It is our privilege or our curse, depending how you look at it, to be living in a time when tradition and precedent are being tossed out on a daily basis. Thursday saw another significant break with history when, for the first time in almost seventy years, the Senate voted to allow a recently retired military officer—James Mattis, a former four-star general—to serve in the civilian post of Secretary of Defense.
When Donald Trump picked Mattis, a sixty-six-year-old ex-Marine who goes by the nickname Mad Dog, to run the Pentagon, some observers predicted that his nomination could run into opposition from the Senate Armed Services Committee, which oversees the Pentagon and the rules governing it—including one that precludes ex-officers from serving as Secretary of Defense until they have been out of uniform for seven years. But the Committee’s vote to grant a waiver to Mattis, who retired from the service in 2013, was bipartisan and overwhelming: 24–3. (Later in the day, the full Senate confirmed the waiver by a vote of 81–17.)
What happened? Had the members of the Committee, which is led by Arizona’s John McCain, a Republican, succumbed to the nihilistic spirit of the moment, the belief, exemplified by Trump’s campaign, that it is time to cast off antiquated democratic niceties, such as requiring the military to report to civilian leadership? To the contrary. The confirmation hearing that McCain held on Thursday demonstrated that many members of the committee, particularly the Democratic ones, are hoping that Mattis will act as a bulwark against Trump, the authoritarian tendencies he represents, and some of his scarier counsels, particularly Michael Flynn, a former three-star general slated to be Trump’s national-security adviser.
The exchange that encapsulated this sentiment came when the liberal firebrand Elizabeth Warren—fresh from grilling another Trump appointee, Ben Carson, at a different hearing—questioned Mattis. After prompting Mattis to agree that he believed in the importance of offering “frank advice,” Warren asked if this belief extended to the relationship between a Secretary of Defense and the President’s other national-security advisers.
Mattis joined the Marines in 1969, and from 2010 to 2013 he served as head of the U.S. Central Command. Despite his reputation as a fearsome warrior—he was once quoted as saying, “It’s fun to shoot some people”—he is also known as a thoughtful, scholarly, and independent-minded fellow. “Absolutely, Senator,” he said, in response to Warren’s question. “And I would not have taken this nomination if I didn’t have this belief.”
“Good,” Warren said. “And what about the President himself? Under what circumstances will you advocate for your views forcefully and frankly?”
“On every circumstance, Senator,” Mattis said, slowly and deliberately.
Warren could barely contain her delight. “I am very glad to hear that, thank you,” she said with a chuckle. Then she got Mattis to confirm some remarks he made in May, 2015, when he said that Russia was trying to create a sphere of unstable states along its periphery. Warren asked Mattis if he would advocate forcefully to the President—here again she didn’t use Trump’s name—about the need to take seriously the threat that Russia poses. Mattis said that he would.
“Thank you very much,” Warren said. “I hope that is right, because if you end up in this job, our national security may well depend, in part, on your willingness to voice your opinions even when others disagree, even when you are under pressure to remain silent. We are counting on you.”
Other Democrats on the committee weren’t as explicit as Warren, but the thrust of the views they expressed was very similar to hers. Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal started out by saying that he was “extremely concerned” about violating the principle that the armed forces should be under civilian leadership. (The last time the Senate granted a waiver to an ex-military commander was in September, 1950, when Harry Truman nominated George Marshall, who had served as the Army’s Chief of Staff during the Second World War, as Defense Secretary.) But, Blumenthal went on to say, “if there were ever a case for the waiver of that principle, it is now, at this moment in our history.”
Virginia’s Tim Kaine, fresh from his failed Vice-Presidential bid, said he agreed with Blumenthal that “this was an opportune moment to make an exception.” Michigan’s Gary Peters was even more effusive. “Thank you, from a grateful nation,” he said to Mattis.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that Mattis will be only one of Trump’s many advisers, and one with less access to him than Flynn, whose job will require him to see the President on a daily basis. The faith being placed in Mad Dog could well turn out to be excessive. But, for one day at least, he provided Democrats and other Trumpophobes with reason to hope that all may not be lost.
Although Mattis didn’t directly contradict any of Trump’s statements during his testimony, he came close when he talked critically about Vladimir Putin’s ambitions, noting that he had “very modest expectations about areas of coöperation” with the Russian leader.
More broadly, Mattis defended the traditional American strategic posture of constructive alliance-building backed by overwhelming military power. While a revanchist Russia represents a principal threat, he said, the United States needed to remain engaged all over the world. Several times he defended NATO, which Trump has criticized, calling it perhaps the most successful military alliance the world has known. “If we did not have NATO today, we would have to build it,” he said. He expressed skepticism about the nuclear agreement with Iran, but also said that, because it had been signed, the United States had an obligation to respect it. “If you give your word on something, you live up to it,” he said.
Although the Republicans on the Committee weren’t quite as gushing toward him as the Democrats were, they, too, struck a respectful note. (The exception was South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, who snapped his questions at the nominee and tried, unsuccessfully, to goad him into saying that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel.)
McCain, who had previously called Mattis “one of the finest military officers of his generation,” called on his colleagues to approve the waiver that would allow his appointment, saying that the nation needed Mattis’s service, as Secretary of Defense, “more than ever.” Thom Tillis, the junior senator from North Carolina, said that the name “Braveheart,” which earlier in the day Bill Cohen, who served as Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, had used to describe Mattis, “couldn’t more perfectly put your personality and legacy in proper perspective.” Ted Cruz, whose relationship with Trump is, shall we say, complicated, said that he believed Mattis would be an “extraordinary” Defense Secretary.
Mattis’s last exchange was with Florida’s Bill Nelson. Nelson asked if he, looking ahead, anticipated having any tension with “a three-star”—i.e., Flynn. Mattis said he didn’t. “You need different ideas to be strongly argued,” he explained. “You don’t want the tyranny of consensus, of groupthink early. It’s been compared in some Cabinets to a team of rivals, even, and it’s actually healthy. It’s not tidy. It will be respectful, of that I’m certain. And I don’t anticipate that anything but the best ideas will win.”
We can only hope that doesn’t turn out to be wishful thinking.