This was a good essay: well-written, cogent, and thought-provoking.
I know there are a lot of folks that want to take this essay and bash it into some political points. I think that's probably part of the problem Mattis is describing; our desire to make social media hay out of whatever we're given.
He does have a point about current politics in there. It's hidden quite a bit. His larger point, though, is about how instant communication is changing the nature of how governments work. Presumably that's what he gets paid for: understanding and projecting current trends through a historical lens.
I don't know what the solution is. A big part of the problem is that nobody much wants to talk about the generic situation. There's no clicks in it. Instead it's pitching rhetorical softballs to people who are already on your side. Congrats to Mattis for being able to walk through this mess and still come out looking okay. He's doing better than most.
Neither do I but I see tribalism as one of the most destructive forces of the last decade, responsible for almost all big changes (and lack of change) in the world. Politics spill out to other areas. It is not difficult to connect the dots between rapid clicks-and-likes driven social media to the burning of Amazon forests.
I don't know what the solution is but this is the meta problem. Solving it is likely to start fixing other areas of life.
From the article: "Nations with allies thrive, and those without them wither. Alone, America cannot protect our people and our economy. At this time, we can see storm clouds gathering. A polemicist’s role is not sufficient for a leader."
This is a true statement, I just hope the damage done can be undone. We are stronger together than we are alone.
Is that empirically true? The USA was the largest economy in the world by 1890, despite pursing a policy of isolationism for the entire century before that. By the time we entered the First World War, we accounted for a quarter of the world economy, about as much as all of Western Europe put together.
That reminds me of one thing I noticed about nations and needing a "designated driver". Occasionally one prosperous democratic nation does something which the rest of the world can tell would be a terrible idea, warn them as such and get ignored because so many feel so strongly about. Predictably disaster strikes. The int
It makes me wonder if some sort of international veto arrangement might be a good idea - unfortunately it seems that even if they did so they would be unlikely to listen "because this time is different".
> There's no "threat of tribalism". We're living in tribalism.
I understand the point to be "tribalism is great, but we should be one tribe dominating all (or most, with our allies, as long as they are aligned with us) the other tribes". I didn't see any general call against tribalism. "Defending our way of life" is pretty much that: "the tribe's way of life".
It's not directly related to General Mattis, but I would recommend reading Evan Wright's book "Generation Kill".
Which recounts his time being embedded with the 1st Recon Battalion, which was under the command of Mattis (Callsign Chaos) during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The book even goes briefly into a famous moment in the invasion of Iraq were General Mattis fires one of his commanders during a siege of a city.
Amazing fact about that book and show: Sergeant Rodolfo "Rudy" Reyes ('Fruity' Rudy) finished his term with the military and decided to move to Hollywood and become an actor. A few years later, casting began for the miniseries based on the book, based on his tour. He tried out.
I would like to second the tv series Generation Kill. Brilliant show. Really highlights a lot of the ridiculousness of war. Not as serious nor on the same scale as Band of Brothers, but still good nonetheless.
As others have said, this is an excerpt promoting a forthcoming book, not a declaration to run against the current president.
Also interesting to note Mattis is call sign "Chaos" who was a major offscreen character and frequently mentioned on the HBO mini series "Generation Kill".
American foreign policy has been inconsistent and often deadly to many civilians worldwide. Americans sometimes go in with the best of intentions, but not always, as we know from the Iraq war, CIA overthrow of Iranian government, and many other debacles.
For Mathis to disregard this and put the military and intelligence apparatus above politics is disingenuous, or at least ignorant of reality. He may be non-partisan but his department has a hand in why our current tribalism exists, and always has.
If American military and intelligence organizations had a truly non-interventionist approach and one which works with our allies then there are politicians on both sides to support them - Tulsi Gabbard, Ron Paul, for example.
Finally, Mathis admits our defense spending exceeds all but 20 countries' GDP. In an era where our enemies are often digital, or terrorist organizations, more so than nation states, is our military spending oversized for what we need? Would any secretary of defense admit to this and redirect funds to more pressing causes at home or abroad? Such a leader would be a truly remarkable and laudable.
"In an era where our enemies are often digital, or terrorist organizations, more so than nation states, is our military spending oversized for what we need?"
Hawks will only hear, "we need to spend more of the military budget on cyber threats".
In the Republican party of some people's wistful imagination, perhaps, but not in the actual one.
Trump is broadly unpopular with the American people as a whole, and every common demographic subset of them other "white males without a college degree".
But among Republican party members? His claims of "94%" are bullshit, naturally, but the actual results of real mainstream polling[1] put it north of 80%.
To paraphrase Marlo Stanfield: A lot of people want America to be one way. But it's the other way.
The Atlantic has an article out about him today, including interviews where he's extremely reluctant to criticize the sitting Commander in Chief. Him entering the primaries wouldn't fit with that.
> "The duty of silence. If you leave an administration, you owe some silence. When you leave an administration over clear policy differences, you need to give the people who are still there as much opportunity as possible to defend the country. They still have the responsibility of protecting this great big experiment of ours. I know the malevolence some people feel for this country, and we have to give the people who are protecting us some time to carry out their duties without me adding my criticism to the cacophony that is right now so poisonous."
General Mattis and others like him from the administrative, technocratic state have to do so much more to try to convince us that they're qualified. His appeals to decency and fitness of leadership ring supremely hollow after 20 years in the Middle East absolutely screwing up at every turn. We're in the current mess, largely defined by lack of trust in government, precisely because of "respectable" heads of state like Mattis.
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|6 years ago|reply
I know there are a lot of folks that want to take this essay and bash it into some political points. I think that's probably part of the problem Mattis is describing; our desire to make social media hay out of whatever we're given.
He does have a point about current politics in there. It's hidden quite a bit. His larger point, though, is about how instant communication is changing the nature of how governments work. Presumably that's what he gets paid for: understanding and projecting current trends through a historical lens.
I don't know what the solution is. A big part of the problem is that nobody much wants to talk about the generic situation. There's no clicks in it. Instead it's pitching rhetorical softballs to people who are already on your side. Congrats to Mattis for being able to walk through this mess and still come out looking okay. He's doing better than most.
[+] [-] flixic|6 years ago|reply
Neither do I but I see tribalism as one of the most destructive forces of the last decade, responsible for almost all big changes (and lack of change) in the world. Politics spill out to other areas. It is not difficult to connect the dots between rapid clicks-and-likes driven social media to the burning of Amazon forests.
I don't know what the solution is but this is the meta problem. Solving it is likely to start fixing other areas of life.
[+] [-] frankbreetz|6 years ago|reply
This is a true statement, I just hope the damage done can be undone. We are stronger together than we are alone.
[+] [-] rayiner|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ARandomerDude|6 years ago|reply
World War I comes to mind as an instructive case against over-alliance. Likewise, in World War II, Switzerland remained famously unallied.
Not that I'm anti-alliances, but the common idea that allies are a key to survival isn't necessarily true.
[+] [-] Nasrudith|6 years ago|reply
It makes me wonder if some sort of international veto arrangement might be a good idea - unfortunately it seems that even if they did so they would be unlikely to listen "because this time is different".
[+] [-] LoSboccacc|6 years ago|reply
let me show you exhibit A:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
"allies" is a romantic concept that doesn't hold any water, only the return of investment forecast drives action and inaction.
[+] [-] padobson|6 years ago|reply
There's no "threat of tribalism". We're living in tribalism. This piece could only be effective in another climate.
Ham-fisted, on-the-nose, bluntness is the only way to get your message across to a political audience in 2019.
[+] [-] luckylion|6 years ago|reply
I understand the point to be "tribalism is great, but we should be one tribe dominating all (or most, with our allies, as long as they are aligned with us) the other tribes". I didn't see any general call against tribalism. "Defending our way of life" is pretty much that: "the tribe's way of life".
[+] [-] turk73|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mothsonasloth|6 years ago|reply
The book even goes briefly into a famous moment in the invasion of Iraq were General Mattis fires one of his commanders during a siege of a city.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/that-time-mattis-fir...
HBO did a miniseries on the book too which is great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Kill
[+] [-] mabbo|6 years ago|reply
Rudy is played by himself.
[+] [-] TheGallopedHigh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lyfy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marktangotango|6 years ago|reply
Also interesting to note Mattis is call sign "Chaos" who was a major offscreen character and frequently mentioned on the HBO mini series "Generation Kill".
[+] [-] amoorthy|6 years ago|reply
For Mathis to disregard this and put the military and intelligence apparatus above politics is disingenuous, or at least ignorant of reality. He may be non-partisan but his department has a hand in why our current tribalism exists, and always has.
If American military and intelligence organizations had a truly non-interventionist approach and one which works with our allies then there are politicians on both sides to support them - Tulsi Gabbard, Ron Paul, for example.
Finally, Mathis admits our defense spending exceeds all but 20 countries' GDP. In an era where our enemies are often digital, or terrorist organizations, more so than nation states, is our military spending oversized for what we need? Would any secretary of defense admit to this and redirect funds to more pressing causes at home or abroad? Such a leader would be a truly remarkable and laudable.
[+] [-] jacobush|6 years ago|reply
Hawks will only hear, "we need to spend more of the military budget on cyber threats".
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] CPLX|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] buttcoinslol|6 years ago|reply
Were you just looking to get in a dig about US hegemony? I prefer it to Chinese hegemony, and so should you.
[+] [-] golemotron|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hudibras|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hackerbabz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] veidr|6 years ago|reply
Trump is broadly unpopular with the American people as a whole, and every common demographic subset of them other "white males without a college degree".
But among Republican party members? His claims of "94%" are bullshit, naturally, but the actual results of real mainstream polling[1] put it north of 80%.
To paraphrase Marlo Stanfield: A lot of people want America to be one way. But it's the other way.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-claims-higher-...
[+] [-] ceejayoz|6 years ago|reply
> "The duty of silence. If you leave an administration, you owe some silence. When you leave an administration over clear policy differences, you need to give the people who are still there as much opportunity as possible to defend the country. They still have the responsibility of protecting this great big experiment of ours. I know the malevolence some people feel for this country, and we have to give the people who are protecting us some time to carry out their duties without me adding my criticism to the cacophony that is right now so poisonous."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/10/james-m...
[+] [-] reallydontask|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sleepysysadmin|6 years ago|reply
It's pretty much going to be Trump vs Biden.
[+] [-] dhyft|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gnusty_gnurc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] creaghpatr|6 years ago|reply
https://www.axios.com/mattis-theranos-1521137535-f08d8b9b-78...
[+] [-] coupdetaco|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html