James Mattis: Leading by Example

The two themes of the resignation letter were respect for allies and “being clear-eyed about malign actors and strategic competitors.”  On the former he made it clear that the United States cannot protect its interests or serve as the “indispensable nation in the free world” without an alliance system serving as a vital component of “American power to provide for the common defense.”  On the latter, he singled out the efforts of Russia and China “to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model.”  Neither of these observations would seem to be outside of mainstream American thinking.  And yet consider the letter’s key line: “Because you have the right to 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.”

If Trump’s views on these matters do not align very closely with those of Mattis, then what are we to conclude about the president’s state of mind with respect to his oath of office?  He is, after all, sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  Is this president’s trashing of allies and appeasement of adversaries (Syria being a striking example, only hours old) a creative and well-intended (if destructive) approach to “true faith and allegiance,” or does it reflect real malfeasance?  Mattis’ decision to leave would be justified in either case.  But a warning from a universally respected defense secretary about “effective leadership of our alliances” and a misalignment of his views with those of the commander-in-chief—a misalignment so great as to merit resignation—is a warning that merits serious attention.