0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
1,586 $
5 DAYS LEFT TO COLLECT SOUTHFRONT'S MONTHLY BUDGET

Trump: Mattis To Leave On Jan 1, His Deputy Shanahan To Become Acting Defense Secretary

Donate

Trump: Mattis To Leave On Jan 1, His Deputy Shanahan To Become Acting Defense Secretary

Patrick Shanahan

The outgoing US Defense Secretary James Mattis will leave his post by January 1, 2019 and his deputy Patrick Shanahan will replace him as acting defense chief, President Donald Trump tweeted on December 23.

Patrick Shanahan is a US businessman. He’s deeply linked to the Boeing Copmany and got his first post as a government official in 2017.

Earlier Mattis and US special envoy for the global coalition to defeat ISIS Brett McGurk submited resignation letters to the Trump administration. Most of observers link this situation with the decision of President Trump to pull out troops from Syria.

MORE ON THE ISSUE:

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Jesus

    Mattis and McGurk can resign to protest Trump’s decision on Syria, it is Trump’s way or out …..through the revolving door at the White House.

    • John Whitehot

      idk if Trump will stay true to his words.

      the way this thing has been done, it appears unllikely that he will backtrack. It also seem that the order caught by surprise most of the pentagon.

      But he underlined “beating ISIS was the only reason we were there”, Sen. Graham and his clique can tell that “Russia wins” all they want, but neither Obama nor Trump ever admitted that toppling Assad was a mission for the US forces in Syria.

      • Jesus

        It’s been a campaign promise, he fulfilled other campaign promises, his foreign policy and economic policies were infringed by neocon Zionist elements acting through his cabinet heads obfuscating and delaying his policies. He is getting rid of them and pursuing his agenda. The Pentagon will submit to the executive power, since the President is the Commander in Chief.
        The Brennans, Clappers, Commeys….et al, are on the run and ineffective, Trump is slowly uprooting the deep state visible players that withstood his policies from the time he was elected.

        I think Obama admitted that Assad must go, last year Tillerson was mouthing off the same thing…..only to be let go.

        • John Whitehot

          “I think Obama admitted that Assad must go, last year Tillerson was mouthing off the same thing”

          Politicians may have muttered those words, but as I said, the US forces in Syria were never invested with that task.

          • Jesus

            US forces in Syria were minimal, they became imbedded with their proxies that served as their boots on the ground. Those proxies, ISIS, HTS and later SDF were used to,destabilize Syria and eventually overthrow the current government.
            Syria was the last country to taste the western color revolution of the Arab spring, the US intent was to remove Assad.

          • John Whitehot

            “the US intent was to remove Assad”

            yes. And their withdrawal proves that they have dropped that intent, at least directly.

            But the subject is the nature of the mission of the US forces in Syria, that mission has never been to directly topple Assad, but to somehow make clear to both Syria and its enemies that they could undertake that mission, given some conditions (like “chemical attacks” and other kinds of false flag operations they would perform together with Israel and the ragheads).

            Withdrawing the US forces basically tells Syria’s enemies that the hope for direct US intervention is over.

            That’s why many US representatives who received tons of moneybags from Saudia and Israel are crying rivers about Trump’s decision, and desperately trying to design alternate plans which could keep that hope alive.

            Not that I’m sure that this withdrawal will happen for real – the times for it are so long that it will be entirely possible for the enemies of Syria to create some opportunity to justify a counter-order.

          • Jesus

            “””And their withdrawal proves that they have dropped that intent, at least directly.”””
            Assad’s removal was intended to be accomplished by Arab spring playbook.
            US was involved directly in the Arab spring turmoil, without heavy military involvement.

            “””But the subject is the nature of the mission of the US forces in Syria, that mission has never been to directly topple Assad, but to somehow make clear to both Syria and its enemies that they could undertake that mission, given some conditions (like “chemical attacks” and other kinds of false flag operations they would perform together with Israel and the ragheads).”””

            US forces in Syria assisted the rebels in their fight against Damascus being imbedded with them, US did not want to pay the price for deploying a large expeditionary force in Syria given the logistical and terrain difficulties, so they tried to do it cheaply.
            Reaction to false flag chemical attacks was just a juvenile stunt to show that they were still number one, defying the deployment of Kalibr and S400 missiles that challenged their naval and air “supremacy”.
            US tried to project maximum power using minimal forces and a lot of hot air propaganda that did not change the situation at all.

            For all it is worth, US and their proxies lost their conflict in Syria, Trump found it more expedient to get out of the Kurd quagmire and of need and support, and cash in on +10 billion F35 deal with Turkey plus some Patriot sales as well. In the end with Trump it is about what is expedient to the US.

          • John Whitehot

            “Assad’s removal was intended to be accomplished by Arab spring playbook.
            US was involved directly in the Arab spring turmoil, without heavy military involvement.”

            Syria could not be subdued that way.
            In fact, the playbook was the same one used with Lybia, in which the US, together with Britain and France got a direct military involvement. Without their support, the anti-Qaddafi forces would had never won.

            The only difference with Syria, is Russia’s direct involvement. With the Russian military directly and openly support Syria against the foreign aggression, the west could not repeat Lybia’s playbook. If Russia did not intervene, they would find an excuse to support the jihadists (like they tried, with the fake chemical attacks, “barrel bombing”, “hospitals bombings” and so on).

            “US forces in Syria assisted the rebels in their fight against Damascus being imbedded with them”

            Yes and no.
            They embedded with openly, and fought together with the SDF, basically the Kurds. With other factions, it was rendered impossible mostly by the Russian intervention again.
            Furthermore, all signs point to a lesser involvement by the Pentagon with jihadist formations, somewhat balanced by involvement of the CIA and possibly other national and private organizations.

            Until McCain died, he was known for having the connections and the power to direct manpower and material to fullfill regime changing missions. It’s also very likely, that he was able to “lease” hardware and technical personnel from services like the USAF, and use them to provide some direct support to jihadists.

            As an example, the “mistake bombing” of Syrian Army units deployed in defense of Deir Ezzor in 2016, resulting in tens of casualties and an advance of ISIS (later stopped) on the city, bears all the signs of being one of those ventures.

            “Reaction to false flag chemical attacks was just a juvenile stunt to show that they were still number one”

            Most of the US actions were.

            They tried all the time to make it appear to the public that they have the force to control what happens on the ground. Take the ridiculous claim of hundreds of Russian mercs KIA in direct combat with US forces. It’s a clear attempt directed at the US people, to tell them that “we can kill Russians at leisure”, because the Pentagon lies were being destroyed alongside their ragheads by the actions of a small RuAF grouping. As it would be too much a big lie to claim that the “KIAs” were regular servicemen (which Russia could debunk very easily), the Pentagon chose to claim “Russian mercenaries” – with the tacit (or not so tacit) approval of the above PMC (owed to a mutual disagreement with the Russian government, who tends to legislate against too much freedom of such entities).

            “For all it is worth, US and their proxies lost their conflict in Syria”

            We know that since several years already. As already said above, the turning point was the Russian intervention in 2015, not only for the military implications, but also for political and diplomatical ones.

            The west hoped for a short time that the Russians would not fight effectively, and that the jihadist would make Syria “a quagmire” for them – but soon realized they were totally wrong; in no little measure for the reason that the Syrian population never supported the ragheads and always knew that it was an invasion, not a revolution.

            The period we are entering though, is that in which the west will have to somehow admit its complete loss in front of the worlds public opinion. This is somehow a delicate matter, one that could potentially result in some reckless moves.
            Because, one thing is to beat a large bully into leaving you in peace, but another is if that bully has to admit it in front of everybody else.

            Will the US and its puppeteers accept in front of the world that their regime changing, NWO agenda can and will be stopped? We’ll have to wait and see.

          • Jesus

            By Arab spring playbook I mean the basic tool for these color revolutions was civil unrest formented by CIA operatives, hoping the political group friendly to US would size power.
            It happened in Egypt where MB took control of the government and was headed in making Egypt an Islamic state.
            In Lybia things were not so easy, US faction needed a lot of help and that was provided by establishing a no fly zone over the country.
            In Syria the civil unrest was and the competing factions were provided weapons shipped from Lybia, and with the advent of ISIS conquering significant territories in Iraq and Syria NATO was content to sit back and watch the developments as they were fully convinced ISIS and various FSA groups would topple Assad; there was no need of a no fly zone, at times coalition planes would make some “surgical” strikes against SAA or Syrian infrastructure for the sole purpose of destroying the national infrastructure.
            With the arrival of the Russian ground and air contingent and the projection of EW and SAM capabilities against US, constrained them to limit their activities to the east of Eufrates.

            “”””US forces in Syria assisted the rebels in their fight against Damascus being imbedded with them”
            Yes and no.”””

            When I say US forces I mean US personnel, there were casualties in Aleppo and Ghouta, Russian air strikes killed quite a few US personnel in Ghouta and possibly averted any attempt by US to deploy some forces on the Ghouta – Al Tanf axis and bring them close to Damascus protecting the terrorist groupings in the area.

            “””For all it is worth, US and their proxies lost their conflict in Syria”
            We know that since several years already. As already said above, the turning point was the Russian intervention in 2015, not only for the military implications, but also for political and diplomatical ones.
            The west hoped for a short time that the Russians would not fight effectively, and that the jihadist would make Syria “a quagmire” for them – but soon realized they were totally wrong; ”””

            Russia intervened in late 2015, the US was laughing at the Russian Air Force deployment, it was not until 2017 when Palmyra was taken the second time and the siege of Deir Ezzor lifted when US realized their proxies were getting crushed and they were on the loosing side.
            The US situation in Syria has been precarious from a number of reasons, primarily because of a potential clash with the Russians or potential showdown of their weaponry, to make or break claims or bragging rights.
            US could not have done anything positive in Syria considering Pentagon’s agenda, the best they could do is be spiteful and disruptive of peaceful efforts undertaken by the Russians.
            When Russia gave Syria the S300 and the green light for any foreign retaliation, US’ agenda of provocative actions against Syria came to a conclusion.

          • John Whitehot

            “In Lybia things were not so easy, US faction needed a lot of help and that was provided by establishing a no fly zone over the country”.

            It’s been much more than a no-fly zone, NATO air forces provided the Close Ar Support mission to the jihadists, which in itself guarantees that NATO special forces were deployed on the ground (to direct the airstrikes and to perform mostly recon operations), and that there was an established military link between the jihadists and the NATO HQ.

            Curiously enough, what the Russians accomplished in Syria has been basically the same, but against the zio-jihadists: although (based on available sources) the RuAF has performed a wider spectrum of tasks in Syria than NATO’s in Lybia; since September 2015, air dominance was established AGAINST the NATO/Israel/Saudi supported ragheads.

            NATO personnel discovered for the first time since years the meaning of operating inside a potentially hostile airspace, and the result is in front of everyone – they COULD NOT change the outcome of the war in favor of the side they support.

            This is the most important aspect in understanding the rationale behind the massive propaganda from the west we are seeing today, they are spending huge resources in trying to convince people (at all levels, military, political, diplomatical and laymen all alike) that what happened in Syria is not a defeat of NATO’s doctrine – but in the end they lack any meaningful point.

            Nobody puts in doubt that NATO still is a formidable war machine, what has been shattered, is the illusion that it is able to destroy countries and governments and shape the worlds political layer at their leisure.

            They now know that the countries they are aggressing can and will get together to defend themselves, and that the prosecution of the NWO agenda and the Wolfowitz doctrine cannot continue without taking losses that are unacceptable by western populations.

          • Jesus

            “””Nobody puts in doubt that NATO still is a formidable war machine, what has been shattered, is the illusion that it is able to destroy countries and governments and shape the worlds political layer at their leisure.”””

            NATO picking up on small countries is not something galant, Russia was unawarely complicit with the Lybian matter, the reason NATO will not be able to pick on small countries is because Russia and China have the military fortitude and capability to intervene and challenge NATO’s aggression, while Eurasian military reaches a higher level of readiness and capability while NATO’s military capabilities are stagnant or declining.
            Demographics also indicate superior Eurasian intellectual capabilities unencumbered by social perversion and degradation as western societies are experiencing, which will enable them to develop technological platforms for superior weapons.
            All the propaganda NATO is putting out is to make their populous feel better, Eurasia does not listen to their BS.
            Multi polarity with its economic and military power projection world wide spells the doom for a unipolar world.

  • Snowglobe

    It is good to see SF begin to use Trump as a source. The western media is abysmal at this time.

    • jorge

      ” The western media is abysmal at this time”…it seems that is the reason why he tweets all the time, he don’t has any western mainstream media.

      • Snowglobe

        That is correct. :-)

        This has been his way to bypass them. It has also his way to openly troll, and torment his accusers and enemies. He has been openly doing it for two years and the only thing that they have been able to do is call him a bully and make fun of his spelling mistakes.

        Some day they may even figure out that his spelling mistakes have been a code. ;-)

      • badgery

        Not exactly. Western Mockingbird media has been all about Donny Johnny for several years now (i.e., showing his empty podium for 20 min). It’s a mutually beneficial relationship. They love their Pied Piper. And he loves the attention; the more negative the better for perpetuating the ‘Deep State War on Trump’ myth.

        • jorge

          Those who work on a State, deep or not deep, are mere employees. May be their bosses, those of the dollar big big gang, are making a little massacre of some of their awkish servants. Already in the times of F. D. Roosevelt something had to change for things could have stood at the same.

  • PZIVJ

    Mattis was supposed to leave Feb 28.
    So this is no longer a resignation. :D
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfd468cf1c3d894fa67bac236fc87b78850adbe2cee8f6960e1bff6bc3fddbc1.jpg

  • Willing Conscience (The Truths

    Mmmm, he seems to be pro LGBTQI, this may be a mistake for Trump. Business man with no military experience, not someone I’d pick for the job.

  • Tudor Miron

    Mad dog out of the house. Good.

    • Bob

      Also, US war-hawk for occuying north east Syria, Brett McGurk – gone!

    • John Whitehot

      As far as the US is concerned, when one dog goes, there’s another coming – and the catch is that almost invariably the latter is worse than the former.