"Mad Dog" Mattis, The Cohen Group, and The Sec Def China "Highly Appreciated"
"Mad Dog" Mattis, The Cohen Group, and The Sec Def China "Highly Appreciated"
The "Revolving Door" to the CCP
The unfortunate thing about investigating what’s under the slime-ridden surface of The Swamp is that many of the Swamp Creatures swimming underneath are, well, Swamp Creatures. Former Attorney General Bill Barr seemed like he did a reasonably good job…but then the Epstein horror show raised questions about his past. Mitch McConnel did a great job getting conservative justices on the bench…and then you find out he is closely connected with the Red Chinese Navy and through the Chinese shipping line he and his wife own. The military seems like an institution of honor and respect…and then you find out it was defending child rapists in Afghanistan and punishing soldiers for defending those kids from abusers.
And then there’s James Mattis. The former general known affectionately as “Mad Dog”1 and the “Warrior Monk”2 by the troops, and who served as Trump’s Secretary of Defense. Surely, he is free from the taint of the Swamp’s black waters, right? Wrong. After leaving the Trump White House in a huff,3 Mattis walked right into the revolving door…and into the arms of a consulting firm closely connected with the CCP.
Before the Revolving Door, Mattis Was Soft on China
Given that former President Donald Trump rode into office on a wave of anti-China sentiment, you might think that those who worked in his administration shared that view, or were at least willing to go along with it and advance his policy agendas. Some did. Peter Navarro, the Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, for example, was particularly good.4
Others, however, had decidedly more mixed reputations. Surprisingly, that even extended to the military and former military men in his administration. General Mark Milly had secret phone calls with the Red Chinese in which he pledged to warn them if Trump planned to attack China, for example.5 Similarly, former General Mattis, far from being a “mad dog” regarding China, was surprisingly soft on China and tended to tamp down controversy rather than strike a stronger line with America’s main competitor.
For example, after a Chinese naval vessel nearly collided with the USS Decatur, Mattis tried to downplay tensions and make nice with the Red Chinese.6 Similarly, as the Trump Administration sent ships on freedom of navigation operations through the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, Mattis remarked, "I think that 15 years from now we will be remembered most for: How did we set the conditions for a positive relationship with China?"7
Also in 2018, President Xi of China belligerently berated Mattis, with Chinese TV reporting that he said, "We cannot lose even one inch of the territory left behind by our ancestors. What is other people's, we do not want at all.” Mattis, instead of defending American honor, told Xi in front of reporters that the talks had been "very, very" good.8
In 2020, after Mattis left the Trump Administration, he joined the Cohen Group, a consulting firm intertwined with China. Once ensconced in that position, Mattis stuck with the “positive relationship” theme, saying, “Cooperation across different ideological systems is difficult but necessary, and there should be opportunities to cooperate with China in areas of overlapping interests, such as a pandemic response, climate change and nuclear security.”9 In fact, Mattis’ post-Trump Administration views were so pro-globalist and soft on China that a writer for the Boston Globe remarked, “Trump’s Mad Dog is now Biden’s Pet Dog.”10
That’s not to say that all former Gen. Mattis did was weak on China. In 2018, he released a defense strategy which recognized China as the top threat and developed a strategy for America to work with its allies to counter the rise of Red China.11 Similarly, in 2019, he called out China’s “predatory economic behavior” and militarization of the South China Sea.12
But, generally, he was less firm on China than was typical for the Trump Administration and its generally anti-China stance. Even his comments on its predatory behavior, for example, were tempered by his assuring the communists that America is not trying to “contain” China.13
Further, the Chinese recognized Mattis’ softness on them and were quite appreciative. When he left the Trump Administration, the Chinese Defense Ministry said it and Beijing “highly appreciated” his attitude during his time as the American Secretary of Defense.14
The Cohen Group and the Revolving Door to China
Background on the Revolving Door
A common critique critics of the American military-industrial complex have is that when generals leave the Pentagon, they head to the boards of America’s big defense contractors and make themselves valuable by providing connections to those still inside the Pentagon or Armed Forces. Critics argue that such a “revolving door” incentivizes those within the Pentagon to make decisions that benefit the defense contractors, rather than the military, so that they can get a cushy job on the board of a company like Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin when they retire.
Gen. Mattis chose General Dynamics.15 Politico, describing how that decision eked past the Trump Administration’s toughened lobbying rules, said:
President Donald Trump required political appointees to sign a pledge promising not to lobby the agencies they worked for five years after leaving the federal government. This pledge is unlikely to affect Mattis, since board members infrequently lobby agencies directly and instead focus on oversight of the running of the company, approving dividends or compensation.
Commenting on how the revolving door presents problems and how Mattis was involved in a particularly notorious example, Politico noted:16
Some other members of the General Dynamics board previously worked in the Pentagon as well, including Rudy deLeon, a former deputy Defense secretary, and retired Adm. Cecil Haney, the former commander of U.S. Strategic Command.
Mattis, while he was still at the Pentagon, faced questions about blurring lines between the Defense Department and defense industry over a much-fought-over $10 billion cloud computing contract known as Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI.
Oracle, which lost its bid for the contract, raised issues about two meetings Mattis had with high-ranking officials from Amazon, the company considered to be the front-runner for JEDI project.
The JEDI program has also prompted questions about the so-called revolving door between the Pentagon and defense industry. Oracle alleged that there was conflict of interest in the procurement process favoring Amazon after an Amazon employee joined the Pentagon, then left to return to a job at Amazon.
And it’s a common thing for outgoing defense officials to find a new job on defense company boards. Politico, reporting on defense officials who did so, said:17
It’s common for former defense officials to take positions in industry after leaving the Pentagon. Just last month, former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead was elected chairman of the Fincantieri Marinette Marine Corp.'s board of directors. Retired Rear Adm. Kevin Sweeney, who most recently served as Mattis’ chief of staff, also joined the shipbuilder’s board.
…
Former Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work joined Raytheon’s board of directors just one month after leaving the Defense Department in 2017. Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the former chief of naval operations, sits on the board of BAE Systems. And former Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James is on Textron’s board of directors.
Further, a Senate report found “672 cases in 2022 in which the top 20 defense contractors had former government officials, military officers, Members of Congress, and senior legislative staff working for them as lobbyists, board members, or senior executives.”18 Forbes, reporting on that report and the danger of the revolving door that it shows, noted (emphasis added):19
The underlying question, of course, is “why is the revolving door a problem?” The answer is fairly straightforward. Former government officials working for the arms industry can utilize their contacts with former colleagues and knowledge of arcane procurement processes to give their corporate employers a leg up in influencing government policy that is not available to smaller firms or members of the public. This unfair advantage can tilt Pentagon spending and policy in favor of special interests over the national interest.
The examples of major officials moving from government to industry are legion, but a few examples underscore the point. Former Trump administration Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis (retired) is on the board of General Dynamics. Retired Admiral Gary Roughead, former U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations, serves on the board of Northrop Grumman; and General Electric benefits from the lobbying services of Jim Dyer, who held senior positions at the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Department of State, and the White House under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
…
It is well past time to rein in the revolving door, which is a primary expression of the potentially corrupting influence of the military-industrial complex. Doing so could make it easier to craft defense policies and practices based on what’s best for defending the country, not what’s best for arms mega-firms.
The Cohen Group: Mattis’ Other Job and the One that Connected Him to China
So, how does that relate to China? Because when Mattis left the Pentagon, the revolving door didn’t just lead him to the typical post-career contractor job at General Dynamics. It also led him to the Cohen Group, where he works as “Senior Counselor.”20
That is important because the Cohen Group, though it employs its fair share of revolving-door Pentagon officials, as it was founded by former Defense Secretary William Cohen and staffed by numerous former military leaders,21 is far from an ordinary contractor company full of former brass. Rather, it’s a consulting firm that aims to “Provide corporate leadership with strategic advice and practical assistance in business development, market entry, regulatory affairs and deal sourcing from strategy conception to successful closing.”22
When you cut through the corporate speak, what that means is that the Cohen Group is deeply involved with Communist China.23 It even admits as much once you dig deeper into its website. Describing how it sees the Middle Kingdom, the Cohen Group’s webpage states, “China is a market of enormous opportunity and complexity. The Cohen Group's (TCG) China Practice has a solid record of success with professionals in offices in Beijing, Tianjin and Washington, DC.”24 Continuing, it adds, “Building upon decades of experience, on-the-ground management expertise, and long-time personal and professional relationships throughout the region, TCG's China Practice helps companies succeed in the Chinese market.” 25
It then notes, “As a global consultancy, TCG’s China Practice also uses its unique skill set to bring together East and West, facilitating constructive engagement and cooperation between leading multinational companies and Chinese enterprises around the world and helps support Chinese companies engaged in high-quality investments overseas. Such activities bring mutual benefit and strengthen the commercial relationships that underpin effective bilateral ties.”26
“Effective bilateral ties”? “Constructive engagement and cooperation”? Helping “support Chinese companies”? Who does that sound like? It sounds like “highly appreciated” by Beijing Mattis talking about cooperation with Red China.27
Mattis’ Anti-America First Article
And demand cooperation with China rather than an America First mindset is exactly what Mattis did, not just while in the Trump Administration, but while employed by the Cohen Group as well. He did so in 2020, with his comments on China buried within an anti-Trump op-ed published in Foreign Affairs.28 In that op-ed, Mattis vociferously attacked Trump’s “America First” policies and attitude, which presented the odd spectacle of a former general saying America’s politicians should not put America First but instead engage in Cohen Group-like “constructive engagement” with Communist China.29 Mattis did not, however, disclose his Cohen Group position in that pro-China, anti-America First column.30
Instead, keeping his and his employer’s vested interest in globalism close to his chest, Mattis and a few co-authors launched a broadside against Trump’s China stance, saying (emphasis added):31
The principal external threat the United States faces today is an aggressive and revisionist China—the only challenger that could potentially undermine the American way of life. The United States’ goal, however, should not only be to deter great-power war but to seek great-power peace and cooperation in advancing shared interests. For that, the United States’ alliances and partnerships are especially crucial.
…
Crucially, the United States should not press countries to choose outright between the two powers. A “with us or against us” approach plays to China’s advantage, because the economic prosperity of U.S. allies and partners hinges on strong trade and investment relationships with Beijing. Rather than treating countries as pawns in a great-power competition, a better approach would emphasize common codes of behavior and encourage states to publicly promulgate a vision for their country’s sovereign future and the types of partnerships they need to pursue it. It would also expand the cooperative space in which all countries supporting a rules-based order can work together to advance shared interests. Cooperation across different ideological systems is difficult but necessary, and there should be opportunities to cooperate with China in areas of overlapping interests, such as pandemic response, climate change, and nuclear security.
In January, when President Joe Biden and his national security team begin to reevaluate U.S. foreign policy, we hope they will quickly revise the national security strategy to eliminate “America first” from its contents, restoring in its place the commitment to cooperative security that has served the United States so well for decades. The best strategy for ensuring safety and prosperity is to buttress American military strength with enhanced civilian tools and a restored network of solid alliances—both necessary to achieving defense in depth. The pandemic should serve as a reminder of what grief ensues when we wait for problems to come to us.
To be fair, Mattis’ argument notes the threat China poses and calls for strengthening an alliance system to deter it. Reading the full op-ed is worthwhile.
But, when he said America is not trying to contain China while Sec Def,32 was “highly appreciated” by Beijing,33 and is working for a consulting group known for encouraging cooperation and investments with China, a connection that he didn’t disclose, it’s important to ask what he was up to, and to what degree post-Pentagon work opportunities inform the opinions of America’s military leaders while they are part of the Department of Defense bureaucracy.
Conclusion: The Revolving Door Strikes Again
The problem here probably isn’t that Mattis was “bought” by China in a Bidenesque way, nor does it appear that he did anything like Gen. Milley did in reassuring the Chinese behind President Trump’s back. He might be anti-Trump and have non-America First views on foreign policy, but his record in the Marines is impressive and at least gives him the benefit of the doubt on that front.
Rather, it appears that Mattis was undone by the same force creating major problems in our Defense Department: the revolving door. If your retirement plans boiled down to working at a cushy contractor job, would you be more or less likely to hold those contractors to account while overseeing them? If your retirement plans depended on working for a company known for striking deals with China, would you be more or less likely to strike a tough line with China?
The alleged upside of the revolving door is that it puts competent people who know what they are doing and know the general threat landscape and needs of the DoD into leadership or advisory positions at the companies whose products handle those threats and needs. The downside is that Pentagon officials have figured out how to get those jobs…and now we have former generals arguing in favor of cooperating with China and programs that have trillions in cost overruns and don’t work correctly.34
That’s not tenable in the long term, and it’s already causing major problems. Chinese “investments” of the sort the Cohen Group facilitates are increasingly national security threats,35 the Pentagon can’t pass an audit and is spending trillions on over-expensive weapon systems that are major boons for the defense contractors,36 and our equipment has proven inadequate in Ukraine.37
Western-made armor, for example, has been proven inadequate in the Ukrainian conflict. "A lot of Western armor doesn't work here because it had been created not for an all-out war but for conflicts of low or medium intensity," a military analyst involved with the provision of military aid to the Ukrainians noted.38 General Dynamics, the company on whose board Mattis sits, makes America’s M-1 Abrams,39 our contribution40 to the Western armor shown to be inadequate in the Russo-Ukraine War. Why is America producing tanks costing millions of dollars each if those tanks aren’t even adequate for a real conflict? The revolving door indicates the answer41: America’s sclerotic defense establishment is focused on profits and politics, not warfighting and war winning. Mattis might not be to blame, but his antics show the revolving door’s danger, particularly if foreign influence is seeping into the defense establishment through vectors such as the Cohen Group.