How long after leaving the Army did he run for President the first time?
Effectively no time. He was supreme commander of allied forces in Europe in 1952, and served military roles continuously prior to that.
Yeah, I think he wad actually still in the military when he was elected?
Ah, probably not. He probably retired immediately prior to campaigning, since he couldn’t have done that while serving.
And Grant was a terrible one. But neither Grant nor Eisenhower are the relevant examples. The relevant examples are all the ones where a military without sufficient supervision by civilians either started conducting military policy independently of the civilian government, or simply seized power from the civilian government. See: a zillion banana republics and failed states throughout history and all over the globe.
It just so happens the US has never had one of those episodes … yet … but the Founders had them mind when they put the military under civilian control.
But it’s still a civilian government, even if the guy used to be in the military.
Eisenhower actually decommissioned himself. It’s a tradition that goes back to Washington, who felt pretty strongly about civilian oversight of the military.
You’re missing the point. No one is saying Eisenhower is a bad President or that Mattis is a bad Secretary of Defense. Civilian oversight of the military is an important tradition, and it’s one of many examples where the Trump administration is highlighting vulnerabilities in our government by flaunting long-stranding tradition. This is yet another example of that.
And if you think the idea of civilian oversight of the military is overblown, why not let the Joint Chiefs of Staff run the Department of Defense? Just pick one of them to be Secretary! They know best, right?
-Tom
The notion of civilian oversight of the military is of critical importance. That’s how our government is structured.
What’s overblown is thinking that because the guy in charge used to be in the military, that such a thing erodes civilian control of government.
That might be some of the weakest verbal jujitsu I’ve read this side of a Trump supporter. Putting a military man in charge of the military isn’t eroding civilian control? Uh…
-Tom
This is going to make things more awkward.
edit: the same day as a US fighter shoots down a Syrian regime fighter for the first time
That’s a function of this particular awful president. Thank god he doesn’t actually believe that he know more than the generals.
I don’t think deferring judgment on military matters to those with actual military experience is a bad thing at all.
When Saddam invade Kuwait. Bush 41 made two political decisions. First, he convinced Saudi Arabia to let US troops into the country to defend it against Saddam. That was a political decision. He asked his JCS Colin Powell how many troops it would take. In the short term, all we were able to send is a few F15 squadrons, the ready brigade of the 82nd Airborne, and Marine Expeditionary Unit. But Powell said we’d really need 100,000 troops to defend the place and that when he got.
A second political question was are we going to use force to liberate Kuwait? Once the political decision was made, Bush deferred to Powell’s judgment that we need overwhelming force. Certainly, there was a political and financial cost as result of using such big force, but the result was a fast war, with minimal casualties.
Contrast this with LBJ. LBJ made the political decision that we needed to defend South Vietnam, crush the VC, and bomb North Vietnam to make them stop the war against the south.
The generals told him it would take between 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops to do this. LBJ resisted sending all these troops at once and so we saw years of a slow buildup. Even more importantly. rather than activating the National Guard and reserve units as the generals urged. LBJ felt that sending whole units was too politically costly with news stories of troops departing to go fight in Vietnam. So LBJ felt the war should be fought with draftees who were there for a year.
As any wargamer knows conscripts die a lot. Casualties rates among our professional army in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are sent as generally brigade size units, are roughly 1/10th of what they were in Vietnam (KIA per 100,000 deployed/month)
Trump has made the political decision that we are going to continue our policy of training the Afghan army to defend against the Taliban and ISIS while providing air support and a quick reaction force. Now I don’t think that is a particularly wise decision. But delegating the authority for determining what the correct troop levels to do this to Gen. Mattis is a good idea. I don’t understand how it becomes some scary step to turning the US in a Military Junta.
No, because he was elected by the people and is beholden to the civilian population.
I mean, this clearly doesn’t conflict with the notions underlying the condition, given the FIRST president was a general for his whole life. And then we had various other generals elected president throughout history.
Hell, the only limitation on any of this is a rule that didn’t come into effect until 1947 that limited not the president but the secretary of defense… And was immediately waived so that a general could serve in that cabinet position.
Syria and Russia: totally our friends and on our side.
Mattis was “elected by the people”? Dude, you’ve completely jumped the rails here. I’m going to assume you’ve just lost track of what you’re arguing and you don’t really believe the Secretary of Defense is an elected position.
The “rule” you’re talking about is actually called a “law”, it’s still in effect, and Congress had to waive it again to approve Mattis. Hmm, I wonder why there’s a law restricting military personnel appointed to head up the Department of Defense…
-Tom
Of course not. I don’t think anyone in this thread thinks that.
That’s awfully gracious of you, but I seriously doubt Trump has made any decisions at all (although dropping that MOAB sounds like something he’d decree). The concern is that Mattis, a military man who was legally prohibited from being appointed Secretary of Defense, has been given a blank check by Trump. Fortunately, Mattis isn’t a nut. But his position is a violation of the concept (and law) of civilian control of the military.
You’re being disingenuous to suggest anyone is claiming this is a step to “turning the US in a Military Junta”, but it’s worth highlighting as one of the many way Trump has undermined fundamental aspects of our government.
-Tom
That’s a bit hyperbolic. I mean they passed the law in 47’ and then made an exemption for it in '50.
It’s hardly a fundamental thing since we didn’t have it for nearly 200 years and then once we had it, we immediately made an exemption for it.
You don’t think civilian control of the military is a fundamental aspect of our government? I don’t know how to respond to that…
-Tom
The President controls the military. Sec Defense is just an adviser. How you can’t parse that is something I don’t know how to respond to. Or did you think we were a military dictatorship from 1776-1947? The military has actually had more influence since we passed that law, so apparently it didn’t work.
Anyway.
https://twitter.com/Lucian_Kim/status/876762986089775104
This will end well.
You seem to have some misguided idea that our current Presidential administration is functioning as intended. And claiming Trump “controls the military” is like claiming Trump “controls” his Twitter account. I’m guessing that what the military does these days is pretty much determined by Mattis.
Furthermore, even when we have a functioning executive branch, there are laws about who can be appointed Secretary of Defense. Those are in place for a reason.
-Tom
Those laws were made by Congress, who bypassed them with overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate (81-17).
It was more partisan in the House (268-151), but they still had 36 Democrats voting in favor of it.
His actual nomination wasn’t even close (98-1).
You’re conflating a Cabinet position with being Commander in Chief. I don’t know what to even say at this point.
Trump has done plenty of damage to our republic, but this isn’t even on the radar. Rumsfeld was a civilian and how well did that turn out?
So was Dick Cheney.
Well, I agree with the second part of your quote. :\
Look, this isn’t rocket science. It’s barely even Civics 101. The Secretary of Defense has traditionally been a civilian because we have a long standing – and fundamental – principle in our government of civilian oversight of the military. You do understand the role of the Department of Defense, right? Barring that, there is a law that the Secretary of Defense has to have been out of military service far longer than Mattis was out of military service. How on earth do you figure I’m “conflating that with the Commander in Chief”? That’s even more ridiculous than Timex claiming the Secretary of Defense is an elected position.
Look, I’m glad Mattis is a reasonable guy and I trust that he knows what he’s doing. If an idiot like Trump is our Commander in Chief, there’s an argument to be made that this is precisely when a military guy should be in charge (I’m not convinced, but I’ll be happy to be wrong).
But that doesn’t change the fact that this is yet another example of Trump undermining important traditions.
Poorly. Which has nothing to do with them being civilian and everything to do with them being neoconservatives. It’s also a pretty ridiculous counter-argument, because by that rationale, the military shouldn’t be beholden to civilians. Is that really where you want to go?
-Tom