Mattis, Democrats, And Civilan Control Of The Military

General James Mattis, Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, is an unusual guy. First, he is someone who Trump seems to respect, listen to, and perhaps even fear. But more importantly, he is a man who has relatively sane ideas about America and its role in the world. He is opposed to the use of torture and does not believe in reneging on the Iran nuclear deal. Although he was reportedly sent in to early retirement by the Obama administration because of lack of support for the Iran deal, the reality seems to have been that he supported the deal itself but was asking hard and difficult questions about what our military stance vis-à-vis Iran would be after the deal was in place. Now, he didn't get the moniker "Mad Dog" for no reason as he has also been known to fly off the handle at times. And his dedication to the changes in the military regarding gays and women is also questionable.

Robert Bateman worked with Mattis in the Pentagon and grew to like and respect him. And Bateman has an interesting take on why Mattis even took this job. He certainly believes Mattis will hate the job, especially having to deal with all the civilian flaks Trump will force him to work with in the Department of Defense. But he believes that Mattis is living up to the code of his 40 years in the US Marine Corp. He is essentially doing everything in his power to protect those serving under him. Bateman believes that eventually Mattis will get to a point where he tells Trump some truths he is unprepared to accept. Says Bateman, "He [Mattis] knows that this will not end well, but he's doing it in order to preserve what he can of the military for the long-term, despite Trump. And he knows that he scares Trump. And so, he is essentially offering himself up as a shield. He knows his history, and he believes in civil control of the military. But in this case, and I suspect in only such a unique case as that of Trump, Mattis may have reached the conclusion that the nation's armed forces need protection from their own commander." That's a pretty sobering comment.

That leads us to New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's decision to stand on the principle of civilian control of the military. In order to served as SECDEF, Mattis will need a waiver from Congress in order to hold that post, as military personnel are now currently barred from serving in that role for seven years after they leave military service. Mattis only retired three years ago. Gillibrand has stated, "While I deeply respect General Mattis’s service, I will oppose a waiver. Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule." Gillibrand currently sits on the Armed Services committee. With the GOP in control of the Senate, cabinet secretaries will have no problem getting confirmed as those positions are not subject to the filibuster. The waiver for Mattis, on the other hand, is subject to a filibuster, meaning united opposition from Democrats could derail his nomination.

While I respect and understand Gillibrand's concern about Trump and the Republicans once again destroying another governing norm, especially one as important as civilian control of the military, Democrats should be leery about blocking the waiver for Mattis and therefore his nomination. Mattis appears to be someone who has relatively sane viewpoints about the use of American military might. He is a man who it appears Trump listens to and perhaps even fears a little. And he will certainly be willing to speak truth to Trump, whatever the consequences for his own career. America will need as many of these kinds of people near Trump as we can possibly get. And you can be sure that someone far worse will be nominated if Mattis does not get the job. Hopefully, Gillibrand is staking out this early position of opposition in an attempt to get some clarity or even concessions from Mattis on supporting the recent changes in makeup of the military and especially on getting military leaders to combat sexual assault in the services. Gillibrand has been leading that cause for years and her bill to move sexual assault prosecutions to military lawyers failed earlier this year.

Chuck Schumer has been notably silent on Mattis, which leads me to believe he will not be supporting a filibuster. Democrats will have plenty of need to use the filibuster early and often during the Trump administration and civilian control of the military is an important principle to enforce. But, in this case, discretion may be the better part of valor for Democrats.