A non-political suggestion for Sec. of Defense
- Thread starter Gunny
- Start date
Help Support Van Living Forum:
LeeRevell
Well-known member
Good choice! Nuff said.
LeeRevell
Well-known member
Gunny said:
Sadly I cannot get the page to scroll down to read beyond the first couple paragraphs.
I cannot recall what Marine said it, but I like the quote,
"The enemy have us surrounded. May God have mercy on those poor bastards, we won't."
LeeRevell
Well-known member
No, it wasn't Puller. His famous quote is similar but different. The quote I like was from a junior officer more recently.
LeeRevell
Well-known member
President-elect Trump officially announces retired Marine General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense. An excellent choice, in my opinion.
Federal law holds that all retired service members must wait seven years after serving on active duty before they can hold the office of secretary of defense or other senior civilian defense positions. The time limit was set by Congress in 2008, knocking it down from a 10-year limit first set by Congress in the 1947 national security act.
LeeRevell
Well-known member
Thankfully there is a precedent for Congress to waive this silly requirement.
Optimistic Paranoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,534
- Reaction score
- 10
The New York Daily News has been virulently anti-trump, but they just came out with an editorial praising his choice of Mattis, and urging his speedy approval.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/warrior-wisdom-praise-gen-james-mattis-article-1.2896654
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/warrior-wisdom-praise-gen-james-mattis-article-1.2896654
I wonder why that law that "...retired service members must wait seven years after serving on active duty before they can hold the office of secretary of defense or other senior civilian defense positions..." was voted in in 1947, and why it still stands today, with 2 exceptions, one of which was a reduced length of time to wait.
There must be a powerful reason a civilian was so desired in such a position. Could it be that military men might want MORE power? And with a PE such as Mr. T, such a military person might be even more dangerous?
The time limit was set by Congress in 2008, knocking it down from a 10-year limit first set by Congress in the 1947 national security act.
There must be a powerful reason a civilian was so desired in such a position. Could it be that military men might want MORE power? And with a PE such as Mr. T, such a military person might be even more dangerous?
The time limit was set by Congress in 2008, knocking it down from a 10-year limit first set by Congress in the 1947 national security act.
I was curious too, and this is the best explanation I found:
The Department of Defense as we know it today was created by the National Security Act of 1947, which brought the Departments of the Army (formerly the Department of War), Navy and the then-new Air Force under one office – the Department of Defense.
To make sure that the U.S. Military was under civilian command, the law stated that anyone “who has within ten years been on active duty as a commissioned officer in a Regular component of the armed services shall not be eligible as Secretary of Defense.”
[size=x-large]However, Congress almost immediately allowed for an exception for George C. Marshall. He didn’t retire from active U.S. Army service until February 1947 and served as Secretary of State until January 1949. In March 1949, he returned to the active list as General of the Army. In September 1950, he became Secretary of Defense, a role he served in for just a year. It took a special act of Congress to allow that to happen.
[/size]
When Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, they reduced the number of years a person needed to be out of active military service to seven. However, that still does not qualify Mattis for the position.
Mattis didn’t retire until May 2013, following three years as the Commander of U.S. Central Command in the Middle East. The 66-year-old Mattis has spent almost his entire adult life in the military, enlisting in the Marine Corps in 1969. In order for Mattis to be approved by Congress, he needs a waiver. Like the exception given to Marshall in 1950, it would require an act from the House and Senate.
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told CNN in November that the seven-year break between active duty and being eligible for the role ensures that being Secretary of Defense is a civilian position.
“When you get to that Defense Secretary role, it has to be a broader, strategic impact brought to any decision you make in any strategic event you make around the world — including, by the way, acquisitions of weapons,” Rogers explained. “I think they just want a little distance there to make sure you don’t just take a general and make them secretary. And that’s why, originally, the law was passed to give that seven-year window.”
Mattis has the endorsement of Senator John McCain, a Republican and Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“General Mattis is one of the finest military officers of his generation and an extraordinary leader who inspires a rare and special admiration of his troops. He is a forthright strategic thinker. His integrity is unshakable and unquestionable,” McCain said in a statement.
However, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she will oppose Mattis’ nomination.
[size=x-large]“While I respect Gen Mattis’s service, I’ll oppose a waiver-civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy,” Gillibrand said.[/size]
The Department of Defense as we know it today was created by the National Security Act of 1947, which brought the Departments of the Army (formerly the Department of War), Navy and the then-new Air Force under one office – the Department of Defense.
To make sure that the U.S. Military was under civilian command, the law stated that anyone “who has within ten years been on active duty as a commissioned officer in a Regular component of the armed services shall not be eligible as Secretary of Defense.”
[size=x-large]However, Congress almost immediately allowed for an exception for George C. Marshall. He didn’t retire from active U.S. Army service until February 1947 and served as Secretary of State until January 1949. In March 1949, he returned to the active list as General of the Army. In September 1950, he became Secretary of Defense, a role he served in for just a year. It took a special act of Congress to allow that to happen.
[/size]
When Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, they reduced the number of years a person needed to be out of active military service to seven. However, that still does not qualify Mattis for the position.
Mattis didn’t retire until May 2013, following three years as the Commander of U.S. Central Command in the Middle East. The 66-year-old Mattis has spent almost his entire adult life in the military, enlisting in the Marine Corps in 1969. In order for Mattis to be approved by Congress, he needs a waiver. Like the exception given to Marshall in 1950, it would require an act from the House and Senate.
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told CNN in November that the seven-year break between active duty and being eligible for the role ensures that being Secretary of Defense is a civilian position.
“When you get to that Defense Secretary role, it has to be a broader, strategic impact brought to any decision you make in any strategic event you make around the world — including, by the way, acquisitions of weapons,” Rogers explained. “I think they just want a little distance there to make sure you don’t just take a general and make them secretary. And that’s why, originally, the law was passed to give that seven-year window.”
Mattis has the endorsement of Senator John McCain, a Republican and Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“General Mattis is one of the finest military officers of his generation and an extraordinary leader who inspires a rare and special admiration of his troops. He is a forthright strategic thinker. His integrity is unshakable and unquestionable,” McCain said in a statement.
However, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she will oppose Mattis’ nomination.
[size=x-large]“While I respect Gen Mattis’s service, I’ll oppose a waiver-civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy,” Gillibrand said.[/size]
Optimistic Paranoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,534
- Reaction score
- 10
The Republican's have dusted off the waiver given to Marshall and are using it's language to write the waiver for Mattis.
Gillibrand is posturing for her base. Trump held off the announcement until he was sure they had the votes to pass it. Several Democrats had announced they would support it.
And we're getting into politics again.
Fun trivia fact: The reason we don't have Field Marshals is because George C. Marshall REFUSED to be known as Marshal Marshall. Instead, five stars are known as General of the Army, General of the Air Force, and Admiral of the Fleet
Gillibrand is posturing for her base. Trump held off the announcement until he was sure they had the votes to pass it. Several Democrats had announced they would support it.
And we're getting into politics again.
Fun trivia fact: The reason we don't have Field Marshals is because George C. Marshall REFUSED to be known as Marshal Marshall. Instead, five stars are known as General of the Army, General of the Air Force, and Admiral of the Fleet
I knew nothing about Mattie tho we were in at the same time for awhile. When my youngest son returned from his first tour in Iraq, he was in the first group, 10th Marines, to go, he told me about him and what a good leader he was. And he brought my son home.
Many of his quotes are taken out of context, such as my signature here, strictly for either humor or show his bluntness.
BradKW, that was brilliant. Thanks for the laugh.
Be safe, Rob
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Many of his quotes are taken out of context, such as my signature here, strictly for either humor or show his bluntness.
BradKW, that was brilliant. Thanks for the laugh.
Be safe, Rob
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LeeRevell
Well-known member
One truism in American politics is that strong fighting Generals rarely make good political leaders. George Patton was asked to seek office, but his demeanor and forthrightness, or his bluntness, would have been disastrous in office, having to deal peaceably with other national leaders. Ike though, was more politically minded, perfect for high office.
Stormin' Norman Schwartzkof would have had the same problem as Patton, and wisely refused any idea of political office.
Many times, we military vets like our strong Generals and Admirals, but it takes a rare man indeed to serve in both capacities.
Still, I will continue to watch this story with interest.
And, no, this isn't a "political post", more a short historical note.
Stormin' Norman Schwartzkof would have had the same problem as Patton, and wisely refused any idea of political office.
Many times, we military vets like our strong Generals and Admirals, but it takes a rare man indeed to serve in both capacities.
Still, I will continue to watch this story with interest.
And, no, this isn't a "political post", more a short historical note.
Phantom Blooper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2011
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 0
If the general ran for President in 4 years......would he be Mad Dog 2020?
Similar threads
