Friday, December 21, 2018

The Mattis resignation letter throws serious shade.

The Mattis resignation letter throws serious shade.

It might as well be:
I’m in the cabinet. I am complicit in
Watching him grabbin’ at power and kiss it
If Washington isn’t gon’ listen
To disciplined dissidents, this is the difference:
This kid is out!

17 comments:

  1. Seriously.

    He's all: I believe America needs to honor it's fucking promises. I believe America should make peace. I believe America should honor it's commitments.

    Therefore, I'm out.

    It's amazing you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've been saying this elseweb: it's even better than you think.

    tl;dr as someone who gets Marine performance reviews (fitness reports or "FITREPs") I tell you this: that resignation letter is almost too brutal to look at directly. If I received a FITREP even 1% that savage, I might actually die.

    Mattis has spent his entire adult life as a Marine Officer. He has, no doubt, written thousands of FITREPs. Within FITREP writing, there is a concept known as the "velvet dagger," a way to subtly say something negative, even incredibly so, in a way that sounds positive to the ostensible recipient.

    For example, "Completes all routine tasks with minimal supervision" sounds fairly good, right? Or at least not damning? But what it's actually conveying to the larger audience (like a promotion board) is "This guy can't be trusted with anything beyond basic jobs, and even then you gotta keep an eye on him." There's also the opportunity cost: in a form with a limited number of characters, you are spending those characters applying a velvet dagger instead of saying something openly positive.

    And Mattis, having written certainly thousands of FITREPs, is no doubt absolutely brilliant at this art form. So that resignation letter is a velvet dagger of a scale to rival Everest.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We read it to the boys, and I immediately asked them "What is missing from this letter?" Older son replied "'It was a pleasure to serve under you'?"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you, Josh McGraw! I knew there was context I was missing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. William Nichols my oath of enlistment places some pretty specific limitations on my ability to express my own opinion, but aiding the comprehension of publicly-available opinions of people above me is, I believe, perfectly legal. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Josh McGraw I hear you. I believe I understand.

    Is this the current enlistment oath?

    I, State the name of enlistee, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the presidents of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. so help me God.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's correct.

    The Officer oath is different and doesn't mention the President, very much by design. Here's a quick read on why that is: quantico.marines.mil - The difference between Oath of Office, Oath of Enlistment > Marine Corps Base Quantico > News Article Display

    Me, it's my job to trust the organizational processes (and in fact, the Officers appointed over me) to keep me from receiving an unconstitutional or otherwise invalid order.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, if I understand correct:
    -- Mattis job is to refuse a direct, illegal order. The job of every officer under him is the same.
    - Your job is also to refuse a direct, illegal order. But, it is expected that the Officers above you won't do that.
    - In the case of being ordered to commit a war crime, it is your immediate duty to refuse the order.

    All correct so far?

    ReplyDelete
  9. William Nichols I will add the one caveat that Mattis, despite being a retired 4-star General, is a civilian. His oath of office as a Senate-confirmed Cabinet official is probably different. My impression this whole time has been that he has approached his job as SECDEF with the perspective of a lifetime as a Marine Officer, so there may not be an practical distinction.

    Everything else you said, is absolutely correct.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ... And this includes threatening a superior officer who is committing a war crime with immediate violence, as in the case of the My Lai massacre?

    [ You are clever. I assume you know what I am driving at. Would you rather I avoid it? ]

    ReplyDelete
  11. The My Lai massacre is, indeed, an example that is brought up every single time I participate in ethics training (unit, individual, professional military education courses, you name it). The nature of the military as a large-scale system is such that we should have a lot of chances to avoid reaching that particular severity level, in terms of ethical response.

    As this Collection is public, and my own Oath DOES limit me a bit, I am sure you'll understand if my further answers may become significantly circumspect.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fair. In any event, serious gorramn shade.

    I wish the news was focusing on more than the "You deserve ... " part, and instead reminding us that Mattis just called Trump treasonous.

    ReplyDelete
  13. William Nichols yeah, most journalists are reading the surface level meanings of the letter, or at MOST the stuff that's implied so blatantly that only an idiot could miss it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Which is as it should be outside of the Opinion columns, right?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tony Lower-Basch I don't know about that, honestly. This resignation is quite possibly a really big deal in this whole saga, and reporting only the surface-level meaning of the words doesn't really do a lot of good for the discussion we should be having as a country.

    Kind of like all the news sources that just repeat verbatim whatever nonsense some admin mouthpiece spouts off, with no attempt to fact check it. I'm a huge fan of when WaPo, for instance, reports "Admin Henchman X claims Y, without evidence."

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's awfully dicey to have journalists offering opinions on what Mattis meant between the lines, though. It seems the stronger move to quote people with experience in the field, willing to go on the record doing that interpretation for them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In particular, I mean that reading more than a couple of sentences seems the way to go. Mattis as good as calls Trump a traitor, and that's not being covered.

    ReplyDelete