Viktoriya Malikova
Link: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/james-mattis-confirmation-hearing-takeaways-233550
The article “Democrats’ role for Mattis: The anti-Trump” deals with a recently hotly debated topic about the potential appointment of the ex-general Mattis as the US Secretary Of Defense. The main issue is that according to the American law a military official can serve as a defense secretary only if seven years passed since his leaving the army. This law is closely connected to the theory of the civil military relations about need of civilian control over the army. In the case of Mattis, the period of seven years has not passed, so, in order to be exempted from this law Mattis’ candidacy must be approved by the Parliament. This article discusses the results of Matis’ hearing in the Senate and it emphasizes an unexpected support of Mattis by the Democrats. This can be explained by the fact that the democrats consider Mattis to be able to balance Trump’s politics. It can be seen from the questions which the senators posed to Mattis, clarifying his views on some disputable points.
Mattis’ answers have shown that concerning some issues his position is different from that of Trump’s, for example about Russia – he does not support Trump’s approvals of Putin, NATO – unlike Trump, he emphasizes the importance of this organization. Mattis stated that he is ready to defend his position to the President while giving him advice. This gives the Senators the hope that Mattis would be able to provide a check on the President. The author, however, ends his article with underlying the fact that, Mattis avoided criticizing the President-elect explicitly, for example during the questions when he was asked to comment some of Trump’s Twitter posts.
Apart from the question about whether Mattis can and will balance Trump’s politics, the appointment of the ex-general to the position of the US SECDEF touches upon the principle of the civilian control over military, which in this case is not followed. One of the Civil-Military Relations theorists, Huntington, would clearly disapprove such decision as according to him the soldiers do not become good ministers. Moreover, he would not agree with the logic behind Democrats’ approval of Mattis. Huntington claims that the military official should not disagree with a politician and obey his decision and orders even if the policy is aimed at promoting the politician’s rather than nation’s interest. Thus, basing on the Clausewitz’ theory cited in Huntington it might be concluded that Mattis cannot and should not oppose or balance Trump’s policies. Thus, according to Huntington, Democrats are wrong in their hopes about Mattis and should not support him as he will not realize their hopes about balancing Trump’s politics. Therefore, civilian control would be more efficient and appointment of Mattis would have negative consequences, according to Huntington.
I would also agree that Democrats are too optimistic in their hopes about Mattis’ keeping Trump in check as it is unclear if Mattis can be as good in politics as he is in the military sphere, and Trump does not seem to be a person who would easily bend to the advises of even a professional officer if the officer’ views would differ from his own ones.
Link: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/james-mattis-confirmation-hearing-takeaways-233550
The article “Democrats’ role for Mattis: The anti-Trump” deals with a recently hotly debated topic about the potential appointment of the ex-general Mattis as the US Secretary Of Defense. The main issue is that according to the American law a military official can serve as a defense secretary only if seven years passed since his leaving the army. This law is closely connected to the theory of the civil military relations about need of civilian control over the army. In the case of Mattis, the period of seven years has not passed, so, in order to be exempted from this law Mattis’ candidacy must be approved by the Parliament. This article discusses the results of Matis’ hearing in the Senate and it emphasizes an unexpected support of Mattis by the Democrats. This can be explained by the fact that the democrats consider Mattis to be able to balance Trump’s politics. It can be seen from the questions which the senators posed to Mattis, clarifying his views on some disputable points.
Mattis’ answers have shown that concerning some issues his position is different from that of Trump’s, for example about Russia – he does not support Trump’s approvals of Putin, NATO – unlike Trump, he emphasizes the importance of this organization. Mattis stated that he is ready to defend his position to the President while giving him advice. This gives the Senators the hope that Mattis would be able to provide a check on the President. The author, however, ends his article with underlying the fact that, Mattis avoided criticizing the President-elect explicitly, for example during the questions when he was asked to comment some of Trump’s Twitter posts.
Apart from the question about whether Mattis can and will balance Trump’s politics, the appointment of the ex-general to the position of the US SECDEF touches upon the principle of the civilian control over military, which in this case is not followed. One of the Civil-Military Relations theorists, Huntington, would clearly disapprove such decision as according to him the soldiers do not become good ministers. Moreover, he would not agree with the logic behind Democrats’ approval of Mattis. Huntington claims that the military official should not disagree with a politician and obey his decision and orders even if the policy is aimed at promoting the politician’s rather than nation’s interest. Thus, basing on the Clausewitz’ theory cited in Huntington it might be concluded that Mattis cannot and should not oppose or balance Trump’s policies. Thus, according to Huntington, Democrats are wrong in their hopes about Mattis and should not support him as he will not realize their hopes about balancing Trump’s politics. Therefore, civilian control would be more efficient and appointment of Mattis would have negative consequences, according to Huntington.
I would also agree that Democrats are too optimistic in their hopes about Mattis’ keeping Trump in check as it is unclear if Mattis can be as good in politics as he is in the military sphere, and Trump does not seem to be a person who would easily bend to the advises of even a professional officer if the officer’ views would differ from his own ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment