NEW: To those who read Jim Mattis’s angry rebuke this week of President Trump, his motive seemed clear: Stand up for service members who have been thrust into presidential politics.
That is true -- but there is more to the story.
washingtonpost.com/politics/how-m…
That is true -- but there is more to the story.
washingtonpost.com/politics/how-m…
In this piece with the great @CarolLeonnig, some background on how we got where we are.
We talked to several people close to Mattis, and the details are more complicated than you might expect.
We talked to several people close to Mattis, and the details are more complicated than you might expect.
Sure, Mattis was irate. As Carlton Kent, an old friend and Marine colleague put it:
“The military was never set up to prop up anyone’s political agenda, and I think that really pissed him off, when he saw that. He never wanted them to be in a compromising situation.”
“The military was never set up to prop up anyone’s political agenda, and I think that really pissed him off, when he saw that. He never wanted them to be in a compromising situation.”
But Mattis also was especially angry to see Gen. Milley in uniform in Lafayette Square.
To Mattis, it not only was a powerful symbol that the military had been thrust into a heavy-handed response against civilians. It also involved an officer who had angered him before.
To Mattis, it not only was a powerful symbol that the military had been thrust into a heavy-handed response against civilians. It also involved an officer who had angered him before.
You might remember that Milley was selected as chairman by Trump unexpectedly, and ahead of schedule. That came after a talk at the White House in which Mattis thought Milley and Trump were going to discuss becoming the chief of U.S. European Command, several officials said.
But Trump shifted course and offered Milley the chairman job. Mattis had wanted Gen. David Goldfein, the soft-spoken Air Force chief, rather than the brash Milley.
Mattis felt betrayed by Milley, several Mattis allies said. Others said it was more complicated. Milley didn’t seek the job, they said. Trump sprung the offer by surprise.
Either way, Mattis was furious at both of them.
Either way, Mattis was furious at both of them.
With that in the background, Mattis also had heard from active-duty friends who were concerned that Esper wasn’t reining in Trump effectively.
They called him “Yesper,” the allies recounted.
They called him “Yesper,” the allies recounted.
Then, the “Battle of Lafayette Square,” as some have called it. We’ve all seen the videos of non-lethal weapons deployed on peaceful protesters, and police attacking some media who were present, too.
Mattis, as he has written, was appalled.
Mattis, as he has written, was appalled.
An administration official, clearly not pleased, said Mattis never gave Esper – his successor and former Army secretary – a heads up that he was going to write.
“He should still have the officer number,” that official said wryly.
“He should still have the officer number,” that official said wryly.
Meanwhile, as other retired generals spoke up, Trump appears to have altered course.
His new plan: Sticking with the National Guard as military support, as Esper and Milley have advocated for days.
His new plan: Sticking with the National Guard as military support, as Esper and Milley have advocated for days.
As someone in the Pentagon told me nearly a week ago, and we reported here: “No one in the department is talking about invoking the Insurrection Act.”
washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
Esper, meanwhile, is still walking a tightrope similar to the one Mattis once did.
How does he keep Trump satisfied, while also not losing support in the Pentagon?
Tough to do.
How does he keep Trump satisfied, while also not losing support in the Pentagon?
Tough to do.
