The essay is somewhat meandering, interspersing lessons Mattis learned about public service in a narrative about how he came to accept Trump’s job offer and later resigned over Trump’s planned Syria withdrawal. And one sentence stands out.

AD

“A polemicist’s role is not sufficient for a leader,” he writes.

A polemic is defined by Merriam-Webster as “an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another.” In its personal form, it’s defined as “an aggressive controversialist.” To perhaps oversimplify it, Mattis is referring to someone who stokes controversy for the sake of controversy.

AD

And it’s difficult to think of a living person who fits that definition better than the commander in chief.

Trump’s name isn’t mentioned within 20 paragraphs of this statement, but the context makes it difficult to believe Mattis isn’t at least alluding to leaders like Trump who inhabit American politics. The sentence appears in a paragraph about how leaders should seek consensus at a time when alliances are fraying:

AD

Nations with allies thrive, and those without them wither. Alone, America cannot protect our people and our economy. At this time, we can see storm clouds gathering. A polemicist’s role is not sufficient for a leader. A leader must display strategic acumen that incorporates respect for those nations that have stood with us when trouble loomed. Returning to a strategic stance that includes the interests of as many nations as we can make common cause with, we can better deal with this imperfect world we occupy together. Absent this, we will occupy an increasingly lonely position, one that puts us at increasing risk in the world.

Mattis might argue he’s making a wider point about political and diplomatic debate — he more broadly attacks “tribalism” in the op-ed — but it’s impossible to separate any of this from Trump. More than any modern president, Trump has sought to call U.S. alliances like NATO (where Mattis once served and his support for which he thought might be disqualifying for Trump) into question. He has even threatened to pull out of them.

AD

As this week’s Group of Seven summit showed, countries like France, Britain and Germany remain U.S. allies, but they have largely been reduced to trying to manage Trump’s unwieldy behavior — particularly when it comes to him pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal and launching a trade war with China that threatens Europe’s economy as much as our own. There is a sense that they are holding on for dear life on a wild ride that Mattis seems to regard as counterproductive.

Mattis bookends his “polemicist” comment by noting the “storm clouds gathering” and saying that a “leader must display strategic acumen that incorporates respect for those nations.” While there have always been threats overseas, it’s not clear that this particular point in time is exceptional in that regard in the 21st century, except when it comes to the fraying of alliances (such as Brexit). And “strategic acumen” seems particularly pointed given Trump’s lack of diplomatic experience and regular vacillations on high-profile foreign policy issues. Even on the issue that forced Mattis’s resignation — Trump’s announced “full” Syria withdrawal, which Mattis firmly resisted — Trump later reversed course and kept troops stationed there.