When then President-elect Donald Trump announced that he had chosen Gen. Jim Mattis to lead the Pentagon, there was a collective sigh of relief across the national security establishment. The thinking went that Mattis knows the U.S. military, has the respect of the uniformed and civilian men and women of the Department of Defense, and has a hard-won reputation for integrity and leadership. With a White House full of outsiders and self-described disruptors, we are looking to Mattis for the military professionalism and reliable pragmatism that his decades of service could provide. We here at Agenda SecDef badly want him to succeed.
And while Mattis’ first trips to Asia and Europe were well-received (much better received than Secretary of State Tillerson’s recent trip to Asia), his team have stumbled thus far in navigating the so-called “swamp.” It’s easy to deride Washington, D.C., but for any member of a presidential cabinet, it’s where the boss lives, and where members of Congress exercise oversight and provide the resources that enable the Pentagon to function. If a cabinet secretary alienates a president (and his staff), or members of Congress (and their staffs), life gets pretty tough. Alienate them both simultaneously, and it becomes impossible to be effective. On this score, I worry the trend lines for Mattis are not positive. While Mattis isn’t responsible for the chaos and unpredictability of the Trump White House, in the end only he will be able to ensure that he can navigate the steep contours it has created, and avoid being entrapped in very poor political terrain.
I was concerned, for instance, to read in Politico that members of Congress and their staffs believe that Mattis is “burning through political capital,” and that they are “running out of patience.” The story essentially describes a well-intentioned defense secretary desiring to fill his ranks with the best folks possible — their politics notwithstanding — and running into a firewall of resistance at the White House and on Capitol Hill. This, coupled with a front office staff that has reportedly been quick to alienate key senators and their staffers, makes for a perilous political situation. My own conversations with Pentagon and Hill staffers convince me that these dynamics are more accurate than not.
Read the full article at War on the Rocks.
More from CNAS
VideoThe Pitch: A Competition of New Ideas
On June 17, 2020, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) hosted its premier event to elevate emerging and diverse voices in national security. Sixteen applicants made t...
By Richard Fontaine, Michèle Flournoy, Michael J. Zak, Loren DeJonge Schulman, Shai Korman, Carrie Cordero, Kristine Lee, David Zikusoka & Cole Stevens
VideoThe Bottom Line
Although lawmakers and the public frequently debate the size of the U.S. defense budget, a fundamental question usually receives less attention: What does U.S. military spendi...
By Susanna V. Blume
CommentaryIt’s the Logistics, China
In protracted warfare, logistics and sustainment capabilities are as important as force composition, something China will struggle to mitigate. Despite recent successes by ...
By Will Mackenzie
CommentaryTrump, Racism, and the Military
Throughout his administration, President Trump has misused the US military to advance his racist and discriminatory political priorities. He has used the Department of Defense...
By Susanna V. Blume