Sunday, July 9, 2017

David Marks — Risk of Unleashing ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis


The appointment of a recently retired general as secretary of defense and investing him to run military policy undercuts civilian control of the military, a cornerstone of liberal democracy.

This added to the previous institution of a professional army threatens the political fabric of the nation.

Add to this Mattis's military reputation as a loose cannon and the mix becomes volatile.

Consortium News
Risk of Unleashing ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis
David Marks

See also
The immediate prospect for significant improvement in U.S.-Russia relations now depends on something tangible: Will the forces that sabotaged previous ceasefire agreements in Syria succeed in doing so again, all the better to keep alive the “regime change” dreams of the neoconservatives and liberal interventionists?

Or will President Trump succeed where President Obama failed by bringing the U.S. military and intelligence bureaucracies into line behind a cease-fire rather than allowing insubordination to win out?….
The record of the US being able to keep its agreement is abysmal.
The Pentagon’s resistance and the “accidental” bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26:

“My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia … apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.”
Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, “the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence.” Noting this resistance inside the U.S. military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, “It is difficult to work with such partners.”
Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented:

“My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results. … people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice.”…
That is basically the characteristic of a rogue state.

While President Obama did nothing and said nothing, John Kerry complained publicly:
Only in December 2016, in an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe, did Kerry admit that his efforts to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – as well as all those forces he found so difficult to align.

“Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation [of the ceasefire agreement] extremely hard to accomplish,” Kerry said. “But it … could have worked. … The fact is we had an agreement with Russia … a joint cooperative effort.
“Now we had people in our government who were bitterly opposed to doing that,” he said. “I regret that. I think that was a mistake. I think you’d have a different situation there conceivably now if we’d been able to do that.”... 
The Syrian Test of Trump-Putin Accord
Ray McGovern
The U.S. mainstream media and Democratic Party politicians have built a major “scandal” out of accusing Russia of “meddling” in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump win the presidency and possibly even colluding with his campaign to do so. The charges began as “allegations” but now are routinely asserted as facts.
The Washington Post recently ran a long article claiming all the above plus saying the operation was directed by Russian President Putin himself and implying not enough has been done to “punish” Russia. The July-August 2017 edition of Mother Jones magazine features an article headlined “We Already Know Trump Betrayed America. Collusion? Maybe. Active Enabling? Definitely.”
Is this effort to indict Russia and condemn Trump based on facts or political opportunism? Does it help or hurt the progressive cause of peace with justice? Following are major problems with the “anti-Russia” theme, starting with the lack of clear evidence.…
Democrats and media continue to shoot themselves in their fast dwindling extremities. Next is to aim at the head?

Ten Problems with Anti-Russian Obsession
Rick Sterling

3 comments:

Dan Lynch said...

The other side of the coin is that it was Trump's idea to launch a missile strike at Syria after the faked chemical incident that upset Ivanka. The Pentagon knew, according to Sy Hersh, that Syria had not used chemical weapons and tried to talk Trump out of the strike.

Choose your poison.

Auburn Parks said...

"The appointment of a recently retired general as secretary of defense and investing him to run military policy undercuts civilian control of the military, a cornerstone of liberal democracy.

This added to the previous institution of a professional army threatens the political fabric of the nation.

Add to this Mattis's military reputation as a loose cannon and the mix becomes volatile"

Or instead of this being a conspriacy to ruin the entire fabric of US society, leading to the downfall of the western way of life, maybe it was just a bullshit political stunt that dishonest ideologues use to push their bullshit propaganda.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/341006-white-house-limits-troops-sent-to-afghanistan-report

"But days after Trump granted the authority, national security adviser H.R. McMaster penned a classified memo that limits forces to Afghanistan to no more than 3,900 troops. Mattis must confer with the White House before sending more beyond that number, people familiar with the document told the Journal."



Tom Hickey said...

Trump is already running for reelection and he is well aware that the American public is tired of foreign adventures.

Trump will approve high tech low touch but not high tech high touch.

The military can exploded those big bombs all over the place and send in drones, but no troops that might result in casualties.