Mattis' press conference reassuring in many respects

Submitted by Linda Wood on Tue, 04/11/2017 - 7:41pm

Again, as with a look at his 2013 interview about the problems with the no-fly zone and regime change ideas for Syria, I found Secretary Mattis' press conference today reassuring.

It's not just his statements that the goal, to defeat ISIS, hasn't changed, and that the cooperative relationship with Russia is still on course, and in spite of the fact that he starts out by stating that "we know" Assad committed the chemical attack last week, which I doubt, it's that his straight talk and direct answers to questions make sense from his perspective. I find it reassuring and refreshing that I don't have to scream about the lack of logic or the obnoxious dissembling so constant in the Obama and Bush administration spokespersons.

In the online video, the most important part for me is between 19:02 and 20:28, at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeLV8RJ02eI
FULL: Pentagon First Press Conference After Syria Strikes with James Mattis, US Defense Secretary
LiveStreamTVNews

Here's an article about that particular subject matter, but most of the questions were pretty responsible, maybe because he isn't a person you can manipulate with diversionary questions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-mattis-idU...

Apr 11, 2017
U.S.-Russia tensions over Syria will not 'spiral out of control': Mattis

By Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali
WASHINGTON
Tensions between the United States and Russia will not "spiral out of control" following last week's U.S. cruise missile strikes on a Syrian air base, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Tuesday, describing it as a one-off response to Syria's use of banned chemical weapons.

… Russia, which has advisers on the ground aiding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, warned the U.S. strike could have serious consequences. Syria denies involvement.

"It will not spiral out of control," Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon.

"I'm confident the Russians will act in their own best interest and there is nothing in their best interest to say they want this situation to go out of control."...

Tags:

Syria

James Mattis

Russia

Vote

Comments

Submitted by CB on Tue, 04/11/2017 - 9:25pm

The US has just gone through a 'soft coup'.

The military have taken over foreign policy decisions from the WH. I doubt the Trumpster will ever regain it back during his presidency. The MIC have always had an inordinate amount of influence within the WH when it comes to foreign policy. In this case, I think they've taken full control.

Trump’s Reliance on the Military
...
The often-ignored Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986 enhanced the political and military role of regional commanders-in-chief (CINCs) and marginalized the Department of State and the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense. The CINCs have become more influential than U.S. ambassadors, who actually represent the interests of the President, and various assistant secretaries of state responsible for sensitive Third World areas.

The act created a more powerful Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and made the chairman of the JCS the key military advisor to the president. During Desert Storm in 1991, the chairman often ignored the Secretary of Defense and personally briefed the President on war plans. It is noteworthy that the act passed the Senate without genuine debate and not even one vote of opposition.

Bill Clinton’s Role

President Bill Clinton made major contributions to the civilian-military imbalance in the 1990s, when he abolished the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the United States Information Service and substantially reduced funding for the Agency for International Development. Clinton also bowed to the opposition of the Pentagon when he walked away from international agreements that supported the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the International Criminal Court, the ban on cluster bombs, and the ban on land mines.
Former CIA Director (and later Defense Secretary) Robert Gates.

President Barack Obama also tilted in the direction of the military in making key national security appointments. His national security adviser was a retired Marine General, James Jones, who failed miserably, and his first intelligence tsar was Admiral Dennis Blair, who also failed. Jones was replaced by Tom Donilon, whose expertise was in domestic affairs and who couldn’t stand up to the Pentagon in decision making on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama’s unwise decision to retain Robert M. Gates as Secretary of Defense also catered to the interests and preferences of the JCS. The President seemed to have no concern for Gates’s Cold War ideology, let alone his politicization of intelligence on behalf of the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s. When Obama appointed General David Petraeus director of the CIA, the militarization of the intelligence community was virtually complete.
...

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 04/12/2017 - 10:04am

@CB This was, in my opinion,

@CB This was, in my opinion, already done under Obama. When the Pentagon refuses to observe your ceasefire, you're not in control--they are.

The military have taken over foreign policy decisions from the WH. I doubt the Trumpster will ever regain it back during his presidency. The MIC have always had an inordinate amount of influence within the WH when it comes to foreign policy. In this case, I think they've taken full control. Trump’s Reliance on the Military ... The often-ignored Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986 enhanced the political and military role of regional commanders-in-chief (CINCs) and marginalized the Department of State and the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense. The CINCs have become more influential than U.S. ambassadors, who actually represent the interests of the President, and various assistant secretaries of state responsible for sensitive Third World areas. The act created a more powerful Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and made the chairman of the JCS the key military advisor to the president. During Desert Storm in 1991, the chairman often ignored the Secretary of Defense and personally briefed the President on war plans. It is noteworthy that the act passed the Senate without genuine debate and not even one vote of opposition. Bill Clinton’s Role President Bill Clinton made major contributions to the civilian-military imbalance in the 1990s, when he abolished the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the United States Information Service and substantially reduced funding for the Agency for International Development. Clinton also bowed to the opposition of the Pentagon when he walked away from international agreements that supported the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the International Criminal Court, the ban on cluster bombs, and the ban on land mines. Former CIA Director (and later Defense Secretary) Robert Gates. President Barack Obama also tilted in the direction of the military in making key national security appointments. His national security adviser was a retired Marine General, James Jones, who failed miserably, and his first intelligence tsar was Admiral Dennis Blair, who also failed. Jones was replaced by Tom Donilon, whose expertise was in domestic affairs and who couldn’t stand up to the Pentagon in decision making on Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama’s unwise decision to retain Robert M. Gates as Secretary of Defense also catered to the interests and preferences of the JCS. The President seemed to have no concern for Gates’s Cold War ideology, let alone his politicization of intelligence on behalf of the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s. When Obama appointed General David Petraeus director of the CIA, the militarization of the intelligence community was virtually complete. ...

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Big Al on Tue, 04/11/2017 - 10:44pm

Rassuring that the U.S. continues it's illegal and immoral

war in Syria that has never been about defeating ISIS and always about balkanizing Syria. ISIS is a U.S. intelligence construct, so yes Mattis is doublespeaking here, covering for the real reason for the war OF terror and being in Syria illegally without the permission of the Syria government. Everything the U.S. is doing in Syria is illegal. You might be reassured by his words that a nuclear war might not break out between Russia and the U.S. but he is telling the same lies and using the same false narratives they all have since 9/11.

Submitted by Linda Wood on Wed, 04/12/2017 - 2:28am

I agree with you

@Big Al
that

ISIS is a U.S. intelligence construct

and I agree that what the Trump forces are doing in response to the chemical attack is illegal. I believe the whole war is illegal. I also agree with those who think the chemical attack was most likely a false flag event. The timing, which distracted everyone's attention from our killing of hundreds of children and families in Mosul as well as our attack on a mosque in Syria, has destroyed the progress of the ceasefire and has hampered the cooperation between the U.S. and Russia in the war against ISIS, meant to end the war. The timing of the chemical attack was just too beneficial to the forces who want the war to continue and who want to replace Assad with ISIS/AlQaeda for me to believe it was not carried out by them, meaning CIA.

But the statements by Gen. Mattis today reinforce my hopeful view that Trump really wants to end this war, not expand it, that he and Mattis want the cruise missile attack on Assad's airbase to be an isolated event. It may be that Trump and Mattis actually believe the chemical attack was carried out by Assad. If so, Mattis states that the response was meant to address that one act, the use of chemical weapons, and that the goal of our involvement in Syria has not changed.

If Trump and Mattis believe the chemical attack may have been a false flag attack by our CIA, or that the CIA is telling them it was Assad, when it was an inadvertent release because Assad bombed a weapons depot, then Trump and Mattis may have decided the instantaneous certainty of our "intelligence" meant that the media and punditry were going to force this down their throats, that no period of bringing in inspectors or waiting for results of independent scientists was going to stop the roar for war on the part of neocons. Therefore, maybe they decided to respond as if Assad had done it, state that they accepted the view that Assad had done it, and end it, end the circus of glory for neocon blood lust, and get on with their cooperation with Russia against ISIS.

Once again, Al, I hope you will have time to watch as much as you can of this 30 minute press conference. Mattis' demeanor and clear answers say a lot.

Submitted by Big Al on Wed, 04/12/2017 - 10:30am

Thanks Linda. The problem for me is, I put myself in

@Linda Wood his place and I cannot fathom he would not know this event was staged and not done by Assad, at least not on purpose as the one option suggests they may have dropped a bomb on a chemical warehouse. Their reaction out of the gate without providing any evidence, they still haven't, tells me they knew the truth but decided to use the situation to what they deemed was their advantage.
So what they did was illegal, they killed kids, they are war criminals. I won't let myself get past that. So I can't listen to Mattis, it would make me ill.
The way I see it, if Trump wants to end this war, he'd tell the truth about it. They may try to get some kind of negotiated settlement where Assad goes or stays over only a part with Syria becoming balkanized like Libya.
But either way, it would only be a strategic decision to continue on with their New World Order plans. So it might be relief to the Syrians but not necessarily to the rest of the planet. They still have Iran, Russia and China to tame to maintain their world supremacy plans.

#2
that

ISIS is a U.S. intelligence construct

and I agree that what the Trump forces are doing in response to the chemical attack is illegal. I believe the whole war is illegal. I also agree with those who think the chemical attack was most likely a false flag event. The timing, which distracted everyone's attention from our killing of hundreds of children and families in Mosul as well as our attack on a mosque in Syria, has destroyed the progress of the ceasefire and has hampered the cooperation between the U.S. and Russia in the war against ISIS, meant to end the war. The timing of the chemical attack was just too beneficial to the forces who want the war to continue and who want to replace Assad with ISIS/AlQaeda for me to believe it was not carried out by them, meaning CIA.

But the statements by Gen. Mattis today reinforce my hopeful view that Trump really wants to end this war, not expand it, that he and Mattis want the cruise missile attack on Assad's airbase to be an isolated event. It may be that Trump and Mattis actually believe the chemical attack was carried out by Assad. If so, Mattis states that the response was meant to address that one act, the use of chemical weapons, and that the goal of our involvement in Syria has not changed.

If Trump and Mattis believe the chemical attack may have been a false flag attack by our CIA, or that the CIA is telling them it was Assad, when it was an inadvertent release because Assad bombed a weapons depot, then Trump and Mattis may have decided the instantaneous certainty of our "intelligence" meant that the media and punditry were going to force this down their throats, that no period of bringing in inspectors or waiting for results of independent scientists was going to stop the roar for war on the part of neocons. Therefore, maybe they decided to respond as if Assad had done it, state that they accepted the view that Assad had done it, and end it, end the circus of glory for neocon blood lust, and get on with their cooperation with Russia against ISIS.

Once again, Al, I hope you will have time to watch as much as you can of this 30 minute press conference. Mattis' demeanor and clear answers say a lot.

Submitted by Linda Wood on Wed, 04/12/2017 - 2:00pm

Al, I can't disagree

@Big Al
with anything you've said here, including your reminder about Mattis' hideous quotes.

I also think your statement here is one of the most profoundly accurate things I've read since the election.

if Trump wants to end this war, he'd tell the truth about it.

Amen! If the American people had an idea of the duplicity, the corruption, the treasonous industrial actions, the depravity of the killers we hire to do the dirty work of mongering war, they would end it. You are so right.

But the reality is that how we think about war is produced professionally by a well-oiled print and broadcast media owned and operated by Big Oil, Big Bank, and their ever-loving secret police, CIA. I think Trump knows this. I think he takes shots now and then to discredit the Deep State. When he does, people like me are struck dumb by the paradigm shift in which a media product actually bites the hand that feeds it.

But I also think Trump and Mattis may have recognized that CIA and its Media were going to go ape over this chemical attack, which they did, ape with all the Russia-baiting and infanticide photographs, and that the way to shut it down was to bomb an airbase. Putin is reportedly saying his intelligence in Syria predicts more of these false flag atrocities to happen. Trump and Mattis may have seen this coming and may have decided this was how to shut down the neocon desire for planetary suicide.

Those last two words are mine, but I believe there are American military, including generals like Michael Flynn, who believe our neocon political leadership is using our military to destroy western civilization. I think the American military is truly divided over the war in the Middle East. So I see this response by Trump and Mattis as a way of stopping the onslaught of madness that would ensue if we went to war with Syria.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 04/12/2017 - 10:05am

@Big Al No, simply reassuring

@Big Al No, simply reassuring that maybe all life on earth won't end this month.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 04/12/2017 - 10:06am

@Big Al Of course, at the same

@Big Al Of course, at the same time, it's hard to trust words from "Mad Dog" Mattis (Jesus, is that really his nickname? Sounds like something from a dime novel.)

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Big Al on Wed, 04/12/2017 - 11:34am

A talking head.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal That's why I stopped watching any TV news or political shows, I just can't stand to listen to these people anymore. At least when reading I don't have to hear their fucking voices.
We can't forget, this is the guy that said it "was fun to shoot some people".