Mattis resigns in protest of Trump's cluelessness on NatSec

The White House is of course trying to just call it retirement, but Mattis did a run around them and had the Pentagon release his resignation letter that lays out in detail how he is resigning because he cannot get on board with Trump putting the nation at risk by undermining alliances and laying down for Russia and China and other authoritarian states.

The central passage...

My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.

Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.

This is not a "retirment". This is Mattis sounding the alarm about how Trump is undermining US national security.

That is one interpretation.

However; the US got along just fine for two centuries by NOT entering into the type of entangling alliances that Mattis is championing. All of the "National Security Experts" grew up in the Cold War era NATO paradigm. While Mattis rightly views China as a security threat, most US "allies," particularly the Europeans and the Australians and even the Japanese, have been eager to support China's economy.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:However; the US got along just fine for two centuries by NOT entering into the type of entangling alliances that Mattis is championing.

And then capitalism happened and demanded ever-increasing growth and return on investment.

Are you prepared to say goodbye to your trade, Fly?

All of the "National Security Experts" grew up in the Cold War era NATO paradigm. While Mattis rightly views China as a security threat, most US "allies," particularly the Europeans and the Australians and even the Japanese, have been eager to support China's economy.

*Looks at trade statistics for China
*Sees a 250+ billion USD trade deficit in trade with the US in favour of China
*Europe in total: about half that
TFLY logic: Those evil europeans are supporting the chinese economy!
Fly, please stick to topics that do not involve statistics or math. You always come out looking stupid.

(I mean, I get it: How dare theses chinese fellows claim they're communist and be so much better at capitalism than you Americans. It must seem so horribly unfair to you.)

It is true that the USA got along without "entangling alliances" but that was before globalization was truly a thing. Now (depending on which country) internal economic or political crises can have massive effects on the economies (and therefore politics and policies) of countries around the world. The first time that was really felt and commonly recognized was the great depression (which was exacerbated -badly- by isolationist and economic protectionist policies; e.g. massively increased tariffs/import duties).

The isolationism you champion does not work in the modern world given the efficiency of shipping, the advantages of economic specialization, and speed of communication.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:That is one interpretation.

However; the US got along just fine for two centuries by NOT entering into the type of entangling alliances that Mattis is championing.

To put it simply: USA do not have enough superiority to maintain a "an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values". The world geopolitical balance changes too much, with China becoming the rival superpower. It is simply impossible for USA to maintain the same level of global influence that they enjoyed in 1990s and 2000s.

The current situation is much close to Cold War-era, with each side having its own geopolitical block where her influence is dominant, and almost no influence among the rival block.

It seems that Mattis just fell victim of paradigm change; he seemingly could not grasp that the situation changes, and old "Pax America" concept are impossible to maintain. That current situation favored close alliances with nations, directly linked with USA by common interests, instead of loose collection of "traditional allies", like Western Europe (which basically have no conflict with China, and thus clearly would not help USA to oppose China).

Donnachaidh wrote:It is true that the USA got along without "entangling alliances" but that was before globalization was truly a thing. Now (depending on which country) internal economic or political crises can have massive effects on the economies (and therefore politics and policies) of countries around the world. The first time that was really felt and commonly recognized was the great depression (which was exacerbated -badly- by isolationist and economic protectionist policies; e.g. massively increased tariffs/import duties).

The isolationism you champion does not work in the modern world given the efficiency of shipping, the advantages of economic specialization, and speed of communication.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:That is one interpretation.

However; the US got along just fine for two centuries by NOT entering into the type of entangling alliances that Mattis is championing.

Don't forget that without "Entangling Alliances" there would be no United States in the first place.
(The Revolution was utterly dependant on French Aid)

The E wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:However; the US got along just fine for two centuries by NOT entering into the type of entangling alliances that Mattis is championing.

And then capitalism happened and demanded ever-increasing growth and return on investment.

Are you prepared to say goodbye to your trade, Fly?

All of the "National Security Experts" grew up in the Cold War era NATO paradigm. While Mattis rightly views China as a security threat, most US "allies," particularly the Europeans and the Australians and even the Japanese, have been eager to support China's economy.

*Looks at trade statistics for China
*Sees a 250+ billion USD trade deficit in trade with the US in favour of China
*Europe in total: about half that
TFLY logic: Those evil europeans are supporting the chinese economy!
Fly, please stick to topics that do not involve statistics or math. You always come out looking stupid.

(I mean, I get it: How dare theses chinese fellows claim they're communist and be so much better at capitalism than you Americans. It must seem so horribly unfair to you.)

The US has been very much into trade since its founding.

China has exploited the competitive advantage of slave labor and minimal environmental regulations.

Trump is the only US President to confront China about trade. It is taking time to redress the trade imbalance.

Dilandu wrote:To put it simply: USA do not have enough superiority to maintain a "an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values". The world geopolitical balance changes too much, with China becoming the rival superpower. It is simply impossible for USA to maintain the same level of global influence that they enjoyed in 1990s and 2000s.

The current situation is much close to Cold War-era, with each side having its own geopolitical block where her influence is dominant, and almost no influence among the rival block.

It seems that Mattis just fell victim of paradigm change; he seemingly could not grasp that the situation changes, and old "Pax America" concept are impossible to maintain. That current situation favored close alliances with nations, directly linked with USA by common interests, instead of loose collection of "traditional allies", like Western Europe (which basically have no conflict with China, and thus clearly would not help USA to oppose China).

Which is why it was stupid to incite acoup in Ukraine to enable expansion of the EU. US should prefer to have Russia as an ally rather than an enemy.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:China has exploited the competitive advantage of slave labor and minimal environmental regulations.

You are so close to a revelation here, it's almost funny that you're never going to get to it.

The E wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:China has exploited the competitive advantage of slave labor and minimal environmental regulations.

You are so close to a revelation here, it's almost funny that you're never going to get to it.

I know.

Here's a hint Fly.

China are the Johnny come lately's to that particular party, though they are doing it with Gusto