In the spirit of accuracy, the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit a Secretary of Defense from being recently retired from the military. Instead, the provision is in U.S. Law (Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 2 › § 113) which was written (if I am reading the law right) by Congress in 1962.

So if a previous congress wrote the law, the existing congress can rewrite the law. With a large GOP majority, I don't think that would be a problem. 

Based on what I have read about Mattis, he seemed to be a hell of a general. 

I don't know how that would translate into performing as Secretary of Defense, but I will say he's gained my respect for one simple quote he made:

"PowerPoint Makes Us Stupid" - Gen James Mattis

On this, I can agree 100%

It is a good law. Hope the R-tribe controlled Congress does not override it or change it (even worse). We do not want to become like a lot of 3rd word countries where the military is tightly intertwined with the ruling government officials. 

Marshall it was--I forgot the name.  However, when he was given an exemption it was with the understanding that the law would never again be changed for the reason tennyson stated.

TheLagerLad wrote:

Well, never say never. Congress certainly has the ability to change laws as they see fit.

For what it's worth, I don't see the difference between three years and seven years as the difference between democracy and a military junta.

If Mattis is qualified and can convince Congress that he can separate civilian and military life, then I could live with him being approved by Congress.

Still, why do we want to get closer to the military be involved with this role ? A bad trend in my mind. 
 

TheLagerLad wrote:

I get your concerns Tenny and can't offer a good response.

Here's where I am coming from.....

I like Obama and think generally he's done a good job. But he's been weak on foreign policy. And not "weak" in a "I want terrorists to invade America" way, but from a America is war weary and I don't want to commit 50,000 soldiers into a battlefield way.

That is admirable and understandable.

But we've reached a point where there is a genocide going on in Syria and the U.S. is going to need to take the lead on fixing it. 

Mattis has straddled the fence between psychotic hard ass and sensible leader for the past dozen years. 

Remember, he's told Trump that torture wasn't necessary to beat back terrorist types. 

Mattis may very well to be the right guy at the right time. I'm willing to give him a chance.

My fear is that we have not learned our lesson in the Middle East in that WE cannot fix the problem. How Alleppo is being handled is the only way (their own people in the lead) that a final stability can be found there. We keep thinking we can fix things there and I am worried that this guy might also think we can. I understand the heartbreaking humanitarian situation, but unless we can bring together a coalition of primarily Middle East forces to quell the problem, we will wind up in the same thing that has kept us there this long with no end in sight.