James Mattis' resignation might be good for Trump - but it will be bad for the world

James Mattis, said Donald Trump, had served his administration "with distinction" - the same sort of praise lavished on the Marine Corps’ general when he retired from the military three years ago.

But as it was announced the 68-year-old will be standing down from the US government at the end of February 2019 - the departure of one of the last of the so-called grown-ups still in the administration - it was Mattis’ words, not the president’s, that were seized on.

“One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships,” said Mattis. Trump, he added, deserved a secretary of defence, whose “views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects”.

He could have included among those subjects, the right of transgender people to serve in the military, the value of the imperfect Iran nuclear deal, not politicising the military, the perilous threat to the US from climate change, the harm to the nation of using water boarding and torture, a desire not to remove US troops from Syria and Afghanistan.

On these and many other issues, Mattis and Trump had starkly differences views. And as the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, tweeted about Mattis’ resignation letter: “This is an astonishing rebuke of Trumpism.”

It may be that Trump is glad to see the back of the general, another person he does not need to clash heads with. But he would be wrong to think like this.

Among Democrats and Republicans alike, there is at times a fetishism about men (and) women in uniform serving as politicians.

Perhaps it dates back to all the way to George Washington. But through Ulysses S Grant to Eisenhower, to Colin Powell and even Wesley Clark, there has been a belief among many, that success in the military will automatically translate to success in politics. Sometimes it does work out out like that; sometimes it ends in failure.

Mattis’s fellow Marine Corps general, John Kelly, who is to stand down as Trump’s chief of staff at the of the year, tried, but ultimately failed, to bring order to the Oval Office, or discipline to the actions of its occupant.

Michael Flynn, another general fetishised by some on the right, saw himself go from being a Trump cheerleader and one-time head of the Defence Intelligence Agency, to someone brought to shame for lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.

It is probably not healthy to become too dewy-eyed about someone nicknamed “Mad Dog” and who as a military commander, oversaw one of the bloodiest operations of the Iraq occupation, the second battle of Fallujah, that saw hundreds of Iraqi fighters and civilians killed. (Dozens of US and coalition soldiers also lost their lives.)

But Mattis, who won his Senate confirmation battle 98 -1, operated with a realistic view of America’s place in the world. For a time at least, on issues that had global ramifications, it appeared Trump would allow himself to be guided by the expert.

In the end, on the issues that perhaps mattered the most - the dispatch of troops to “protect” the US border against migrants, relationships with allies, the place of science, the merit of a state department staffed with diplomats - Mattis lost out.

Trump, who still needs to confirm an attorney general and a interior minister and who is evermore pressured by the relentless investigation of Robert Mueller, will likely blow off Mattis’ departure like the others who have have already departed.

He may even consider it a win. He should not.