Retired Gen. James Mattis called Russia the “principal threat” to the United States’ security and said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin is “trying to break” the NATO alliance, starkly contrasting his views with that of President-elect Donald Trump during his Senate confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense on Thursday.
Mattis focused on global threats and the need to boost U.S. military strength to protect national security. The world order, Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee, is “under the biggest attack since World War II” and “that's from Russia, from terrorist groups and with what China is doing in the South China Sea.”
Mattis notably broke with his future boss on Putin and Russia. “Right now the most important thing is that we recognize the reality of what we deal with, with Mr. Putin, and we recognize that he is trying to break the North Atlantic alliance,” Mattis said.
Trump has said the U.S. would only defend NATO countries, which may feel threatened by Russia, if they had “fulfilled their obligations to us,” and that he would “be looking at” recognizing Crimea as a part of Russia and lifting sanctions imposed after the 2014 annexation. The president-elect has also spoken approvingly of Putin and vowed to improve relations with Russia.
The retired general told senators he has had discussions on NATO with Trump, and that the president-elect seemed “open even to the point of asking questions” about why he feels so strongly about supporting NATO. Trump “understands where I stand,” Mattis said, and he promised to stand up “100 percent” for NATO in the administration.
“Nations with allies thrive, and nations without allies don’t,” Mattis said. “And so I would see us maintaining the strongest possible relationship with NATO.”
On China, Mattis said he wants to put together an integrated policy with State, Treasury, and the Pentagon to deal with the South China Sea issue. But the “bottom line” is that “international waters are international waters.”
Mattis, who is known for his very strong views on Iran, warned on the dangers from the country but also said the U.S. needs to uphold the Iran nuclear deal — an agreement Trump spent much of his campaign railing against.
“I think it is an imperfect arms control agreement,” Mattis said. “It's not a friendship treaty. But when America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”
Calling it “not a deal I would have signed,” Mattis said he would ask Congress to have a joint committee to oversee the implementation of the agreement.
Mattis faced a number of questions on his previous opposition to women serving in combat roles, telling the committee that “I have no plan to oppose women in any aspect of military readiness.” He said he was “not coming in looking for problems,” and his focus is entirely on military readiness.
A number of senators emphasized the importance of civilian control of the military throughout the hearing, a key issue given that waivers are required for defense secretaries who have not been out of military service for seven years. Mattis only retired in 2013. The Senate committee approved the waiver for Mattis, and the full Senate also approved the exception on Thursday. The House votes on the measure Friday. The last nominee to need a congressional waiver was George Marshall in 1950.
Retired four-star General and Former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Jack Keane recommended General Mattis to the Trump team. The Cipher Brief’s Leone Lakhani spoke to General Keane to find out more about the potential Secretary of Defense.
THE CIPHER BRIEF: You recommended General Mattis to the Trump team. What qualities or assets do you think he would bring to the job?
General Jack Keane: First of all, it’s unusual for a former military leader to become Secretary of Defense. I know that General Mattis has enormous respect for civilian control of the military. And I also know that he, like myself, would never have considered even being asked to assume the job of Secretary of Defense. I think he believes, like I do, that these are unusual times. The United States is still at war. We have conflict on the horizon, and it’s an unusual time for someone who had a military career to become the Secretary of Defense, but it’s also an appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. Is he right for that role as a former military general acting as a civilian to control the military? I say absolutely yes.
In addition to that, this is someone the people recognize as being smart and tough, but he’s also very thoughtful and deliberate and a very compassionate person. He will care about all the soldiers and civilians and family members that are associated with the Department of Defense and absolutely provide to them the best leadership. He will help shape President Trump’s national security team in facing the very serious threats that we have in this country, which are the most serious since the end of World War Two and the rise of the Soviet Union.
TCB: Give us a sense of how Gen. Mattis would react if presented with a situation where his views are not in line with the President’s or the National Security Advisor? For instance, on NATO, Mr. Trump has threatened to leave the alliance, but Gen Mattis has vowed to stand up “100 percent” for the alliance. How would he deal with situations like that?
JK: Those situations happen in any administration. There’s no such thing as complete unanimity in policy formulation. There’s always disagreement. And I think that’s actually good government. There’s only one President. There’s only one Chief Executive, one Commander-In-Chief. He makes the decision, and knowing General Mattis, President-Elect Trump will always know General Mattis’s views. He will not hide them at all. He will not try to shape them to conform to the President’s. He will present his best judgment, and the President will make a decision. If that is not in concert with what General Mattis recommended, he will support that decision 100 percent in terms of its execution. Loyalty is an attribute with the United States military that we hold very dear. We only have one Commander-In-Chief. And if he’s asking us to do something, regardless of how we feel about it, we’re going to get it done for him.
TCB: How about Russia? Gen. Mattis calls it a “principal threat” and said there needs to be a “strategy to confront Russia for what it's done,” referring to its interference in the U.S. elections. But as we know, Mr. Trump has been much softer on Russia.
JK: We don’t know where Mr. Trump is on Russia, other than the fact that he said that why don’t we try to get along with them. Why don’t we try to work with them? And I am absolutely convinced that as President Trump gets further into the national security environment in terms of briefings and discussions with his own national security team—he hasn’t had a national security team yet. He’s been totally dependent on intelligence briefings, and he’s also being assisted by General Mike Flynn, who’s his National Security Advisor. But even General Flynn hasn’t had total access to all the classified information that’s being held in the National Security Council. So the amount of information the President-elect has had is very limited.
Once he understands what Russia’s role has been for the last 15 years—largely under Putin’s stewardship—he’ll recognize, one, it is an existential threat. Two, we have to confront it, where and when they are compromising U.S. national interests and those of our allies. Three, we have to hold their behavior accountable. Four, while there may be areas of cooperation we should pursue, then let’s go ahead and do that, but only with the understanding that we have to hold Russia’s behavior accountable. We cannot let Russia trample over U.S. interests, which is what they’ve been doing for the last eight years.
TCB: Speaking about Iran, Gen. Mattis has said he would honor the “imperfect arms control agreement,” but he also says the U.S. needs to be a lot more hawkish to ensure Iran doesn't cheat on the deal? What does that mean in practical terms? Is he likely to be more confrontational on the ground? Does that mean more aggressive action?
JK: There’s two things. One is the deal itself, and he has to ensure his contribution to that in terms of his own intelligence agencies. He has two of the biggest intelligence agencies in the United States portfolio: the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. He has to ensure that those two agencies are absolutely focused in helping the IAEA ensure that Iran is complying with the terms of the deal.
Let’s face it. The Iranians have always cheated. They are likely cheating now, and if they’re not, they will cheat. So we have to catch them at it, and then hold them accountable.
Two, Iran’s number one strategic objective is to dominate the region. One of the ways to do that is to weaken the relationship between the United States and our Arab allies. That is what the missile launching is all about. It’s to convince our allies that the United States is not going to be there to stand behind them, and that Iran is the dominating power in the region. We have to push back on Iranian provocations. So we can start with rhetoric, but eventually it will likely be some kind of military response. I’m not talking about warfare, but I am talking about military response when it’s justified to make sure the Iranians understand that they are not going to trample over our allies in the Middle East. They are not going to trample over the United States’ interests either.
Mackenzie Weinger is a national security reporter at The Cipher Brief. Follow her on Twitter @mweinger.
