Official Washington was horrified at the resignation on Thursday of Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who wrote Trump a letter (below) that said “Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.” The move came in response to Trump’s abrupt announcement on Twitter that the US would withdraw its 2000 special operations forces from northeast Syria, fully and immediately. Trump tried to represent the departure as a retirement, but it seems clear that Mattis is resigning in protest, having attempted Thursday morning to argue Trump out of his precipitous move.
On Thursday evening, US officials said that Trump would pull 7,000 troops out of Afghanistan, out of 14,000 there presently, and rumors swirled that he would get out entirely.
Trump is erratic and selfish and transactional, and it is understandable that the idea of having him in charge of US military affairs with no check by a seasoned officer like Mattis should terrify Washington.
And it certainly is the case that Mattis has often restrained Trump’s worse instincts, arguing him out of reviving black sites and torture, arguing him out of siding with Saudi Arabia in the attack on little Qatar, and opposing Trump’s punitive measures toward transgender troops.
But if you were going to judge Mattis’s performance as Secretary of Defense, you’d have to look at his performance with regard to military challenges.
Mattis basically followed through on the policies toward ISIL set by the Obama administration and by his predecessor Ash Carter. The alliance with the leftist Kurds to defeat ISIL in Raqqa was an Obama/Carter production that Mattis benefitted from and pursued in his own tenure (Raqqa fell to the Kurds in October of 2017). Likewise the taking of Mosul in northern Iraq followed the Obama/ Carter template (Mosul fell in July 2017).
There is, however, a difference between Obama policies toward ISIL and those of Mattis. The Rules of Engagement appear to have been substantially loosened under Trump. In 2017, US airstrikes in the region killed 215% as many civilians as had died in them the year before. Trump may have ordered it, but Mattis could have pushed back the way he did on other issues. There is no evidence he did.
After ISIL was defeated, Trump blocked civilian aid for civilians in Raqqa, without which there was always a risk that the young men would turn back to radicalism. Refusing to fund the rebuilding of Raqqa after it was destroyed by unnecessarily brutal bombing raids (compared to the Obama era, which was not ‘nice’ to begin with) is a way to ensure the reemergence of ISIL down the road.
Why didn’t Mattis resign over *that* policy?
In Afghanistan during the past two years there has been a steady worsening of the security situation on the ground. Mattis years ago said that it was “fun” to kill Taliban who mistreated their women. Fun or not, he hasn’t been effective at it. It is now estimated that 40% – 50% of the country is under Taliban rule. Some 28,000 Afghanistan National Army troops have been killed since 2015, which is not exactly a win. Trump’s dropping of the mother of all bombs on some radicals had no long term effect. Mattis said he sought a political solution that did not involve withdrawing US troops from that country. Mattis was losing Afghanistan, as even the right wing Weekly Standard admitted, and can’t be accounted as a success story on that front.
Mattis vehemently supported the Saudi war on Yemen, with all its brutality and the endangerment of millions of civilians (who may starve to death). Mattis is so gullible that he bought the silly Saudi propaganda that the indigenous Houthi rebel group is Iranian-controlled. Iran has had something to do with the Houthis. It hasn’t had that much to do with them. Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman, whom Mattis backed, is a wild man, and Mattis tried to whitewash the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in testimony on the hill, saying there is no “smoking gun.” (How about a smoking bone saw?).
Mattis isn’t a knight in shining armor but another right wing general of the Westmoreland sort, who will always win your war for you if you just let him play dirty enough and give him enough men and money and decades.
Please Help ZNet and Z Magazine
Due to problems with our programming that we have only now finally been able to fix, it has been over a year since our last fund raising. As a result, we need your help more than ever to continue to bring the alternative information you have been looking for for 30 years.
Z offers the most useful societal news we can, but in judging what is useful, unlike many other sources we emphasize vision, strategy, and activist relevance. When we address Trump, for example, it is to find ways beyond Trump, not to merely repeat, over and over, how terrible he is. And the same is true for our addressing global warming, poverty, inequality, racism, sexism, and war making. Our priority is always that what we provide has potential for aiding determining what to do, and how best to do it.
In fixing our programming problems, we have updated our system to make becoming a sustainer and giving donations easier. It has been a long process but we are hopeful it will make it more convenient for everyone to help us grow. If you have any trouble, please let us know right away. We need input on any problems to make sure the system can continue to be easy to use for everyone.
The best way to help, however, is to become a monthly or annual sustainer. Sustainers can comment, post blogs, and receive a nightly commentary by direct email.
You can also or alternatively make a one-time donation or get a print subscription to Z Magazine.
Subscribe to Z Magazine here.
Any aid will help greatly. And please email any suggestions for improvements, comments, or problems right away.
Juan R. I. Cole is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. For three and a half decades, he has sought to put the relationship of the West and the Muslim world in historical context, and he has written widely about Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and South Asia. His books include Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires; The New Arabs: How the Millennial Generation is Changing the Middle East; Engaging the Muslim World; and Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
