U.S. Political news and discussion. International news and politics also welcome.
James Mattis, Outspoken Ex-Marine, Is Trump's Choice as Defense Secretary
James Mattis, Outspoken Ex-Marine, Is Trump's Choice as Defense Secretary
WASHINGTON - President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Thursday he had chosen James N. Mattis, a hard-charging retired general who led a Marine division to Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to serve as his secretary of defense. Mr. Trump made the announcement at a rally in Cincinnati, calling General Mattis "the closest thing we have to Gen.
nytimes.com




Honestly, this is the only cabinet pick I feel good about so far.
Well, doesn't the article state, he is a military hardliner, stuck in the cold war mentality and has contributed to the mess in the middle east and therefore, at least partly and indirectly, to the rise of ISIS. I think he is just as terrible as rest... But yet I hope I am not right...
I don't know, he seems pretty reasonable to me.
I don't think being suspicious of Russia or Iran is an unreasonable stance.
I don't know... someday the relationships have to normalize. Of course they are doing terrible things, partly, but partly Russian and Iranian concerns are just as valid as anyones. If he or somebody would really be in favor of peace, he would bring Putin and the responsible figure in Iran to the international supreme court. Just mobbing Russia and Iran is merely activism in my eyes and solves nothing really. Finding and judging the criminals in the system, would be a beginning.
The ICJ is kind of a joke, though. It doesn't have any power to enforce its own rulings. You can put Russia and Iran on trial all you want, but as long as their current regimes stay in power, nothing is going to happen. Worth noting that the US pulled out of ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction after it decided Reagan's secret war against Nicaragua was unlawful. And it's not like the US has stopped meddling in other countries' affairs since then. To point a finger at Russia and Iran would be seen as hypocritical.
Until there is a united world government with some actual teeth, this is just the reality of international relations, unfortunately. It would be one thing if their governments' bad behavior was limited to within their own borders. But they've made it clear that they want to be regional power players and throw their weight around. If they threaten neighboring countries who are our allies, we should be prepared to push back against them. You can't have peace by being a pushover.
I know it would be hypocritical and it's lacking power etc., but how else could someone create a world government, than via this institution, which basically had that idea in mind? It would just being like, giving up. It's a question of creating new institutions or empowering/reforming the old ones. I refuse, yet, to resign completely ^^ And there is no real other way than trying to force the criminals of that scale of every country in front of the ICJ. That would additionally show who is in favor laws and justice and who wants to be special snowflake. I assume there would form at least two unions on that point, which could either escalate hardcore or would create the next step to an united earth.
I think if the US wanted to show it was in favor of international law, it would have to go back under ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction. Let's face it, the US has been acting like a special snowflake.
As for bringing the Iranian or Russian leadership to the ICJ, that would basically require going to war with them. And one of those countries also has nukes.
Yeah agreed, but the better option is to poke them with knife until the war comes? It seems the goal of war is inevitable, be it by forcing the guilty to justice or in one escalated moment in the eternal stand off between russia, usa, china etc..
Not provocation but deterrence. If we don't contest their extraterritorial behavior, it will embolden them because they think they can act with impunity. Building stronger alliances to counter them also tips the cost-benefit analysis of further expansion to negative.
So USA world police? That didnt work well as well... Havent that brought us near a nuclear holocaust during the cold war? Moreover, President Trump dont want a world police USA anymore and I have heard and it seems plausible to me, that the USA dont quite have the resources to do that for an extended period of time anymore.
You could see it that way. Or you could say the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction prevented an actual nuclear exchange. Also might have warded off a Soviet incursion into Western Europe and definitely prevented a communist takeover of the entire Korean peninsula. There were a lot of spectacular failures, obviously. As well as short-sighted decisions leading to blowback. But I wouldn't say US involvement on the world stage is entirely discredited.
And I'm not advocating America: World Police so much as America: World Mediator. I definitely think we should cut back on defense spending, but there are other ways of shoring up the international system. As for the specific case of Syria, I agree that our current policy is wrongheaded and that we should just hold our nose on the whole thing and go along with Russia's plan to bring back stability to the region. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be wary of Russia's interest in the matter.
I mean you are right, but "being wary of russias interests" sounds like degrading either russia to second class country or even worse, almost every other country to third class countries, you know what I mean? I know that its "interests" are pretty violent, but so are US interests. Maybe I think it's a little hypocritical? And furthermore I am still not sure what I think about this "fight against communism" and the resulting red scare. Leftists ideologies in general are STILL almost impossible to discuss, especially with americans... but thats kinda another story... I guess? There were so fucking many mistakes in the last century and many of them carry on this century. Russia is the bad guy, germany struggles with its past, the USA is the good guy, capitalism "works", yet, the middle east is total mess, I mean you are not dumb, you see this.
Sure, I get it. But I'm not saying that "US is the good guy. Russia is the bad guy." That's a naive way of looking at international relations. There are no good guys or bad guys. Every nation is in it for their own interests. I'm saying that Russia's interests currently are counter to US interests. Mainly because the US benefits a lot from the relative peace of the established post-Cold War system (more trading partners = more money). So I would certainly hope that the US Secretary of Defense was looking out for US interests. Because, well, that's his job.
Isnt it strange thatthe US nonetheless wage war in the middle east, meddling with the established peace? And also then you should know why russia is doing what it does to expand their market. But this: That s my market, this is yours- thinking doesnt lead anywhere but war. So shouldnt we abolish that? And on that note, to achieve that, is this guy the right man to do so?
Yeah, it is strange, because it's counter to our own interests. If we had left well enough alone in Syria, we wouldn't have this whole ISIS mess. Chalk it up to an arrogant Woodrow Wilson-esque "make the world safe for democracy" mentality. Granted, it probably would have spiraled out of control even without our intervention, but we certainly made it worse by supplying arms to the "moderate rebel factions".
As for "my market, your market" thinking: if anyone is thinking that way, it's Russia. The international trade system has hugely benefited the US, but it's also greatly benefited China. And you can't say that those two countries really see eye to eye on other matters. There's nothing stopping Russia from playing in the open market like everyone else. And they have been doing that, selling their oil and other resources to Europe and Asia. Their current expansionism isn't about economics. If anything, their economy went down after the intervention in Ukraine. It's about national prestige. Putin is pushing for an expanded Russian sphere of influence to distract from societal problems at home. It's a standard autocrat tactic.
As for whether Mattis is the right person to work towards a more peaceful world. Probably not, since he's a military general by training and has a warrior mentality. But is that even the job of the Secretary of Defense? That's more the purview of the state department. And SecDef can't start a war on his own initiative. Only the president can do that (not that I'd trust Trump to be responsible with that power). He may not be the best person for the job (especially since he's not technically allowed to do it). But I wouldn't say he's just as bad as the others.
That is only if congress passes a law granting him an exception, the military is supposed to be lead by civilians not the military. So Mattis may not be legally allowed to be Secretary of Defense.
It makes me wonder why he's proposing it. Do you think he thinks he will actually be able to get it through?
Does he understand congress has to confirm his choices and that he may be told no? I think he still thinks its like a business where the boss decides everything and he doesnt realize how much actual work is involved in being president.