Trump’s First!

The Senate today voted 98-1 to confirm Mattis as Trump’s Sec Def:

The Senate easily confirmed retired Gen. James Mattis to be the next defense secretary on Friday, shortly after President Trump took the oath of office, making Mattis the first confirmed member of the new Cabinet.

Mattis’ nomination to be the Pentagon’s top civilian easily passed the Senate in a 98-1 vote. The only “no” vote came from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who is Trump’s nominee for attorney general, didn’t vote.

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved his nomination this week in a 26-1 vote in which Gillibrand was again the only opposition.

Gildebrant opposed the Mattis nomination under the pretense that a civilian should run the military, and she is correct: that civilian is the POTUS. Methinks however that Gildebrant had ulterior motives she hid behind a veneer of concern. From the article:

Gillibrand is a vocal member of the Armed Services Committee and has spent years crusading against the Pentagon’s policies on sexual assault in the military. Gillibrand has repeatedly and unsuccessfully introduced bills to reform the way the U.S. military handles sexual assault, in the face of objections from the Pentagon.

Mattis has been vocal about the damage done under the Obama administration that turned the military from an organization that was staffed by warriors into one staffed by social justice warriors, and his intent to change that crap. The military, contrary to the belief and agenda from the left, is the one organization that has no room for social engineering of any kind that doesn’t make its members more lethal and effective at killing and blowing up shit. That’s what war is. Or at least that is what people that want to win wars do.

After WWII, the western world over time forgot what militaries are for. I read an interesting book once that claimed this was an unavoidable consequence of the nuclear age, but I think while that did make leaders more cautious about going to war (a great thing), what really did the most damage is the move to sanitize warfare. War was, and always, will be – if you want to win – about breaking the enemy and most importantly, the enemy’s will to fight. The stupid quote that force never settled anything was coined by idiots. History is replete with examples where force settled everything. Ask the Carthaginians, the Mongols, the Armenians, the Jews, or Osama bin Laden, what their take on that is. WWII was the last war where the western world had people that fought to win. There were no innocent bystanders, and both sides bombed the living shit out of civilians.

War historically was, and is supposed to be a ugly and nasty thing to be avoided at all cost. Sanitized warfare has only resulted in a lot more and perpetual conflicts, where because the deaths happen in smaller numbers that oft does nothing but cause people to talk, has confounded many into seeing it is as a superior way of doing things. It is not. There is never any finality, and the decision to go to war has become far easier to make because the people involved always convince themselves they can keep casualties down and fight it all nice and clean like a video game. Eventually those playing the video game will end up fighting those that fight for keeps and care little for civility, and that’s when the shit hits the fan. The barbarians have always stormed the gates when those that thought civilization made war a bad idea, and nothing was worth defending, lost their bearings, and it was never good when it happened for anyone (often including the barbarians).

Anyway, this was not supposed to be a post about war itself, but about turning the military into a social engineering experiment. If they made all players plat by the same rules, at least the results would have chance of being beneficial, but what has been happening to the military – because SJW types have demanded reality and human nature subside to their ideological beliefs – has been detrimental to the survival of this country and the western world. Mattis reversing some of the idiocy of the last 5 decades, but especially the last 8 years, is a welcome thing. Gildebrant, and people like her whom want reality to bend to what they want it to be, can go do her social engineering elsewhere.

UPDATE: And his second.

UPDATE PLUS 1: Well done, sir.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    Might as well get rid of the rule then.

    No acknowledgement of every other Democrat voting to confirm? What a surprise. I thought they were going to obstruct at every turn?

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    None of your post actually addresses why you believe the way sexual assault is handled is appropriate. That’s what you are speculating about, after all.

    Thumb up 0

  3. stogy

    The barbarians have always stormed the gates when those that thought civilization made war a bad idea, and nothing was worth defending, lost their bearings, and it was never good when it happened for anyone (often including the barbarians).

    I am scratching my head trying to think of a single case where this was true. It’s far more common that states fall as a result of contested succession,  environmental and economic collapse, internal strife, and/or corruption.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT *

    I am scratching my head trying to think of a single case where this was true.

    The ancient Greeks, the Romans, they Byzantine Empire (or holy Roman empire), the British Empire, and countless other great world shaping nations and powers, all fell from within, and they did so because they went soft and became decadent. Their people lost the thing that united them in purpose and what made them great, focusing more on getting whatever they could from the dwindling spoils. And for those that think that can’t happen again, I point out that we in the western world are flirting with the same fate.

     It’s far more common that states fall as a result of contested succession,  environmental and economic collapse, internal strife, and/or corruption.

    That was precisely what I was talking about. They fell because of the strife from within, practically always caused when the people lost their edge/purpose/will to fight, only to then be overrun by those they once considered barbarians. Failure has a cost, and history is replete with instances of how this played out.

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    No acknowledgement of every other Democrat voting to confirm? What a surprise. I thought they were going to obstruct at every turn?

    Did I not point the vote count out? Do you have a problem doing math? And did you miss the point that the one person that didn’t vote for him did so out of idiotic reasons? Trust me, if she had been republican I would have called her out on that idiotic stance as well.

    Thumb up 0

  6. AlexInCT *

    None of your post actually addresses why you believe the way sexual assault is handled is appropriate.

    WTF are you talking about? I was specifically talking about the military, the purpose of a military force, the damage done by politicized social engineering of a military, and the disdain I have for idiots that push that agenda. How the fuck did you get sexual assaults out of that?

    That’s what you are speculating about, after all.

    You must have trouble with English then dude, because I speculated about nothing and definitely was not talking about sexual assault anywhere in this post, or at any time. Then again, you leftists consider a guy saying he would like to bag a hot woman sexual assault because he isn’t one of your tribe, while turning a blind eye to a know rapist because he had proselytized the crap you believe in.

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    Yikes. Check again. Your argument is that she didn’t vote against the waiver for the stated reason, but really because she has an issue with how sexual assaults are dealt with. That’s what you quoted. And this apparently means social engineering. Presumably, for your leap to make sense, you believe she is wrong because sexual assault is actually dealt with properly. Otherwise, trying to have it dealt with properly wouldn’t be social engineering.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    It’s true that the British lost their empire because they went ‘soft’. They even signed a treaty here – treating the native people with a degree of respect not shown anywhere else at that point. I know, just terrible. The losers. Can’t expect to hang on to an Empire when you treat people like that.

    Thumb up 0

  9. stogy

    Greeks, the Romans, they Byzantine Empire (or holy Roman empire)

    The Macedonians  hardly just handed over their empire to the Romans, but were drawn into conflict with Rome by other Greek states over their attempts to reconquer Egypt – they fought tooth and nail to hang on to what they had, and Philip V spent the latter part of his reign trying to reform and rebuild Macedonian institutions; the Seleucids, likewise, launched their own invasion of Greece with a huge army, and were also beaten back by Rome – an excellent example of biting off more than you can chew – after which time, the successors of Antiochus Epiphanes IV fell on each other in their desire for the throne.

    The Roman Empire fell because of a combination of lust for power, poor economic management, high taxes, over-reliance on slaves, greed and corruption, and lack of manpower to serve in the army – mainly because the Western Empire had spent so much time and money fighting itself. And the Eastern Empire was so rich and strong that invading barbarian forces diverted North and West.

    And it wasn’t decadence that led Alexios III Angelos  to overthrow, blind, and imprison his younger brother, so that the Latins could sack the city, this was followed by the Black Plague that depopulated much of the city, and a long cycle of economic decline, and the late arrival of the Venetian fleet, which ultimately led to its downfall.

    The Holy Roman Empire (which was mostly unconnected to the Byzantines, apart from a few state marriages) was never unified to begin with, and ultimately became irrelevant.

     the British Empire,

    … and that was largely because a tiny Indian man pointed out that what the British were doing was immoral.

    In some cases going “soft” might have played a part, but on balance, lust for power and conquest was more often a factor…

    Thumb up 0

  10. West Virginia Rebel

    I don’t think the British Empire fell so much as it was changed as it became the commonwealth as colonialism fell out of favor. The French and Spanish Empires certainly fell because they didn’t learn the lessons that the British did.

    The Soviet Union might count as the last major Empire that fell within recent times.

    Thumb up 0

  11. AlexInCT *

    … and that was largely because a tiny Indian man pointed out that what the British were doing was immoral.

    Lot of myths around that event and little man you mentioned. Reality was far more complex than what most know today. What it ultimately really boiled down to however, was the sad fact that the people of that empire had moved on to different priorities and most importantly got soft.

    Thumb up 0

  12. AlexInCT *

    The Soviet Union might count as the last major Empire that fell within recent times.

    Would agree with you there., but would also point out that it was an empire, it was doomed from the start. That was because it was founded on nonsense. Communism, and for that matter any form of collectivism outside the family, is not a workable system. Its precepts require the laws of human nature, economics, and even the universe to bend to the will of man, and for some savior entity, devoid of the foibles every man has, to be in charge of things. Decent people may/will make great sacrifices for those they love, but past that point, altruism becomes a choice.

    Of the two forms of collectivist that plagued mankind, communism in particular, was an attempt to capitalize on tenets of religion, by promising the ability to recreate heaven on earth. Thus giving the rewards in this life instead of the next, and replacing whatever all might judgmental power people bowed to in hopes of those rewards and that would decide your fate, with government. It always baffles me that it is usually the people that find fault with those that hold spiritual religion, holding them in contempt for their faith in something that to them obviously looks flawed and made up, that fall for this new religion, which is based on a need for a dogmatic faith that far surpasses that of those that adhered to old religions.

    There is always going to be appeal for that sort of thing because most people suffer from the need of instant gratification and the belief they are deserving of more, whether they are or not. The other, socialism, the stuff of Mussolini and Hitler, focused less on replacing old religions and economics with an all mighty state, but instead insinuated the state into everything (the state picked the winners and the losers). Both were based on capitalizing (what an ironic choice of words, there huh?) on man’s envy and greed, both being powerful motivators.

    And a shadow of that system even now holds the western world in check. The first empire to embrace these things might have gone the way of the Dodo, but the nonsense it believed has mutated into something far better at concealing the inherent darkness in this system, and is still with us.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    Exact WVR – empires weren’t compatible with recognising human rights, as they require oppression and control. I guess some would consider that as ‘going soft’.

    Thumb up 0

  14. pekka

    So what exactly is the SJW experiment here – women fighting in the military in general? Or something they want to do to the sexual assault policies? If so, what exactly?

    I’m genuinely curious.

    Thumb up 0

  15. AlexInCT *

    So what exactly is the SJW experiment here – women fighting in the military in general?

    Erm no Pekka. My problem is with things like the fitness standards being changed or the military wasting time and money dealing with PC shit when they should be focusing on training warriors. I have no problem with women in the military BTW, as long as they pass the same tests the men do, to qualify for any of the various specialties. When the standards are reduced so people riding the PC bandwagon can argue that men and women are exactly the same, we end up with a compromised military. The military, contrary to what the left has made it across most of the western world, is not a jobs program. They serve a very specific purpose, and when less qualified people are allowed in so someone can score political PC points, when the shit hits the fan, more people will die than necessary.

    Thumb up 0

  16. AlexInCT *

    Exact WVR – empires weren’t compatible with recognising human rights, as they require oppression and control. I guess some would consider that as ‘going soft’.

    What a crock of shit. This is nothing but a marxist talking point. Funny how its always marxists, followers of the ideology that owns the world’s most horrible human rights violation record ever, spouting this shit. Judging civilization by 20th century morals – which where only possible because of the stability and wealth created by these empires that preceded – is the height of idiocy and the main reason the western world is falling apart from within. When you disown your accomplishments and can only focus on the things you now consider ills, you end up with idiots that believe stupid shit and basically end up destroying unity (you know the way democrats go about creating special interest voting blocks) and people believing nonsense: like for example, slavery being something invented by the United States, or that it was (and is) only done by evil whites.

    The Greeks pointed out more than 3000 years ago that when societies got soft and the people figured out they could vote themselves free shit, they were doomed. Does that sound familiar?

    Thumb up 0

  17. stogy

    Exact WVR – empires weren’t compatible with recognising human rights, as they require oppression and control. I guess some would consider that as ‘going soft’.

    I’m with VWR here. The whole principle of an empire is to hold other nations under their sway. That implies the use of force keep the people of those nations in line – so yes, human rights go out the window. Your own example of the USSR is a perfect example of this. So is China in terms of Tibet/Xinjiang. If an empire treats everyone as proper citizens and they no longer object to being part of a bigger state, then it ceases to be an empire.

    And which is it that destroyed the Soviet Union? Is that “the Marxists” in the USSR went soft based on their incredible wealth and indolent lifestyle? Or is it that they realized the folly of their Marxist economic system, and abandoned “collectivism” forever (i.e. not going soft). You can’t have it both ways, Alex. At least one (but quite probably both) of your theories are demonstrably wrong here.

    This is really a perfect example of an inductive error. You have decided your conclusion (empires end because they go soft) and cherry-picked your evidence (Greeks, Romans, Byzantines) to match it, while ignoring dozens of other complexities. And confusing two completely different empires to boot.

    The Greeks pointed out more than 3000 years ago that when societies got soft and the people figured out they could vote themselves free shit, they were doomed. Does that sound familiar?

    Which Greeks were these that did the pointing?

    I’m happy to talk history and archeology all day though :) That’s what I would like to have done if I didn’t do the thing that I do.

    Thumb up 0

  18. AlexInCT *

    I’m with VWR here. The whole principle of an empire is to hold other nations under their sway.

    Good old KGB talking points for bozos 101. Thanks for validating it. Funny how your kind only finds a negative in it as long as it or is not a leftist in charge….

    Thumb up 0

  19. AlexInCT *

    Which Greeks were these that did the pointing?

    These ones. The ones that where a key part of the inspiration out forefathers got to create a republic instead of straight out democracy.

    Protesting Facism!

    Thumb up 0

  20. stogy

    Good old KGB talking points for bozos 101. Thanks for validating it. Funny how your kind only finds a negative in it as long as it or is not a leftist in charge….

    Did you miss the bit where I said you were either wrong once, or wrong twice, and how the USSR provided an excellent example of an inductive error ?

    These ones. The ones that where a key part of the inspiration out forefathers got to create a republic instead of straight out democracy.

    Where’s the bit about the Greeks? You promised me Greeks!

    Thumb up 0

  21. AlexInCT *

    Did you miss the bit where I said you were either wrong once, or wrong twice, and how the USSR provided an excellent example of an inductive error ?

    You obviously missed my point that you leftists only label things as bad or criminal behavior as long as it is the other side doing it?

    Where’s the bit about the Greeks? You promised me Greeks!

    You just trying to be douchier than normal? IT was the Athenians if you want to get all specific. Can’t remember the guys name, but I am sure you can google it yourself.

    Thumb up 0

  22. stogy

    You just trying to be douchier than normal? IT was the Athenians if you want to get all specific. Can’t remember the guys name, but I am sure you can google it yourself.

    You really should be working for the White House.  You have all the skills, and your own ‘alternative facts’. Your talents are clearly wasted here.

    Thumb up 0

  23. CM

    Between Alex’s recent performances and the worldwide onslaught of quality mocking of Trump, I have been enjoying myself I must say.

    Thumb up 0

View Mobile Site