Many of you have probably already seen the story on the front page by Joan McCarter about Gen. Mattis, the Sect. of Defense, saying upon his arrival in Iraq today that he is not there to steal anyone’s oil. This is, of course, a reference to Trump’s suggestion recently and during the campaign last year that the US should have and maybe still should somehow take all of Iraq’s oil. How that would actually work, and with what effect on the price of oil and the world economy, is not exactly clear, but that is a separate issue here.
CNN reported yesterday in a video that Mattis said that he disagrees with Trump’s assessment that the US [mainstream] media is the enemy and that he personally has no issues with the US media.
You may as well have seen the story from a couple days ago (as reported here by CNN) that Craig Deare was reassigned from his appointment as a senior adviser on the National Security Council back to the National Defense University, to which he was appointed in 2001 (i.e., by George W. Bush). Deare’s offense was criticizing the Trump Administration’s policy with regard to Latin America and the overall dysfunction of the White House Operation.
The CNN article, which was updated today, quotes Sarah Sanders [UPDATE: the original post gave the wrong last name, now corrected], a White House spokesperson:
"I don't think that any person that is there in order to carry out the President's agenda should be against the President's agenda," Sanders said during a briefing with reporters in West Palm Beach, Florida. "It seems pretty silly that you would have someone who is not supportive of what you are trying to accomplish there to carry out that very thing."
Sanders said she was "not extending a blanket policy here" but later added: "If you don't support the President's agenda then you shouldn't have a job in the White House."
The treatment of the media by the Trump Administration is fundamental to their political program of dominance (a la Josh Marshall) and desire to control the messages delivered to their followers (a la the rally in Florida this weekend). Similarly, Trump’s statements regarding the goals and execution of the Iraq war, and the fact that for all of the investment of lives (US lives only of course) and wealth in the war, we did not come away with the prize of the Iraqi oil, is indicative of his world view and his approach to foreign policy and war. Mattis’ transgressions on both of these topics are equally fundamental and perhaps even more significant than Deare’s, someone whose name I did not know before this week despite the attention I give to the news and matters of US government and foreign relations on a more or less constant basis.
Given that Mattis seems to be considered the sane member of the Manson Gambino Trump family, are these transgressions by Mattis attempts to explore the boundaries, perhaps with the willingness to discover that they cross the same line as Deare’s comments? Is his goal to put himself into a position in which he can resign as a way to regain some modicum of his prior honor or even to get himself fired so that he can wear that alongside his other campaign ribbons?
Given the evolution of the relationship between the Trump campaign/White House and CNN, it is notable in this regard that the stories about Mattis and Deare are on the front page of the CNN website adjacent to each other. Clearly CNN is trying to draw attention to the statements of Mattis in the context of the reassignment of Deare.
