The idea that the resignation of General Mattis as secretary of defense is a startling development that comes out of the blue strikes us as wishful thinking on the part of critics of President Trump. The general may have been irked by Mr. Trumps plan to pull our GIs out of Syria. The record suggests, though, Mr. Mattis tenure as defense secretary has long been on borrowed time.

For in respect of policy, General Mattis has always struck us as crosswise with the president. This was foreshadowed before the 2016 election, when the general, at the time the former commander of CentCom, was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer at an Aspen Security Forum in Colorado. Thats the appearance where the Jar Head blamed our troubles in the Middle East on Israel.

After praising our valiant secretary of state, John Kerry, the general complained at Aspen: I paid a military security price every day as the commander of CentCom because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and that moderates all the moderate Arabs who want to be with us, because they cant come out publicly in support of people who dont show respect for the Arab Palestinians.

So why the new president put General Mattis at the top of the Pentagon is a mystery. Mr. Trump, after all, had just won the presidency in a campaign focused against precisely the foreign policy of President Obama and Secretaries Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump took to the voters their support for the Paris climate accord and the Iran appeasement and hostility to the Jerusalem Embassy.

In winning the election, the President gained a mandate on every one of those issues (the Jerusalem embassy had been sought for 20 years by an almost unanimous Congress). None of the Presidents promises could have been a surprise to General Mattis when he took the Pentagon job. Yet he groused about them constantly. Its amazing to us that Mr. Trump didnt dismiss General Mattis earlier.

This is a context in which the generals letter of resignation is, to our ear, all too arch. The general writes that he has strongly held views on treating allies with respect and being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors. He also writes that we must advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values.

Well, Jim Mattis Dandy, but what exactly is he suggesting? Is it that Mr. Trump is not clear-eyed about, say, the Iranians? Mr. Trump is the only one who rejects appeasement. Is he saying that its Mr. Trumps fault that the North Atlantic Treaty is under strain? Weve been paying our part. Its the Europeans who have lagged, and only Mr. Trump whos looking out for American taxpayers.

As for treating allies with respect, moreover, Mr. Trumps precipitous announcement of his plan to withdraw from Syria was supposedly made after a phone conversation with, in Recep Erdogan, the president of a country that, in Turkey, is our formal treaty ally. If it was Mr. Erdogan who talked Mr. Trump into pulling out of Syria, maybe its a reminder that alliances have their albatrosses as well as their eagles.

We recognize that there are serious figures who warn that Mr. Trump will regret losing General Mattis. One of them, Bloombergs foreign policy columnist Eli Lake (a veteran of the Sun), articulated that view back in October. That was after Mr. Trump told Columbia Broadcasting Systems 60 Minutes that Secretary Mattis is sort of a Democrat  a kiss of death, Mr. Lake quips.

Our own view is that having a sort of  or even an actual  Democrat in a Republican cabinet isnt the worst thing. It could even be a virtue, particularly in foreign policy, where our differences are supposed to stop at the waters edge. It requires, though, the figure from the out-of-power party to have a tough enough hide to be in the minority and to understand that our constitutional structure makes any president the adult in the room.

________

This editorial was expanded from the first edition with a paragraph in respect of Turkey.