Byron York’s Daily Memo: Mattis vs. Cotton

MATTIS VS. COTTON: Two different generations of leaders, one a retired Marine Corps general who became Secretary of Defense, another an Army veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan now in the Senate, are clashing over the role of the military in quelling civil disorder.

In a new article in The Atlantic, General James Mattis, President Trump‘s first Pentagon chief, blasts the man who appointed him. “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try,” Mattis writes. “Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort.”

Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

Mattis was angered by Trump’s use of the military to clear the way for his Tuesday walk to St. John’s Episcopal Church near the White House, which had been set on fire by rioters the night before. “Never did I dream that troops…would be ordered under any circumstances to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside,” Mattis says.

But one key to Mattis’s view is that he appears to think the rioting that has wracked the nation just isn’t a very big deal. “We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers,” Mattis says. “The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values — our values as people and our values as a nation.”

It sounds nice — but what about the violence, looting, and property destruction that have left some dead or injured and have done millions of dollars in damage across the country, destroying businesses and livelihoods while, on some occasions, local officials looked the other way? That’s where Cotton comes in.

In a New York Times op-ed, Cotton calls on the president to use the military in those situations in which local officials will not deal with violence in their cities. “These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives,” Cotton writes. “Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further. One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain, and ultimately deter lawbreakers.” That’s particularly urgent where “delusional politicians…refuse to do what’s necessary to uphold the rule of law.”

Cotton isn’t worried about employing the Insurrection Act. It’s not only legal, it is appropriate, he says. “This venerable law, nearly as old as our republic itself, doesn’t amount to ‘martial law’ or the end of our democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested,” Cotton writes. “In fact, the federal government has a constitutional duty to the states to ‘protect each of them from domestic violence.'”

Who has the better argument? Cotton. Mattis’s we-need-to-unite theme is anodyne, but it seems to be as much about getting rid of the president as uniting the country. (“We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”) Cotton’s is a proposal to deal with the threat facing the country today. Now, perhaps things will calm down and it will all be over soon, and further shows of force will not be necessary. But if not, the White House should listen to the senator from Arkansas.

POSTSCRIPT: It should perhaps not be a surprise that the Times’ publication of Cotton’s op-ed set off a debate about whether the paper should ever allow someone to make such an argument. The journalists’ union, the NewsGuild of New York, an organization one might think would be dedicated to free speech, protested the Times’ decision, saying Cotton’s “message undermines the journalistic work of our members, puts our Black staff members in danger, promotes hate, and is likely to encourage further violence. Invariably, invoking state violence disproportionately hurts Black and brown people. It also jeopardizes our journalists ability to work in the field safely and effectively.”