1/ My reading of SecDef's resignation letter is that the structure clearly suggests he is communicating with the American people, the Congress, and our allies that Trump's interests, be they personal or financial or ideological, align with Russia's and China's. Trump, in other
2/ words is a national security threat. To begin at the end, Mattis states, "you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects." Thus, there is a clear differentiation of views Mattis holds and views Trump
3/ holds. Moreover, the letter does not specify ALL the views and subjects. Thus, there are other unspecified views and subjects that also go into the differences between Mattis and Trump. So, what is the fundamental difference in the Mattis letter? Mattis states, "we cannot
4/ protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies." Further, Mattis states, we must be "clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors." And, what are those "malign actors" trying to do?
5/ "China and Russia...want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies." So, Mattis
6/ is stating that Russia and China want "veto authority over" the decisions of "America and our allies." This is the core of the difference. This goes to the heart of their respective oaths of office. There should never, ever be a core disagreement between the SecDef and POTUS
7/ with POTUS, in essence, siding with a "malign actor" who seeks "veto authority" over our "economic, diplomatic, and security decisions." In other words, Mattis is communicating to the American people, the Congress, and our allies that Trump is a national security threat. In
8/ my view, based on my professional experience and judgement, you cannot get a clearer statement couched in diplomatic language. The SecDef's letter, in my view, is an unambiguous statement that Trump represents a clear and present danger to the republic. FINIS
