There’s those of us who believe that this—the election fourteen months from today has the potential—I’d actually argue, the likelihood—to be a truly consequential election, arguably the most in our lifetime. We’re only a year apart in age. What would it take—what exhausts this reserve on your part? ...Mattis responded: "Well, there will come a time when I speak out on strategic issues, policy issues. That I do not have a question about. ... When the time’s right to speak out about policy or strategy, I’ll speak out." Apparently that time has come.
Gen. Mattis has released a statement to The Atlantic attacking Trump for his supposed use of military troops to quash the ongoing protests. (You can also read the full text at NPR). I would note that, as of this time, Trump has only deployed federal troops in the federal jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, which renders Mattis's arguments moot.
In any event, Mattis makes a handful of specific points:
- First, he contends that we should be supporting the protesters and ignoring the rioting and looting. Specifically, he writes: "The words 'Equal Justice Under Law' are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers."
- Second, he faults Pres. Trump for his "photo op" where he held up a Bible. Mattis states:
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.
- Third, he argues that (contrary to the Insurrection Act, I might add) "[a]t home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors." He continues:
Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
- Fourth, he resorts to Reductio ad Hitlerum and compares Pres. Trump to the Nazis; and then, in the same breath, suggests that the American people unite against the President. Mattis notes that before the Normandy invasions, troops were reminded that "The Nazi slogan for destroying us...was 'Divide and Conquer.' Our American answer is 'In Union there is Strength.'" Mattis then goes on to state:
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. ...
I don't know what planet Mattis has been living on, but I remember a certain president thatreignedheld office during the period January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017 who divided the American people and subverted government institutions at every turn. Where were Mattis's harsh words at that time?
- Fifth, he hints at renewing impeachment proceedings or, perhaps, more. After telling us that "we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square," he urges that "[w]e must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution."
- Finally, he argues that we need to return to
the leftward march of the country"the original path of our founding ideals" in order to be "admired and respected at home and abroad."
I also find it revealing that Mattis insists that Trump should not intervene to restore order because that is the right and duty of state and local officials, while at the same time blaming Trump for protests arising from states' and local governments' exercise of their police powers--i.e., supposed police abuse of blacks--over which Trump has no control. Abuses, moreover, that have come at the hands of local governments controlled for decades by Democrats.
But just as Brutus did not act alone, Mattis also is part of a cabal. Former general John Allen penned a piece for Foreign Policy in which he similarly warns that "[t]he slide of the United States into illiberalism may well have begun on June 1, 2020. Remember the date. It may well signal the beginning of the end of the American experiment." You may remember Gen. Allen for his enlightened views about gun ownership. Just last August, Allen wrote that "[g]un violence in America has become a national security emergency," contended that "disaffected white men ... [are] an immediate and growing national security threat," and urged greater restrictions on owning AR and AK style rifles, as well as limiting the ownership of body armor. He noted that "[i]n just the past week, at least 36 people lost their lives and 50 more were wounded across four separate mass shooting incidents," and stated:
If 36 people were killed in a single week by al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, or any of the other terrorist groups I have fought against in my career, any president—to include the present one—would be ordering U.S. troops onto foreign soil to root out the threat. These jihadist groups radicalize their followers to hate, and to act on their hate by destroying entire communities and peoples. Yet somehow when this same kind of threat comes from within, we are unable to mobilize our considerable resources and potential to address it meaningfully.
Sure sounds like Allen wanted "boots on the ground" to fight "disaffected white men." But not "disaffected black men" because they have supposedly been subject to "systemic racism and inequality, a historic absence of respect, and a denial of justice. All of these factors are centuries old and deeply engrained in an American society that systematically delivers white privilege at the expense of people of color." He has also written about combating so-called right-wing extremism in a military fashion:
The country now confronts a national security emergency on par with the Islamic State threat. It demands moral clarity and a call from the Oval Office directing all assets of the federal government to develop a comprehensive, long-term campaign to protect all Americans. If the president will not act, then Congress and state and local governments must instead. The matter is too urgent to wait for new national leadership — at stake is nothing less than the protection of the American people and our way of life.
Turning back to the Foreign Policy editorial, Allen continues:
The president and members of his administration seem bent on ensuring that the so-called antifa—or anti-fascist—movement is fully on display as a principal reason for the violence. To deal with antifa, the president even tweeted that he intended to designate the group a terrorist organization—never mind that he has no authority to designate any domestic movement as such. Those of us who’ve looked closely at homegrown violent extremism do, in fact, agree that a domestic terrorism statute should exist. And were such a statute to come into being, the obvious targets for designation as domestic terrorists are, first and foremost, violent white supremacist groups and individuals who provide material assistance to these groups.
Whoa. Sounds like Allen wants to engage in his own polar bear hunting. Allen goes on to say that even if antifa is involved (as if that is any question), their actions are excusable, writing:
And even if antifa is found to fit the statute as well, let me be clear: White supremacists have murdered, lynched, tortured, terrorized, oppressed, and discriminated against black Americans from the beginning of the idea of America. They have killed black Americans by the thousands, often in the most horrific ways imaginable. Far more damage to the United States has come from these terrorists—fascists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis, all feeling newly empowered today—than those who have opposed them.
The rest of his piece is a rant about Trump holding up a Bible, and how inappropriate it is (even suggesting that it somehow violates the separation of church and state--Allen obviously is not a constitutional scholar), although he does not criticize Nancy Pelosi for reading from a Bible when responding to Trump.
Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, reportedly is also trying to undermine Pres. Trump's authority by as Commander-in-Chief by sending a leader to "to top military leaders that armed forces will continue to protect Americans' right to 'freedom of speech and peaceful assembly,' as the president has called in troops to defend Washington, D.C.," and adding, "'We all committed our lives to the idea that is America,' Milley hand-wrote in as an addition to the bottom of the letter. 'We will stay true to that and the American people.'"
Milley's attempt to distance himself from the president comes as he was recently rebuked by retired generals after he marched out of the White House as part of Trump's entourage for a photo-op in front of St. John's Episcopal Church while dressed in his combat uniform rather.
Another article observes: "The letter represented an extraordinary public statement from the most senior U.S. military officer and was clearly directed at the Commander-in-Chief," and "[c]oming after the words of Mattis, and two other former chairmen of the joint chiefs, it suggested serious misgivings by the military about Trump himself."
To really understand the pure hypocrisy of these generals, I would refer you to a March 18, 2020, article at Newsweek with the title, "Exclusive: Inside The Military's Top Secret Plans If Coronavirus Cripples the Government." It's all about the military's continuity of government plans. Among other things:
To really understand the pure hypocrisy of these generals, I would refer you to a March 18, 2020, article at Newsweek with the title, "Exclusive: Inside The Military's Top Secret Plans If Coronavirus Cripples the Government." It's all about the military's continuity of government plans. Among other things:
When might the military's "emergency authority" be needed? Traditionally, it's thought of after a nuclear device goes off in an American city. But now, planners are looking at military response to urban violence as people seek protection and fight over food. And, according to one senior officer, in the contingency of the complete evacuation of Washington.
Under Defense department regulations, military commanders are authorized to take action on their own – in extraordinary circumstances – where "duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation." The conditions include "large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances" involving "significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property." The Joint Chiefs of Staff codified these rules in October 2018, reminding commanders that they could decide, on their own authority, to "engage temporarily" in military control in circumstances "where prior authorization by the President is impossible" or where local authorities "are unable to control the situation." ...
So Mattis, at the least, was comfortable with the military having its own, independent authority to intervene in the event of civil disturbances involving "wanton destruction of property," but objects if the (current) president were to do the same.
I don't know about Milley, but Allen and Mattis seem to enjoy an extraordinary amount of popularity from those they previously commanded. I find it alarming, therefore, that they would try to undermine the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief and suggest that Trump should be removed from office. Are they suggesting a junta? Because that seems to be the implication.
The Left is pulling out all of the stops - ALL of the stops on this one.
ReplyDeleteIt's their heightened time preference, insisting that they want it now rather than waiting for another 4 years for after Texas has flipped blue.
Delete