Mattis was brought in to do a job.
Then he was fired upon completion.
That's what Trump does.
You're missing the point.
Trump would have kept Mattis around as long as he wanted if he felt he was useful.
But he openly disagreed with Trump on troop draw-down once the mission was complete.
Hence, not only no-longer useful, but now a "problem".
Hence, "You're fired!"
All smoke and mirrors.
I happen to agree with Trump that military force may be needed.
I also agree with Esper that it should be the last resort.
I'm pretty sure Trump does too.
I'm pretty sure anons do too.
Esper's mistake was stating it publicly, because the headlines were that Esper opposed it; but that's not what he said.
I don't disagree, but he's also a quite brilliant military battlefield tactician, which was why he was needed at the time.
If you're referring to Prince's proposed methodology, it would have worked.
However… Mattis' method allowed the US military to right a wrong – and enabled the troops to actually fulfill a mission entirely as opposed to everything to that point where some girly-fag in the WH denied the end-game. Sent a message to the world that when the US troops are actually permitted by their worthless POS leaders to do their fucking job, they kick ass.
Prince's method leaves the rest of the world laughing at America as our oh-so-powerful military needs to hire mercenaries to kill a few towel-heads.
Sometimes optics are as important as the end result.