The New York Times editorial board has been doing a mixed job of taking on Trump, and unfortunately their semi-endorsement of retired Marine General James Mattis as Donald Trump's Secretary of Defense falls on the weaker end of the spectrum. The title, "An Experienced Leader at the Pentagon," is bland and reassuring, but unfortunately the case presented in the article is anything but. Praising a potential government official for opposing torture seems to be setting the bar awfully low; isn't that like saying someone's an awesome pick because they believe that every citizen deserves a right to vote? You don't get extra credit for simply voicing support of basic American values. The tenor of this editorial suggests that the NYT thinks playing defense with Trump cabinet members is the way to go; the board seems to think that since Mattis is not a retrograde billionaire, he'll exert some sort of moderating influence on Trump's foreign policy.
But in fact, half the endorsement is a critique of General Mattis, over his difficulty understanding that all Americans are capable of serving in the military regardless of the upper ranks' prejudice and his statements in support of indefinite detentions in the Orwellian war on terror.
Interestingly, if you happen to be a citizen of the United States who gives a flying fig about democracy, our nation saw fit to pass a law years ago that requires the Secretary of Defense position not be filled by anyone who has served in the military in the past seven years. This might seem a quaint effort to preserve the principle of civilian control of the military, but in fact this guideline has been followed for the last 60 years. The last time this guideline wasn't followed was in the 1950's, when a waiver was sought and received for George C. Marshall to serve as Defense Secretary. This is the exception that proves the rule, as Marshall was a singular figure of that era, having served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army during WWII and subsequently serving as Secretary of State. But now, on the humble request of Donald Trump, James "Mad Dog" Mattis should also get a waiver, more than half a century later?
The reasoning of the NYT editorial board is fundamentally flawed. Sure, they have said, Donald Trump is shaping up to be a deeply problematic president. If we just waive a requirement that has only been waived once in 60 years, and let Donald Trump appoint a former general whose nickname is "Mad Dog" as Secretary of Defense, he'll bring his experience to bear and offer a restraint on the president. But Donald Trump is in fact exactly the sort of extremely unqualified, authoritarian-tending president who should invigorate the supposedly abstract idea of civilian control over the military. We managed to find qualified Defense Secretaries throughout the Cold War and beyond who weren't so close to the military. Surely we can, and should, do that again.