Trump Claims to Have Fired Mattis for Failure to End Afghan War

I agree that US involvement in these wars needs to be brought to a close. But I also believe that those decisions should be made in an ordered, informed fashion in consultation with our allies who also have troops in harms way. I can't say for sure, but it seems to me that a lot of what caused Mattis to leave was as much the way the decisions were made as the decision themselves.

As strange as it seems, Mattis as SECDEF was actually part of the civilian control of the military. The SECDEF is part of the National Command Authority, and is second only to the president in his authority over the DOD and the operations of the combatant commanders. He is in the formal chain of command, while the Chairman of the JCS is not. That's why Mattis needed a waiver to the law that states a military person has to wait 7 years before serving as SECDEF. I'm not so sure putting retired generals in there is really such a good idea. Does anyone really believe that after 4 decades of service, that Mattis can somehow just put his "civilian" hat (after his life experience, can he even have a civilian hat?) on and view the issues from a civilian rather than a military perspective? I sort of doubt it. I believe when you put a 4 star as SECDEF, what you have really done is created a 5 star rather than having civilian control of the military.

As far as resigning goes, I remember sometime in the 80s or 90s and Air Force Chief of Staff resigned due to differences with the president. I don't recall his name, but remember a quote from an interview he gave to the AF Times afterwards. Basically he said that since he gets 75% of his pay when he retires, he essentially is a 4 star working for lieutenant pay. And if your role is to give advice based upon your decades of service, and your advice is ignored, then what's the point of staying in the job. An interesting take.

LTC (Join to see) - You are assuming there is no coordination with our allies. That is likely not true. Mattis might have left over the policy itself, not the implementation/communication/coordination of it. I know Mattis is civilian control, technically. A waiver had to be done to allow him to serve. It is likely very difficult to take off the stars, put on a suit and forget 40 years of experience. The transition does not always work.

I suspect they had multiple conversations about policy in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq etc and our engagement with NATO and other allies. Mattis, for good reasons, may not have always been on board or liked the approach etc. He did the right think and stepped aside. The reality is the conversation likely was the president telling him he needed Mattis to support the plan or move on. Mattis decided to move on. Had he not, the president might have had to act. Whether he resigned or was let go isn't really a big deal. The reality is they did not agree on policy. The reality is Trump sets policy, Mattis enacts it (with consultation and advise etc).

I think that our Pres. Trump could have coordinated a move towards withdrawal of troops with General Mattis. It would appear it was a decision based on politics and polls. I certainly hope not but it looks that way. Is this the beginning of decisions based on negotiations?

LTC (Join to see) - WRT a former 4 star serving as SECDEF, in most cases I would agree, but I feel Mattis was keenly aware of his position and the responsibilities of serving in that capacity. Of course I may be biased, but we do know Mattis was one of the very few (possibly the only) Trump appointees to sail through the appointment process will full bipartisan support.

Who was "all up in arms"?

Left media, and liberals like yourself I suppose.