The D2D Guide To General James Mattis

Retired Marine Corps General James Mattis has been selected by President Elect Trump for Secretary of Defense. That's a lot of official titles right there. General Mattis still has some hurdles to overcome, including getting a waiver from Congress to bypass the National Security Act of 1947. This shouldn't prove too difficult, as Congress granted waivers for that within years of the Act passing.

For me, this has been the first and only cabinet pick by Trump that is remotely acceptable. I'm not special in that sense, that seems to be the running thought of most Americans. But there has been some pushback, mostly because of quotes attributed to General Mattis. Even someone I am a big fan of, Robert Reich made a worried statement on facebook about the pick.

Off the bat, I understand why there is pushback on the pick. First, and likely the biggest reason for the pushback is how horrible virtually every other pick of Trump's has been. In my personal opinion, a democracy lasts only as long as you can keep money from getting infused into politics. The more money that gets put in, the less avenues average citizens have to vent pressure. All governments need pressure valves where regular Joes can let off steam, make noticeable changes, and feel like part of the system and not a subject under it. Someone who doesn't feel like part of a society will either knowingly, or unknowingly work to destroy it. It's human nature. With the long list of billionaires and millionaires that are taking over our executive branch, I am worried along with the rest of you that money will become even a larger part of politics than it was before, and it is hugely incorporated into politics already.

I know, I know. How could we know Hillary would have been any better? I honestly doubt it would have been better. I was right there with the rest of you complaining about her ties to wall street. But that thought doesn't mean I can't complain about what is actually happening now rather than compare it to what would have theoretically happened. Hillary is gone. Unless the DNC is dumber than even I think, she won't be a contender for president again. We need to deal with what is really happening.

But on to the point of this post. General Mattis has some crazy quotes floating out there. We are already a warmongering country. One of the few bipartisan agreements is we need to stop being the world police. How can we be comfortable with a Secretary of Defense that has quotes about loving fighting and killing?

I served under Mattis when I was with 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines and he commanded I MEF. Of course, I was but a filthy Lance Corporal/Corporal, so it's not like him and I were drinking buddies. I managed to get a handshake in with him once. Sadly, he was already out of challenge coins since he was being swamped by Marines. I'm still a little salty about that. But I personally benefitted from working under Mattis. So I am not exactly an unbiased source, but I will do my best.

So why do military and especially Marines love him so much? There is a number of reasons. First, he was an intellectual in a branch that is not exactly known for intellectualism. General Mattis was well known for being an educated and intelligent man. He had a library of over 6000 books that he took with him from post to post from ancient Roman philosophies to modern military tactics. Reading and Marines go together like oil and water, so this is particularly amazing.

But what about those violent and antagonistic quotes?!? Talking about loving to kill people isn't exactly a hallmark of intellectualism. One of his quotes is:

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”

Not exactly politically correct. But there is a couple things you have to remember. First, one of the horrors of our deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan is seeing the horrible treatment of women and girls in those two countries. We've seen women getting the hell beat out of them in public. We've seen little girls rigged with bombs because they were already a burden on their family not being a boy. I've had to clean the remains of a 6 year old girl (guessing her age) off the side of my truck after her parents and Imam rigged her to blow up. She ran away from us, likely because she knew she was sent to kill us. They still detonated her as she ran.

So a General talking about these horrors isn't being callous. He is just speaking from experience that many Americans thankfully don't have. I personally never wanted to kill anyone. When I went to Iraq, it was to try and prevent killing, unless absolutely necessary. My fellow detainee guard and I actually got threatened with NJPs for not killing people, and instead physically restraining them at the risk of our own lives. I have no love of killing people. But I absolutely understand where General Mattis is coming from with that statement. It's not pretty. It's not PC. But it speaks to his men who have these experiences.

There are other quotes by Mattis that aren't getting much air time. But they are supremely important to understanding who this man is:

“You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”

Challenging Marines to think before they fight is a big part of General Mattis. He led the charge on nurturing Marine's minds as much as their bodies. You won't find many leaders in the military who harp on intelligence in their ranks. Mattis was one of the few, and we loved him for it.

“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

This is another quote to show how violent and antagonistic Mattis is. But that is only to people who weren't deployed. As Marines, we have been trained for literally centuries to never be complacent. Complacency kills is painted all around bases in Iraq. We don't know who is out to get us, especially in wars like these where the enemy isn't in uniform, working in ranks. So for us Marines, the "have a plan" part is just business. But the be polite and professional part is new, and different. Under Mattis, we were instructed to not be assholes to Iraqis. Treat these people with respect and politeness isn't how wars are normally fought, but it was the best advice we could have been given. Iraqis had been demoralized and beaten down for decades. Having the strength we did, while still being polite and respectful was a totally new idea. In Iraq and a lot of the world, people who had strength got to do whatever they wanted, and they took advantage of that. A force as strong as the USMC, and still being respectful was a new experience for them, and honestly how all wars should be fought. As Winston Churchill said "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite". Stopping a fight before it happens is more important than winning after you caused it.

“I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”

Another antagonistic quote. But again, and as usual, context is key. This was part of a talk with Iraqi military leaders. As I said above, Iraq had been run with system of "whoever has the strength, makes the rules". Mattis' quote is reminding them strongly that HE had the strength now. A big issue in Iraq is that Iraqis had been trained into being submissive, subversive, or being horrifically murdered. It had been an incredibly dangerous time in Iraq for decades. Saddam's regime had killed an estimated 10% of the Iraqi population. And Iraqis laughed at us for such a low estimate. For comparison's sake, the civil war was the US's highest casualty war, and we lost less than 2% of our population during it. You either hid and lied in Saddam's regime, or you died. Mattis (and all of us) had to deal with rightfully suspicious Iraqis, many who had spent the majority (or entirety) of their lives being beaten down. Mattis had to show strength, and had to be honest here. If those Iraqi commanders had turned on him, he would have had to kill them. It's the nature of doing business. He put it to them straight, not because he wanted to kill them, but because he didn't want to.

“You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”

This quote is important to me, because we are living in a country where information is getting more and more available, but facts are becoming less and less important to us. Our politicians don't even bother with being factual anymore. They know the people who support them won't care if they lied, and the people who don't won't care if they told the truth. Preach to the choir is how we do business now.

Mattis I believe would reject that as SecDef. He is very much a man who values the truth over what he wants to hear. And to be honest, he is the only one in the incoming administration that seems to value that. Being honest and being effective are big parts of who Mattis is. We've needed that for a long time, and it'll be especially valuable now.

Another big part of why you are seeing waves of military and exmilitary supporting him is because he supported us. Mattis put his troops first throughout his career. He even once pulled duty for a Marine so that young guy could spend Christmas with his family. His explanation by General Krulak: “So I said to him, ‘Jim, what are you standing the duty for?’ “And he said, ‘Sir, I looked at the duty roster for today and there was a young major who had it who is married and had a family; and so I’m a bachelor, I thought why should the major miss out on the fun of having Christmas with his family, and so I took the duty for him.’ ". Find me the time Trump or Hillary took over a job for one of their workers on a holiday. I'll wait.

That is why servicemen and servicewomen support him and would follow him into hell. He was a man who didn't demand respect, he earned it. We loved him because he was one of us, not above us. He worked his way up from infantry ranks all the way to General. He knew what life was like as one of us. We learned the hard way what it was like having a General who did not know what it was like as a front line troop when we got General Amos as Commandant. He was the antithesis of Mattis. A man who threw his troops under the bus to protect himself. In other words, a man who emulated US politicians. Few Marines would follow Amos to a Dairy Queen, even if he was buying.

One thing about General Mattis that should make my liberal readers more comfortable is that I don't think Trump understands exactly what he is getting with him. Trump was confident he could force the military to obey even blatantly unlawful orders. He wouldn't even be able to control his own SecDef if he tried it. Mattis would absolutely stand up against that garbage, and what is Trump going to do? Fire the one and only pick that the US is happy about? Can a man who commands far more respect that he ever could? I seriously doubt it. On veterans sites I am already seeing vets asking how many people have to go before Mattis would become president (the answer btw is Mattis would be 6th in line). You think Trump has the grapes to can Mattis for refusing to administer orders that break our laws and treaties? I highly doubt it.

What Marines Dream About

If you were worried about the ignorant things Trump said he'd do with the military, than I highly suggest you think about supporting General Mattis. Don't just trust me. Look into the man's life and talk to people who have served under him. Try as I might, I haven't found a single person who has served under him who don't wholeheartedly support him as SecDef. That should speak volumes about who he is.

In summary, if you want a strong military that is intimidating to forces that want to hurt us, Mattis is a great pick. If you want a military that acts justly and professionally, Mattis is a great pick. If you want someone who will stand up for American values when stupid orders come from above, Mattis is a great pick. He's not perfect. He's not an angel. But he is who can do the job, and likely do it the best. I know his quotes might bother some people, but as General Patton said:

“When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can't run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn't fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag. … As for the types of comments I make, sometimes I just, By God, get carried away with my own eloquence.”

I leave you with a letter sent by Mattis to his Marines. Read this, and see if you can understand why he is so beloved.

P.S. That comic above was taken from www.TerminalLance.com. Max is an great artist, motivating person, and a filthy Marine veteran like yours truly. Please take the time to visit his site and appreciate his work.

To Pledge or Not To Pledge

Colin Kaepernick is making headlines by refusing to stand up for the national anthem recently. Not going to lie. When I heard something an NFL player did was making waves, I was bracing myself for something terrible. Did he beat his wife? Did he rape a woman? Did he torture and abuse animals? Did he beat his son in the testicles with a switch? Did he kill some people and get away with it? I shudder to think what could have the nation more embroiled than all of the above incidents did.

Well, it turns out this is seriously the bigger issue than the formers. How dare he? Doesn't he know that the country made him a millionaire? If it wasn't for people fighting for his freedoms, he'd be speaking German! Or is it Chinese now? Russian? Hard to keep up with who is the threat lurking right outside of the US anymore.

But this Kaepernick debate has been going on for longer than him. It has been recurring in our classrooms too. Should students be forced to stand for the pledge? Are the children who don't awful? Are their parents awful? What's the most creative way we should punish or intimidate children into doing the pledge? Does it count if they don't say "under god"? How can I use the image of wounded veterans to make my point?!?!

Nailed it!

One of the most underrated benefits of being a veteran is getting used as cannon fodder (again) for other people's debates. It's seriously the best thing ever, please everyone keep it up. 

Now, for me, I absolutely do stand for the national anthem, and intend to do so for the rest of my days. But do I do it because I feel obligated to, or because I think I owe my country? I don't make millions like Kaepernick, but whatever money I do have is thanks to my country right? It has nothing to do with the work I put in personally.

The weird thing is when Obama made his infamous "You didn't build that" quote, the same people who said he was taking away from hard working business owners are the same ones implying that Kaepernick owes his fortune to the country. He didn't make that money due to his talent and hard work, but every business owner owes practically nothing to the country? How do these two thoughts coexist?

Now, I think there is an element of truth to both Obama's quote and the people saying the same about Kaepernick. He is making millions because we are a country that made his talents valuable, and gave him the opportunity to work his way up. If he was born in North Korea, he'd be the fastest running laborer a task master ever had. But he'd be far from a millionaire.

But something that is important to me is that these symbols have their own meaning for people. What "country" means can mean something totally different to me than it does to you. To me, the flag is a representation to the hard work of Americans past and present. A representation to the mythology of the US. That we support democracy. We support the downtrodden and the weak. That every person is equal and should have equal opportunities. But do we live up to those myths as a country? Whenever the CIA knocks over another democracy, When we ally with totalitarian governments like Saudi Arabia and enable them to torture their citizens? When our own citizens get treated unfairly and abused by the system?

But if I am unhappy about these issues, why do I still stand for the flag? Because for me, the flag doesn't represent our government, it represents you and I. Personally, I think those ideals were very separate not too long ago. When we talked about the flag and the US it didn't represent the government or politicians. It represented us as citizens. Our ideals, our visions, our beliefs. I believe that during the Cold War the government did it's best to tie itself to the flag, to use it as a shield. Any complaints about the government means you are complaining about America and thus you are a traitor. That didn't just end with the Cold War. Who remembers just after 9/11 and anyone calling out Bush Jr. for being the crap we all know he is now were called unAmerican or traitors? "If you don't respect the man at least respect the position".

That's why even though I am not ignorant to the many issues plaguing the US, I still will rise for the flag and salute it. I am proud of Americans, not of our government for the most part. I do believe we have lost a lot of control of our government, and we need to correct that. But giving them the flag isn't my way to fix it. That flag is ours, not theirs.

So does that mean I hate Kaepernick for not standing? No. His idea of what the flag represents can be different from mine. He could have bought into that Cold War rhetoric that government = America, and his opinion is just as valid as mine. While I disagree with him singling out the flag rather than directing his protest more accurately, I do respect any man for taking a strong stand like that. Even if it isn't something I totally agree with, our country was born from strong Americans making difficult and controversial stands. Often to quite a bit of disagreement from other Americans. They estimate that 20% of Americans were loyalists during our revolution. Another large percentage didn't want Britain, but weren't willing to fight a war over it. Where would we be without those Americans who made a stand?

Beyond Kaepernick, I see the battleground over our schools and the Pledge of Allegiance. Again, I intend to talk to my kids about what my idea is of the symbols of America. I hope they will stand for the pledge as I did as a child, and as I do now as an adult. But if any school tries to force it, or harass the children that don't stand, I would be furious. What good is it to recite some empty words to a piece of cloth if when we are tested, we are so excited about taking away rights from other Americans? Save your breath, it means nothing.

Us Americans have gotten too divided. We're getting too involved with how other Americans decide to live their lives. Our business should not be to make cookie cutters out of everyone, but defend their rights to live as they want to, and hopefully they'll defend our rights to live as we want to. 

If it looks like a duck

This Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner thing has been pretty entertaining. Not going to lie, when I first heard about Bruce looking to switch sides midgame, I wondered if he was just pulling a stunt to get some of that attention his step-kids were getting. Considering how long this has gone on, and how invested Jenner is in the situation, I'm going have to go with it being legit.

The latest controversy is Jenner winning the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. Many people are throwing a fit about that. Some made up completely fictional stories about her getting the award in the place of an injured soldier. Trust me when I say that us veterans love being used as ammo in your debates. Almost makes it worth getting injured. Others have made whole lists of people who should have won instead. Others still are just lining up the insults to fire away.

Now in all honesty, at first I wasn't really biting on the whole award thing either. It kinda felt like Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. How about we give it to people who actually went through what the award was designed for, not just for what the potential of what they might go through? But at the end of the day these awards aren't mine to give. If the people in charge of them want to give it to Justin Bieber, that's their problem, not mine. I had never heard of the Arthur Ashe award until this spectacle.

But as time went on, my feelings on it started to change and I couldn't really nail down why. At first I thought it was because the groups I saw fighting the hardest against it were people I didn't really want to associate with. But after a talk with Jonathan Ester, I nailed down what it was. The hate and the rage that came with Jenner winning that award ended up proving on the backend that she deserved it. The fact that it caused such vehement rage from people showed there is still one hell of a problem with transphobia in the US and beyond.

You can see it even in childish things like calling Caitlyn "he" or "him" still as a pointed insult. Think about the morals these people are standing on. "Jenner wants me to refer to him as a woman, but fuck that. It is against my something to do that!!". What the hell? If some straight up dude asked me to refer to him as a she, whatever homie. That's your deal and I don't care enough to argue with you on this. Hell, when I lived in the South I had people throw actual fits by calling them by their legal first name rather than the super cool nickname they went by. I had to argue with people to write their legal name on official paperwork. "No dude, you can't put Maverick on your I-9. Come the fuck on". But I played their reindeer games otherwise, because why do I care if James wants everyone to call him Jimbo. Or Charlie doesn't want to be called Charles because that's his dad's name. I don't have an religious exemption against nicknames, just like I don't care about calling a trans person by whatever pronouns they want.

The funny part is this is bringing about a "counter-offended" group. Those who pretend calling a trans person by their prefered pronouns is the trans person being the offended ones. They don't realize they are the ones who are really being unreasonably offended ones. I can't think of any religion that bans calling a woman a he if that's what she wants. Practically all of them have something about not being a dick though. So which part are you going to follow? If you really don't care about these issues, you wouldn't be making these ridiculous stands for no apparent reason.


Show where we talked about this. View at your own risk. I did threaten to molest Puppet Master:

They are not heroes!

A friend of mine sent me a link to a Facebook group that, if I remember correctly, was called "Soldiers are not heroes, they are tools of war" (I believe this page specifically). It's goal was pretty much what you would expect. They believed that military folks did not deserve the special recognition they got, and they were willing participants in an unjust and immoral war.

The page admin was pretty ignorant and useless to talk to. But there was members of the page that I managed to lasso into conversations. As with just about any group, there is a solid foundation of fact to what they are complaining about, and some wonderful people to talk to. I do agree with their group that the US has a terrible history of sending the military and other groups to perform actions that are not in accordance with the ideals of the country. We preach about how countries should be a democracy so the people can have a voice, then overthrow democratically elected leaders because we are not happy with the situation. We talk against dictatorships, then assist dictatorships in putting down revolutionary movements and enable them to continue torturing their population. Many of the actions of the US fly in the face of our mythology we try and sell. And it often comes right back around to bite us in the ass. Many of the groups campaigning against the US are ones we put together and armed. Putting our ideals to the side seems to always punish us, but oh well. The president who made that decision is long gone and fully unaccountable by the time we have to pay the tab on those actions.

So if the debate is if the USA government is doing a disservice to their citizens, you won't find an argument out of me. But this was not the argument that they have taken up. They are directing their anger to servicemen and women who have volunteered for service, and this changes the game significantly.

They are correct that the force is completely volunteer right now, so no one is being forced into service. People are deciding to join. But I don't think they have taken the full situation into account when they decide that makes military members accountable for the unjust ways they are used. The average age of a USMC recruit is 19 years old. If everything these people believed was true what they are saying is that a 19 year old, fresh out of high school and with all of the experience of living with his mom and working a minimum wage job, is completely at fault for being hoodwinked by a multi-trillion dollar professional organization like the US military. Because s/he was unable to see through the veil of a organization that the ENTIRE COUNTRY has not been able to get a consensus against makes that teenager a horrible, atrocity enabling murderer. The logic behind not seeing that military recruit as another victim of a system too powerful for all of us to voting citizens to get a handle on just doesn't make sense to me.

Another argument is that they are not heroes. The military people who have been killed/injured did not do it protecting the USA or their freedoms. They did it enabling the military industrial complex and other rich people. Again, I don't think that is a fair comparison. If a family member truly believed your life was in danger, and sacrificed their own to protect you, would you believe they were just an idiot that died for nothing? Or would you respect the fact that they did what they did to defend you when they truly thought you were in danger? Because that is the story that 19 year old believes. That his friends, family, fellow citizens are in danger, and by putting his life on the line he can protect you. Even if you are 100% right and where he ends up dying had nothing to do with your protection, should your anger be directed at him? Or at the people who fooled him and the majority of the country?

Don't get me wrong. Servicemen and women join for many different reasons, and not all of them are as angelic as the example I used. But a healthy percentage of military folks believe they are doing exactly that. I don't find that sacrifice all for nothing.

In all honesty, I don't find servicemen any more accountable for the atrocities our government commits than the rest of us citizens. Sure, I guess theoretically if nobody joins than they wouldn't have a sword to weird to commit these crimes (though, the issues with us not having a military might outweigh that, and I doubt the powers that be would let the military get so understaffed without kicking off a draft). But also, if all of us Americans could get our crap together and properly manage our government, we wouldn't have to worry about how that sword is wielded. That 19 year old would be able to join without being thrown to the wolves like he is now. Maybe we need to remember the myth we tell in our anthem, that this is the home of the brave. We need to stop allowing our government to take our rights and abuse our troops because we are scared and let the sales pitch of America actually match the reality.