There is only one word that jars in what is otherwise a very elegant rebuke. It is ‘lethality’: improving ‘readiness and lethality’ just does not seem something to boast about. Readiness, yes. But the whole point of armed forces is surely (a) not to have to use them (b) if they must be used to use them effectively, to defeat the enemy with minimum cost of ‘lives and treasure’ (on both sides). There are many measures of effectiveness, here, and ‘lethality’ is but one of them, surely. Why he chose to boast about the improved ability to kill people rather than be more effecvie at achieving military and political strategic objectives, seems odd.
No doubt some will be along to tell me you can’t have wars without killing people. Whatever. You can have effective military actions without killing people. Yet he chose to focus on this.
I dont like trump but am happy we are leaving those two insane conflicts. They were wrekless, expensive, and illegal. I’m surprised the BB gaggle is so agains it. Oh wait, i’ts because teams are more important than principles…
I believe the point of “lethality” here is that when you do get into a shooting war you don’t miss. Mattis seems to be the kind of guy who doesn’t mince words when it comes to the realities of war.
Mattis acquired the nickname “Mad Dog” – a moniker that is not used by people who know him, friends say – after he made comments such as “be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet” and “a good soldier follows orders, but a true warrior wears his enemy’s skin like a poncho.” https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/james-mattis-mad-dog-nickname/index.html
There are many things in war that it is critical to not miss, that do not involve killing people.
I do take your point about him not mincing words but saying “readiness and effectiveness” would have come over better from a Secretary of Defense, than “lethality”. When the ‘political’ head of the military is focused on killing, as the measure of effectiveness that is uppermost in the mind, guess what the focus will be on in the field, irrespective of what is the most effective approach for whatever the situation is.
I do take your point that when you need to kill you need to be sure you can do so effectively, and it’s hardly worth arguing about, but I just felt that that term egregiously detracted from what was otherwise quite a statesmanlike letter.
Mattis has, in fact, been tied to some of the worst war crimes of the Iraq invasion. It was he who gave the order to attack the village of Mukaradeeb in April 2004 — a decision he would later admit took him only 30 seconds to approve — which killed 42 civilians, including 13 children, who were attending a wedding there. “I don’t have to apologize for the conduct of my men,” he told reporters.
Six months later, in November 2004, it was Mattis who planned the Marine assault on Fallujah that reduced that city to rubble, forced 200,000 residents from their homes, and resulted, according to the Red Cross, in at least 800 civilian deaths.
Man I have to chuckle when ever someone says “illegal war”. LOL. What? War is war. it is above laws and government because the purpose is to generally destroy the laws and government - or take over them. It makes it sound like some how some wars are more legitimate. They pretty much all are superfluous and could have been avoided at some point. I guess one could argue when one participates in wars defensively they are less evil. But if that is the case, the US was supporting people who were locals who were defending themselves from Assad’s government forces. But then, as you point out, some of those people would probably be as bad as Assad if they were in power. But as others pointed out, some of therm would be better.
It’s like the world it a complicated place and who is good and bad - what is right and wrong - is sometimes hard to discern.
just a reminder someday there is going to be a trump presidential museum with his tweets on display
and millions are going to happily visit it, yeah the world is that messed up
this country is being destroyed and this president is just a reflection and result of your neighbors spitefulness
Individual-1 will hopefully be gone by next summer but the nightmare of this administration, it’s judicial placements, etc. are going to haunt us for decades because your neighbors are going to vote in the next one to make him seem tame in comparison
The Stalinists turned on their anarchist and other socialist allies in the Spanish civil war. it ended up with the Stalinists sentencing their former allies to death in absentia (including George Orwell, who managed to escape because he was warned in advance).
There’s been quite a few times in the past, say, decade or two where wars have been fought over illegal premises, such as the US pretending that there are weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to steal oil. That doesn’t make me chuckle, really.
You man false premises. Which the US wasn’t alone in believing that bad intel.
Most wars start with “You have what I want, I am going to take it.” Though I am still unclear what the reasoning behind the Iraq war was. If I had to guess it was a naive idea that removing Saddam would bring a wave of democracy into the region. Sounds OK on paper, but then someone didn’t do the research on the effects of tipping that first domino.
I mean name a war that was started with a noble plan in mind. It is hard for me to think of one, but I bet you could find an example. Civil War - Fuck you, we want slaves. WWI fuck you, we are going to declare war, take your shit, and be home by Christmas. WWII, fuck you, we want all this land for a 3rd Riecht.
I guess wars for independence you could say had a noble reasoning - but even that, one could argue, could have been accomplished through non-violent means.
And the wars themselves don’t make me chuckle. It is the idea that wars are legal or illegal. They are outside the realm of laws. “You can’t invade me, we made a law against it. An international organization has condemned it.”
“Sorry, tanks can’t read.”
OK - I see your comparison. Only I don’t think Trump is nearly as cunning as Stalin. Certainly not as ruthless.
