President Trump makes everything so binary, everything so black and white, that there is an inevitable tendency to lionize anyone who goes into opposition to him. That is a tendency worth resisting, as much with out-going Secretary Mattis as with anyone else. I’m trying to resist over-interpreting his resignation letter. But it doesn’t leave a lot of room for interpretation. The critical passage in my mind comes here …
The key points are there, respect for allies, recognizing the importance of alliances and not toadying or being naive about “malign actors and strategic competitors”, which is clearly at least mainly Russia. He earlier name-checks Russia and China as countries that “want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model – gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions – to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies.”
Mattis says he believes that and Trump believes something else.
It seems clear that the breaking point here was the decision for an immediate withdrawal from Syria. As I’ve noted elsewhere, whether we should be in Syria in the first place is a very open question. Leaving on these terms likely leaves allies on the ground ripe for slaughter and gives a strategic gift to Russia. That seems to have been too much for Mattis.
The indifference and hostility to alliance relationships of half a century’s standing and a robust fealty to Russia are two sides of the same coin. Whether they stem from an authoritarian mindset or a deeper corruption is yet to be determined.
As far as I can tell, this is the first true resignation in protest of this administration. The letter itself, while not angry, is a thoroughgoing rebuke and frankly an indictment. There’s really not another way to read it.
