomplished for our country. It's masterful skill management. As soon as they finished what they were specifically hired to do and showed there was nothing more they could really do beyond that, Trump didn't hesitate to send them on their way.

Originally Posted by Judy

It's been the most amazing group of people ever assembled to do certain jobs and do them fast. Once that job was done, some couldn't travel on with the program because of their own philosophies. That doesn't take away from what they accomplished for our country. It's masterful skill management. As soon as they finished what they were specifically hired to do and showed there was nothing more they could really do beyond that, Trump didn't hesitate to send them on their way.