Obama fires CENTCOM CG General James Mattis without even a phone call

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KalashnikovMarine**

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-fires-top-general-without-even-phone-call_697744.html

President Barack Obama fired General James Mattis, the head of Central Command, without even calling the general to let him know he was being replaced.

"I am told that General Mattis was travelling and in a meeting when an aide passed him a note telling him that the Pentagon had announced his replacement as head of Central Command. It was news to him -- he hadn't received a phone call or a heads-up from anyone at the Pentagon or the White House," Thomas E. Ricks reports.

In another post, Ricks says Mattis was fired because:

Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way -- not because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, "And then what?"

Sounds like the General did his job and got canned for it. Gotta love it when civilians stop Generals from letting the tactical and strategic reality from getting in the way of political desirability.

And no there's no way he's cheated on his wife. You have to be married for that, and Mattis loves on warfare.

**Crablezworth**

Happens right after the Israeli elections... hmmmm

**Hordini**

That's strange. I thought he planning on retiring soon anyway?

**KalashnikovMarine**

Also worth noting that in the Marine Corps which may as well be a religion in many cases, James Mattis is a patron saint of warfare who can do no wrong. I wouldn't be exaggerating to say he's the most popular commanding general in Marine Corps history since Chesty Puller was called on to the next dimension of combat engagements because he was too high a level for little ol'terra. There's plenty of call within the ranks across all ranks to put him up for the big job as commandant, and if it was up to a popular vote across the Corps he would have had it years ago.

So while this is a pretty serious snub, it goes across the entire Corps. Obama literally thumbed his nose at the entire Marine Corps with this one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hordini wrote:
That's strange. I thought he planning on retiring soon anyway?

No confirmation on that from any of my sources, including buddies at CENTCOM.

**NuggzTheNinja**

This is what happens when Americans start voting for whoever will give them the biggest entitlement handout. Sad, really.

**chaos0xomega**

Donilon (and presumably by extension Pres. Obama) has just fethed the entire general officer corps, if not the officer corps, for decades to come. Anyone with aspirations of wearing stars one day is paying attention and seeing what happens to good officers that do what they should be doing and are dedicated to service rather than their careers. We are heading towards another hollow force ladies and gentlemen, the good news is that a second coming of the hollow force likely means a second coming of John Boyd and military reformists, hopefully this time they are more successful.

**whembly**

There's gotta be more to this story...

From what I've heard, Mattis is as good as it gets.

**chaos0xomega**

From what I hear, Donilon is about as bad as it gets... can the national security advisor even fire a general? Doesnt sound right to me, though he probably pulled a wormtongue in any case...

**Byte**

I'm not surprised at all.

**Ouze**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Gotta love it when civilians stop Generals from letting the tactical and strategic reality from getting in the way of political desirability.

You seem to have fallen into a common mindset for military types, in thinking the judgement of the military has the final call on military matters. While that would certainly make warfare substantially more exigent, this is a freely elected civilian government. The military is a tool of our foreign policy and is subordinate to those "civilians" political strategies, for better or for worse. Those people he was arguing with are his bosses.

To put it differently, I'm sure you read Starship Troopers, yes?

War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how--or why--he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people--"older and wiser heads," as they say--supply the control. Which is as it should be. That's the best answer I can give you. If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you--then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

**Hordini**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Hordini wrote:
That's strange. I thought he planning on retiring soon anyway?

No confirmation on that from any of my sources, including buddies at CENTCOM.

I don't have any inside sources, just going from the article I read the other day here. It's only from a few days ago and said he was planning on retiring in the spring.

**chaos0xomega**

Ouze- firing people who disagree with you is a very poor leadership trait. Surrounding yourself with yes-men is one of the worst things any leader can do.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Ouze wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Gotta love it when civilians stop Generals from letting the tactical and strategic reality from getting in the way of political desirability.

You seem to have fallen into a common mindset for military types, in thinking the judgement of the military has the final call on military matters. While that would certainly make warfare substantially more exigent, this is a freely elected civilian government. The military is a tool of our foreign policy and is subordinate to those "civilians" political strategies, for better or for worse. Those people he was arguing with are his bosses.

To put it differently, I'm sure you read Starship Troopers, yes?

War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how--or why--he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people--"older and wiser heads," as they say--supply the control. Which is as it should be. That's the best answer I can give you. If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you--then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Nor am I saying he should tell them what and how to do, or that we have or should have the final call. However a 4 star General, the commanding general of the area of operations in question, the EXPERT strategically and tactically speaking on the area with a whole passel of professional experts speaking to the politicians and other assorted useless fethheads in Washington who couldn't organize a paint ball game without managing to die somehow and forcing them to think past the kneejerk "Duuuuuuuuurrrr let's go smack them there Iranians!" and realize holy gak! This is the real world and taking military action against a group can have long reaching consequences. Playing the short term's all well and good but someone has to remind the decision makers that there are more concerns on a longer time scale to consider. The Iranians littering the gulf with cheap mines for example and affecting free navigation of the seas for example is a very real possibility.

To quote the article:

I cringe when I hear about civilians shutting down strategic discussions. That is exactly what the Bush administration did in late 2002 when generals persisted in questioning whether it was wise to invade Iraq. That led to what some might call a fiasco.

Hordini wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Hordini wrote:
That's strange. I thought he planning on retiring soon anyway?

No confirmation on that from any of my sources, including buddies at CENTCOM.

I don't have any inside sources, just going from the article I read the other day here. It's only from a few days ago and said he was planning on retiring in the spring.

There you go then, I just haven't anything about it.

**Ouze**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Ouze- firing people who disagree with you is a very poor leadership trait. Surrounding yourself with yes-men is one of the worst things any leader can do.

It's not a binary choice between one and the other. I'll agree that surrounding yourself with yes-men is bad if you'll agree that questioning the decisions of your boss can rise to the level of insubordination and undermining them. I don't know much about this guy, I'm speaking in generalities, more to the mindset that "how dare civilians tell generals how to run a war", with that actually being sort of how this whole deal works. Even if their wisdom on these matters is poor or nonexistent, the civilians are in charge.

**nels1031**

Reminds me of when G.W. Bush canned General Eric Shinseki for asking the wrong questions right before the Iraq Invasion in 2003.

2003
Rumsfeld : "You want how many troops for an occupation!? Thats nowhere near to the number I came up with!"
Shinseki: "If that number isn't well into several hundred thousand, we should think twice about the occupation."
Rumsfeld: "Well, you go to war with the Army you have, not the army you want."
Shinseki: "You should reconsider."
Rumsfeld : "Have your resignation typed up by COB tomorrow."

2007
"Surge" that finally increased troop levels to a level somewhat closer to Shinseki's number, but not before 2000ish KIA, 50k wounded, Iraq is broken and in midst of civil war, millions displaced and thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians dead.

I'm all for civilian control and oversight of the military, but there has to be some sort of mechanism in place for the Joint Chiefs to say "Hold up a second, you're jeopardizing American lives."

Iran here we come, I guess?

**chaos0xomega**

Civilian control of the military doesnt mean that civilians make strategic decisions, it means military leaders are answerable to.civilians and subject to civilian oversight.

**KalashnikovMarine**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Civilian control of the military doesnt mean that civilians make strategic decisions, it means military leaders are answerable to.civilians and subject to civilian oversight.

Well actually it does in the "Go here and screw these people up!" sense.

ROE and other dumb things like it, and useless missions that do nothing for overall mission accomplishment are the other contributions of civilians to the armed forces. It worked great in 'Nam too. Rolling thunder any one?

**AustonT**

GEN Mattis is the undisputed living avatar of war. He is my personal hero, and I dispise jarheads with a passion reserved for interservice rivalry and crying babies.
The fact that no one even gave him a courtesy ring is probably the biggest surprise to me. Even McCrystal got a phone call and he openly dispised Obama (and the feeling was mutual I'm sure).

**nels1031**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Civilian control of the military doesnt mean that civilians make strategic decisions, it means military leaders are answerable to.civilians and subject to civilian oversight.

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

But when that civilian control countermands or disregards the leaders who make these strategic decisions for political expediency, like the example above, (which did happen, but not word for word obviously) there should be something in place to contest it.

**whembly**

NELS1031 wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Civilian control of the military doesnt mean that civilians make strategic decisions, it means military leaders are answerable to.civilians and subject to civilian oversight.

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

But when that civilian control countermands or disregards the leaders who make these strategic decisions for political expediency, like the example above, (which did happen, but not word for word obviously) there should be something in place to contest it.

Fortunately... it's called the voters.

**dogma**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Donilon (and presumably by extension Pres. Obama) has just fethed the entire general officer corps, if not the officer corps, for decades to come. Anyone with aspirations of wearing stars one day is paying attention and seeing what happens to good officers that do what they should be doing and are dedicated to service rather than their careers.

This isn't exactly the first time that high-ranking military office has been relieved of command for political, or administrative reasons.

Ouze wrote:

It's not a binary choice between one and the other. I'll agree that surrounding yourself with yes-men is bad if you'll agree that questioning the decisions of your boss can rise to the level of insubordination and undermining them.

Exactly.

**Ahtman**

If the loss of one Officer 'feths the general officer corps', than there is a problem greater than one man being let go.

I'd be willing to be there is more this story then we know as well. Afterall, the article is based on 'well what I heard was...' and no statements from any of the actual actors.

**dogma**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

ROE and other dumb things like it, and useless missions that do nothing for overall mission accomplishment are the other contributions of civilians to the armed forces. It worked great in 'Nam too. Rolling thunder any one?

You can pretty much thank Douglas MacArthur for the obtrusive oversight in Vietnam.

**nels1031**

whembly wrote:
NELS1031 wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Civilian control of the military doesnt mean that civilians make strategic decisions, it means military leaders are answerable to.civilians and subject to civilian oversight.

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

But when that civilian control countermands or disregards the leaders who make these strategic decisions for political expediency, like the example above, (which did happen, but not word for word obviously) there should be something in place to contest it.

Fortunately... it's called the voters.

SecDef is an unelected position. Sure, voter pressure can force a resignation, like what happened with Rumsfeld, but by then the damage was done. I'm talking about contesting something immediately between the SecDef and the Joint Chiefs, away from politics. Think a "challenge flag" that the coaches throw in Football, that forces the referee to re-examine their viewpoint and make a new decision. Thats just my overly simplified and offtopic idea.

**d-usa**

Like the congressional hearings that get called everytime a politician on a comitte wants to lick the boots of the voters in their district?

**chaos0xomega**

AustonT wrote:
GEN Mattis is the undisputed living avatar of war. He is my personal hero, and I dispise jarheads with a passion reserved for interservice rivalry and crying babies.
The fact that no one even gave him a courtesy ring is probably the biggest surprise to me. Even McCrystal got a phone call and he openly dispised Obama (and the feeling was mutual I'm sure).

I think Boyd has the honor of being the avatar of war considering he taught the Marines the art of maneuver warfare... the Army to a lesser extent too, though they'll never fess up to it. Not bad for an air Force fighter pilot, eh?

This isn't exactly the first time that high-ranking military office has been relieved of command for political, or administrative reasons.

This is high profile and of a different nature. AFAIK he didnt give an interview to some rag about how much he hates the President. From the outside in he did nothing wrong whereas others did A LOT wrong and their removal set a GOOD example for others to follow.

If the loss of one Officer 'feths the general officer corps', than there is a problem greater than one man being let go.

Yes, its called the Pentagon and it is rife with careerism but has been improving, slightly, since the 80s. This could be a huge step back considering who just got axed...

**Hordini**

Ahtman wrote:
If the loss of one Officer 'feths the general officer corps', than there is a problem greater than one man being let go.

I'd be willing to be there is more this story then we know as well. Afterall, the article is based on 'well what I heard was...' and no statements from any of the actual actors.

Yeah, and if he was planning on retiring in the spring anyway, it doesn't really change much in the long run.

**chaos0xomega**

Hordini wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
If the loss of one Officer 'feths the general officer corps', than there is a problem greater than one man being let go.

I'd be willing to be there is more this story then we know as well. Afterall, the article is based on 'well what I heard was...' and no statements from any of the actual actors.

Yeah, and if he was planning on retiring in the spring anyway, it doesn't really change much in the long run.

If he really was going to retire in the spring dont you find it odd that the administration would sack him now instead of waiting a couple more months for him to go on his own? "Something is rotten in the state of denmark...."

**Ouze**

AustonT wrote:
The fact that no one even gave him a courtesy ring is probably the biggest surprise to me. Even McCrystal got a phone call and he openly dispised Obama (and the feeling was mutual I'm sure).

That also seems... questionable, about this story. I suspect that in a few days the actual story will come out, and there will be more to it. But we'll see.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NELS1031 wrote:
I'm all for civilian control and oversight of the military, but there has to be some sort of mechanism in place for the Joint Chiefs to say "Hold up a second, you're jeopardizing American lives."

As Whembley said, there is - the voters, via their duly elected officials.

**chaos0xomega**

Except the duly elected officials are the cause of most of the problems, and the voters can only do something about it during election years.