This interview is from 2015 but still pretty interesting.
(HT: John Adams)
Who cares what the US Secretary of Defence thinks about the nature of war.?
For true insight and clarity about war, you should publish an interview with Tubbsy Payne and Chrissy Pyne.
Tubbsy’s forgotten more about combat than Mattis could ever know.
but what about diversity?.
Great interview. I wonder what he reckons about Pape who seriously reckoned Clinton was going to invade Serbia.
Don’t forget to ask the opinions of that pursing fucking princess Morrison. Get over here Morrison, and tell us your views on killing the enemy.
For all those who attacked my piece last week regarding Australia’s national security, have a look at Mattis’ comments at the 18 minute mark. He noted that government which is financially irresponsible will ultimately collapse militarily.
This is the point I made in my piece, the coming storm and yet some people on this blog called me a fool. I think Australian libertarians needs to consider Australia’s national security requirements and the fact that some level of taxation and government spending is needed to defend our nation-state.
bl..dy hell that was good.
The man has my admiration.
John, I belive the issue was multi million dollar troopies, JSFs that try to do everything to the point of failed delivery targets, being not the best at anything and cost a lot, French subs that are not off the shelf and are really a ridiculously expensive make work program for the mendicant state are glaring examples of “government which is financially irresponsible will ultimately collapse militarily.”
Worth warching. The interviewer was obviously in love with Mattis but. Got past that.
Mattis was able to differ in opinion on current givernment policy without directly criticising BO. But enough was said.
Good discussion around managing a $500billion budget. I would like to have that explored more.
I did like Mattis strategy to the enemy. They are the ones who decide if its over.
ISil got a mention. If they want to fight his job is to ensure they pay a high price. You wont change their minds. They need to be annihialated (spelling apologies).
Certainly some steel in that mans spine.
Its hard to imagine watching a whole 40 minute interview with an Australian Government Minister and not wanting to leave the room or its the Waffler wanting to top yourself. If the rest of Trump’s cabinet is half as impressive as this guy, America will be great again within a couple of months.
He’s exactly the kind of choice for SoD that Obama or Clinton would never have made.
He, therefore, stands to be a great and inspired choice by Trump.
America didn’t fail in Korea and the vibrant,free South Korean Republic is the proof of that.
Just guessing that the reason Mattis’ confirmation hearing got virtually zero coverage on Their ABC was because he was such an impressive performer. The only part of Rex Tillerson’s hearing that they covered was him being badgered by Marco Rubio. The rest of the segment they filled with old photos of him meeting Putin.
An impressive man, impeccably prepared. I understand he is a voracious reader and not just military history.
John Carpenter #2264627, posted on January 17, 2017, at 11:16 am
America didn’t fail in Korea and the vibrant, free South Korean Republic is the proof of that.
Sorry but I must disagree. The existence of South Korea is based on an armistice, not a surrender. The two sides got tired of fighting and agreed to disagree.
The US/UN coalition of forces did not have a clear and decisive view of what victory would look like. So they could not say if they had won. Ergo, they lost.
Met him once. Top bloke.
I would suggest that the people living in South Korea “won” the war and the people living in North Korea “lost” the war.Every day the people in the south have a very clear view of what victory looks like.This is all because of some very good decisions made by Truman in 1950.South Korea doesn’t exist because of an armistice.Apart from the US alliance it exits because it has a large,modern ,industrial economy and a lethal defence force.
My understanding is that the South Korean strategy is to ‘manage’ the collapse of North Korea to the greatest extent possible. They don’t want anarchy with loads of weapons and militarily trained unemployed over the border.
I remember years ago when the US (under Clinton) was paying to build light water reactors in the North, the South Koreans contributed as much but insisted they be of South Korean design – they expect to be running the plants eventually.
That was a great video. Smart, articulate, don’t mess with him !
Comments are closed.
I’m no longer angry. I am ashamed.