Exit of Mattis, Last of Trump’s ‘Generals,’ Removes Voice of Moderation
The Wall Street Journal — Dec 21st 2018
He called them “my generals.”
President Trump, a newly installed commander in chief with no foreign-policy or military experience, in late 2016 and early 2017 handpicked the group of decorated military men to guide his administration through a challenging global landscape.
Jim Mattis, John Kelly and H.R. McMaster became not only advisers to the president, they were viewed by many as the voices of experience in a White House that was known for its turbulence.
Two years into this administration, all three men have left or are parting ways with the president, with Defense Secretary Mattis announcing Thursday he will resign.
Their departure reflects Mr. Trump is less inclined to heed the cautionary advice the advisers sometimes offered. For the past several months, Mr. Trump has been advised by more hawkish national-security personnel he has promoted, such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a West Point graduate, Army veteran and former Central Intelligence Agency director. New national security adviser John Bolton, who replaced Mr. McMaster, was an architect of the 2003 Iraq war and a well-known foreign-policy hawk who once advocated for confronting Tehran’s nuclear threat by bombing Iran.
More broadly, the shift reflects the assertion of the president’s “America First” foreign policy, senior White House aides say: a skepticism of overseas engagements, disdain for allies that he sees benefiting from America’s vast military spending, and a combination of overture and military muscle for rivals and foes such as China and Russia.
Mr. Mattis made the difference clear in his resignation letter.
“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,” Mr. Mattis wrote. “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 our solidarity of alliances.”
He added: “You have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours.”
His resignation comes less than two weeks after the president announced Mr. Kelly’s departure—his original homeland security secretary, who was later brought in as chief of staff to impose more discipline in the freewheeling White House.
When President Trump initially picked the military men for key posts, he was out of favor with a large section of the national-security establishment. In 2016, shortly after Mr. Trump was named the Republican nominee, dozens of the nation’s most senior Republican national-security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, signed a letter saying they would not vote for Mr. Trump.
“We are convinced he would be a dangerous president,” they wrote, “and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”
To counter those sentiments and reassure his critics, he chose Gen. Mattis—whom he frequently referred to by his nickname, “Mad Dog.” They were also a symbol of his commitment to military families and a way to demonstrate American military might in the face of global adversaries.
Unlike former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a general who secured a place in the president’s inner circle during the campaign, Gens. Mattis and Kelly had no prior relationship with Mr. Trump. Nor did Mr. Flynn’s replacement, Gen. McMaster. Mr. Flynn was forced to leave the White House early on and later pleaded guilty to lying to FBI investigators looking into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Gens. Mattis and Kelly recommended each other for defense secretary during the transition. Both men served in Iraq around the same time and have a relationship dating back over a decade. They quickly formed a tight bond with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and could often be seen huddled together outside the Oval Office before important meetings with Mr. Trump.
Their influence could be seen in most of the president’s early national-security moves, from the reworking of his controversial ban on travel to the U.S. by people from mostly Muslim-majority countries, which the president said was needed for security reasons. The three men and others were instrumental in removing Iraq from the list of nations after arguing for the need to allow translators working with the U.S. military to move about more freely.
Yet, Mr. Trump has shown he can grow impatient with dissent and several of his advisers who have contradicted him did so to their detriment.
Mr. Tillerson was skeptical of the administration’s vow to pull out of the Iran nuclear accord. Mr. Trump’s former economic adviser Gary Cohn resigned over Mr. Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imports from several U.S. allies. When Mr. McMaster publicly aired his concern over Russia’s role in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump was quick to offer a public rebuke.
“General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems,” he tweeted.
At his confirmation hearing in January 2017, Gen. Mattis was grilled by lawmakers about whether he was willing to break with Mr. Trump, particularly on the president’s favorable comments about Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. He obliged, calling Russia the “principal threat” to U.S. security.
He was confirmed by the Senate. 98-1, with Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York the only “no” vote.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) had sought assurances from Gen. Mattis that he would advocate for his views “frankly and forcefully,” and stand up to others within the administration when he disagreed, something he promised to do “on every issue.”
“I am very glad to hear that,” Ms. Warren said with a laugh. “We are counting on you.”
In his resignation letter, Mr. Mattis delivered his trademark frankness. He urged Mr. Trump to take a “resolute and unambiguous” approach to countries whose interests are at odds with those of the U.S., including Russia and China, which “want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model.”
Comment