Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[palsch]

It's McMaster. Kellogg moved to be his Chief of Staff and KT remains as deputy, so he isn't getting to bring in his own senior staff as Harward and Petraeus had demanded. There are suspicions that Kellogg will be taking on some of the duties of deputy in his new role.

Now getting reports that Trump has given McMaster full authority to hire his own staff. How this fits with Kellogg and McFarland staying in the two most critical positions I don't know.

Just a reminder, K. T. McFarland is a Sarah Palin level thinker.

Question: Advice for Trump about Syria?

Boy, that’s a really tough one. Well, first of all I think I wouldn’t want to say in a public forum what kind of advice I would give to President-elect Trump. But Syria and what it represents in a greater sense [as] a failed state is going to be one of the greatest challenges. You know, throughout history, you worry about countries that get too rich and too powerful and then come to take a piece out of you. In this case, failed states present one of the greatest challenges, and, as you said, Jake, failed states potentially—or as you said, Jake, people who get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, fissile materials—so, the advice I would give is not specifically about that, but about the understanding that failed states (or) weak states which have historically never been a threat to great nations—we are in a new era where failed states, the weakest states in the world community, or even sub-national groups, now can present the greatest threat to world peace and to their neighborhood. Thank you.

And again, one of Trump's condition to new NSC hires was keeping her in her position, traditionally the most actively important one in the NSC.

[Sergarr]

And, well, yes. Sanctions are kinda useless, because they don't really do anything about said cash flow. Not even Iranian-level sanctions have managed to diminish their oil sales. And there are plenty of unprincipled countries (*coughRussiacough*) in the world willing to sell their arms to everyone who can buy it, no questions asked.

If sanctions are so useless, why would Iran agree to limit their nuclear program, if Iran rejected even the principle that the west had the right to stop Iran from doing whatever it wanted? It's a long way from "We categorically reject your right to even judge our obviously peaceful program" to "we agree to the following reductions, restrictions, and oversight in exchange for the following sanction reductions..."

In terms of curbing down on terrorism, they seem useless.

I don't think you've thought this through.

I guess so. I think I'm just too tired right now to properly think about it.

[smjjames]

The Russian U.N. envoy dies suddenly in New York. No cause of death yet and no public health issues. Tomorrow would have been his 65th birthday. He maintained good relationship with westerners and the English press while being a staunch Putin loyalist and defender of all things Russian, and USSR before that. Be interesting to see how he is replaced. Mostly mentioning here for the New York connection, as well as current relations between the US and Russia being key to US politics.

I read here that he had died of a heart attack. It'll be interesting who he's replaced with that's for sure.

I did think for a moment that maybe he'd been assasinated (because Putin is so into assassination), but nah, doesn't seem like there would be any reason to get him assassinated, that I know of.

Completely unrelated to everything, the White House is having to walk back remarks over how many holes of golf Trump played over the weekend after getting caught out by a golf blog. I'm not sure there is topic left where White House statements have any credibility among those paying any attention.

Eh, bragging about golf scores isn't even the worst thing that they can brag about. Probably the only people who'd really care are golfers.

It's McMaster. Kellogg moved to be his Chief of Staff and KT remains as deputy, so he isn't getting to bring in his own senior staff as Harward and Petraeus had demanded. There are suspicions that Kellogg will be taking on some of the duties of deputy in his new role.

Now getting reports that Trump has given McMaster full authority to hire his own staff. How this fits with Kellogg and McFarland staying in the two most critical positions I don't know.

Just a reminder, K. T. McFarland is a Sarah Palin level thinker.

Question: Advice for Trump about Syria?

Boy, that’s a really tough one. Well, first of all I think I wouldn’t want to say in a public forum what kind of advice I would give to President-elect Trump. But Syria and what it represents in a greater sense [as] a failed state is going to be one of the greatest challenges. You know, throughout history, you worry about countries that get too rich and too powerful and then come to take a piece out of you. In this case, failed states present one of the greatest challenges, and, as you said, Jake, failed states potentially—or as you said, Jake, people who get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, fissile materials—so, the advice I would give is not specifically about that, but about the understanding that failed states (or) weak states which have historically never been a threat to great nations—we are in a new era where failed states, the weakest states in the world community, or even sub-national groups, now can present the greatest threat to world peace and to their neighborhood. Thank you.

And again, one of Trump's condition to new NSC hires was keeping her in her position, traditionally the most actively important one in the NSC.

I could see Kellogg just returning to his previous position. The fact that Trump trusts Kellogg would be helpful to McMaster.

[Descan]

What in the seven living holy hells does that paragraph even mean??

"You worry about too-rich countries and that's why failed, poor states are the most dangerous. Also nukes."

[smjjames]

Yeah, had to read that a few times to really parse it, but even then, it's still barely comprehensible. Something something failed states something something nukes something failed states weak something failed states a threat.

Syria doesn't even have nukes.....

[Frumple]

It seems to be trying to say that small actors (such as terrorist groups, I guess) that gain access to nuclear weapons (due to conditions related to failed states, nevermind whether any were nuclear powers before things broke down) are -- or at least can be -- the greatest threat we face as a nation, in contrast to previous times where we were apparently under deep threat of a land invasion. If you squint really hard what they're trying to say is comprehensible, it's just mostly divorced from reality, history, or basic sense. Good on the sensationalism and exaggerated threat, though.

And ninja'd, more or less.

[palsch]

Eh, bragging about golf scores isn't even the worst thing that they can brag about. Probably the only people who'd really care are golfers.

For me the story is that they noticed criticism that he is golfing so much, so decided to downplay it with a blatant and easily debunked lie. There doesn't seem to be any consideration to truth, but also no consideration to good media strategy. They seem to believe that they should be able to say anything and get away with it.

What in the seven living holy hells does that paragraph even mean??

"You worry about too-rich countries and that's why failed, poor states are the most dangerous. Also nukes."

My reading is; "Models of national security have traditionally been focused on more powerful nations attacking the less powerful, or maintaining a balance between great powers and alliances. That has changed with the assent of non-state actors who can strike without needing to fear a conventional military response. Today failed states are the breeding ground for such groups, where they can operate with impunity and meld into civilian populations when their enemies come looking. We face the danger of the arsenals of these weakened nations, including some of the most devastating weapons in existence today, falling into the hands of those who have no compunction in using them. Meanwhile the chaos caused by the collapse of a nation can spread beyond its boarders, destabilising entire regions and creating wide humanitarian crises that stress global resources, with additional security implications. Our national security apparatus needs to be able to orient to address such threats as a top priority."

Of course I am making a few adjustments to the language for clarity. And maybe moved a few points around. And completely changed some. And made the rest up. But I think that is the gist of it.

It's certainly not great oration, but the meaning seems generally understandable to me.
...

Big problem I have there is mentioning fissile material in the context of Syria makes no sense at all. They had and have chemical supplies, but never succeeded in obtaining nuclear material.

This is the exact topic she is expected to be able to brief the president and others on so they can make critical national security decisions. She needs to be clear and have a good command of the facts in response to questions they might have. The DNSA is the one in the situation room at all hours when there is a crisis, representing the views of the collective wisdom of the NSC. Or at least it was before she got the job.


And on my schadenfreude watch, Milo has just had his book's publication cancelled.


The CIA spokesman for the NSC has quit and written about why in the Washington Post.

Nearly 15 years ago, I informed my skeptical father that I was pursuing a job with the Central Intelligence Agency. Among his many concerns was that others would never believe I had resigned from the agency when I sought my next job. “Once CIA, always CIA,” he said. But that didn’t give me pause. This wouldn’t be just my first real job, I thought then; it would be my career.

That changed when I formally resigned last week. Despite working proudly for Republican and Democratic presidents, I reluctantly concluded that I cannot in good faith serve this administration as an intelligence professional.
...

[Trump’s] visit to CIA headquarters on his first full day in office, an overture designed to repair relations, was undone by his ego and bluster. Standing in front of a memorial to the CIA’s fallen officers, he seemed to be addressing the cameras and reporters in the room, rather than the agency personnel in front of them, bragging about his inauguration crowd the previous day. Whether delusional or deceitful, these were not the remarks many of my former colleagues and I wanted to hear from our new commander in chief. I couldn’t help but reflect on the stark contrast between the bombast of the new president and the quiet dedication of a mentor — a courageous, dedicated professional — who is memorialized on that wall. I know others at CIA felt similarly.

The final straw came late last month, when the White House issued a directive reorganizing the National Security Council, on whose staff I served from 2014 until earlier this year. Missing from the NSC’s principals committee were the CIA director and the director of national intelligence. Added to the roster: the president’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who cut his teeth as a media champion of white nationalism.
...
The CIA will continue to serve important functions — including undertaking covert action and sharing information with close allies and partners around the globe. If this administration is serious about building trust with the intelligence community, however, it will require more than rallies at CIA headquarters or press statements. What intelligence professionals want most is to know that the fruits of their labor — sometimes at the risk of life or limb — are accorded due deference in the policymaking process.

Until that happens, President Trump and his team are doing another disservice to these dedicated men and women and the nation they proudly, if quietly, serve.

The attached video statement is, if anything, blunter and harsher than the text.

[smjjames]

The CIA spokesman for the NSC has quit and written about why in the Washington Post.

Nearly 15 years ago, I informed my skeptical father that I was pursuing a job with the Central Intelligence Agency. Among his many concerns was that others would never believe I had resigned from the agency when I sought my next job. “Once CIA, always CIA,” he said. But that didn’t give me pause. This wouldn’t be just my first real job, I thought then; it would be my career.

That changed when I formally resigned last week. Despite working proudly for Republican and Democratic presidents, I reluctantly concluded that I cannot in good faith serve this administration as an intelligence professional.
...

[Trump’s] visit to CIA headquarters on his first full day in office, an overture designed to repair relations, was undone by his ego and bluster. Standing in front of a memorial to the CIA’s fallen officers, he seemed to be addressing the cameras and reporters in the room, rather than the agency personnel in front of them, bragging about his inauguration crowd the previous day. Whether delusional or deceitful, these were not the remarks many of my former colleagues and I wanted to hear from our new commander in chief. I couldn’t help but reflect on the stark contrast between the bombast of the new president and the quiet dedication of a mentor — a courageous, dedicated professional — who is memorialized on that wall. I know others at CIA felt similarly.

The final straw came late last month, when the White House issued a directive reorganizing the National Security Council, on whose staff I served from 2014 until earlier this year. Missing from the NSC’s principals committee were the CIA director and the director of national intelligence. Added to the roster: the president’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who cut his teeth as a media champion of white nationalism.
...
The CIA will continue to serve important functions — including undertaking covert action and sharing information with close allies and partners around the globe. If this administration is serious about building trust with the intelligence community, however, it will require more than rallies at CIA headquarters or press statements. What intelligence professionals want most is to know that the fruits of their labor — sometimes at the risk of life or limb — are accorded due deference in the policymaking process.

Until that happens, President Trump and his team are doing another disservice to these dedicated men and women and the nation they proudly, if quietly, serve.

The attached video statement is, if anything, blunter and harsher than the text.

.... The guys father is one of those gold stars on the wall isn't he?....

edit: Perhaps not, the wiki page for that doesn't list any name by 'Price', although there's some unnamed CIA employees mentioned. Could have been someone else he considered a mentor.

Either way, ouch, damn....

[Strife26]

Damn nice for him to resign with some class.

[palsch]

edit: Perhaps not, the wiki page for that doesn't list any name by 'Price', although there's some unnamed CIA employees mentioned. Could have been someone else he considered a mentor.

I don't know if he is thinking of the same person, but I know that John Brennan - the CIA director under Obama - lost his mentor Robert Ames who was killed six weeks before retirement. He was tearing up in front of the wall when leaving the agency. Coincidentally he responded extremely strongly to Trump's comparisons of the IC to Nazis, and was publicly pissed off by Trump's speech, and wasn't alone in that.

Trump’s remarks caused astonishment and anger among current and former C.I.A. officials. The former C.I.A. director John Brennan, who retired on Friday, called it a “despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of C.I.A.’s Memorial Wall of Agency heroes,” according to a statement released through a former aide. Brennan said he thought Trump “should be ashamed of himself.”

Crocker, who was among the last to see Ames and the local C.I.A. team alive in Beirut, was “appalled” by Trump’s comments. “Whatever his intentions, it was horrible,” Crocker, who went on to serve as the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Kuwait, told me. “As he stood there talking about how great Trump is, I kept looking at the wall behind him—as I’m sure everyone in the room was, too. He has no understanding of the world and what is going on. It was really ugly.”

“Why,” Crocker added, “did he even bother? I can’t imagine a worse Day One scenario. And what’s next?”

John McLaughlin is a thirty-year C.I.A. veteran and a former acting director of the C.I.A. who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University. He also chairs a foundation that raises funds to educate children of intelligence officers killed on the job. “It’s simply inappropriate to engage in self obsession on a spot that memorializes those who obsessed about others, and about mission, more than themselves,” he wrote to me in an e-mail on Sunday. “Also, people there spent their lives trying to figure out what’s true, so it’s hard to make the case that the media created a feud with Trump. It just ain’t so.”

John MacGaffin, another thirty-year veteran who rose to become the No. 2 in the C.I.A. directorate for clandestine espionage, said that Trump’s appearance should have been a “slam dunk,” calming deep unease within the intelligence community about the new President. According to MacGaffin, Trump should have talked about the mutual reliance between the White House and the C.I.A. in dealing with global crises and acknowledged those who had given their lives doing just that.

“What self-centered, irrational decision process got him to this travesty?” MacGaffin told me. “Most importantly, how will that process serve us when the issues he must address are dangerous and incredibly complex? This is scary stuff!”

Price is obviously younger but the CIA death toll has been higher than ever since 9/11, with a third of the stars representing losses since then.

[PTTG??]

He's saying it, but not seriously, PTTG??.

Well, maybe a little bit, but.. back when their resources were owned by foreign companies like British Petroleum, there wasn't any "international terrorism" going on. When these resources were then nationalized by those Middle Eastern states, that's when the jihadism started to form.

I don't think that is a coincidence.

Acknowledging both that you were joking initially and, I presume, serious for your aside here, you realize you're suggesting that American states which have produced domestic terrorism should have all their resources privatized, right? When you say "terrorism," you either need to include domestic terrorism, or you need to specify that you only want to prevent one specific kind of terrorism.

EDIT: I see that you said "international terrorism" in your original post, but let's be honest, that's less than half of the actual terrorism the USA sees annually, so we have to address both kinds eventually.

[Reelya]

I think that's wrong however. The nationalist states such as Libya, Iraq, Syria were not actually the source of much jihadist activity: the governments there were basically secular state socialists. Sure, they paid lip service to Allah the same way American right pay lip service to Jesus, but they had very few religious connections.

Also, Hezbollah and Hamas exist not because of Iran, but because of Israeli occupation of southern lebanon and Gaza/West Bank. Those sorts of organizations don't exist because nationalists came to power, but because their homelands were occupied, giving them a rallying point to fight. That's why the palestinian PLO and catholic IRA were aligned: they saw each other's struggles as similar. If you occupy peoples homeland, you make terrorists. If you look at the history of military occupation it can make terrorists out of anyone. Muslims, The Irish, or Vietnamese for example. And if you know any Vietnamese people they're really laid back types. Occupying someones country can turn Buddhists into enraged killers.

It's the same with ISIS. Basically there was none of that while there were state socialist governments strongly in control of Syria / Iraq. Now, the floodgates have opened because of military adventurism and attempts to install puppet governments.

As for Afghanistan: the big problem there was intervention from Pakistan, who basically armed up orphans from the USSR/USA war, who were living on the border area, and turned them into Taliban. So again, that was caused by external interventions, not local nationalism. If you want to talk about actual Afghan nationalists, Mahmoud was the guy who should have been in charge, but we basically stabbed him in the back once Russia left. We had someone to support in Afghanistan who was a badass but also known for being tolerant and believing in individual freedoms, but we backstabbed him hard when he needed us.

Also Al Qaeda. Which states did they come from. Almost all of them came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and their stated goal for a long time was the overthrow of those governments specifically. Which are basically America's two biggest recipients of arms spending in the region. Basically imperialists propping up the Saudi royal family and Mubarak was the reason Al Qaeda existed in the first place. And remember "rendition" where the CIA sent prisoners to torture centers in Egypt? Basically Mubarak was bad enough that a terrorist organization arose to overthrow him while there was no real similar anti-Saddam or anti-Ghaddafi organization.

And of course, the reason the Iranian theocracy exists in the first place is well known. They were a fairly prosperous and educated developing nation with parliamentary democracy. Then the elected president wanted a better deal over the oil. So America engineered a coup and put a dictator in charge. The oppression then lead to a rebellion, and since all of civil society was undermined by that point, the only organized people were connected to religion, so the religion takes over. That's what you get when you gut civil society to stop self-determination. The only authority left is the church, thus the rebellion becomes a religious not a political one.

[smjjames]

I thought it was more that Saddam and Ghaddafi were more iron fisted than Mubarak at cracking down on people?

The fact that Ghaddafi was even worse than Mubarak kind of destroys the 'was bad enough to generate terrorist groups' argument.

ISIS formed out of the power vacuum which happened because Saddam was brutal enough to crack down on the would-be rebels and the 'puppet government' that we kinda installed was incompetent and the guy decided to turn the tables and lord over the Sunni's because Saddam was Sunni and the Shiia were the oppressed ones then.

Yes, the US government (and other powers during the Cold War) did shitty stuff that has been backfiring on us, but dictators also crack down on rebels/terrorists too.

EDOOT: Wait, are you talking about the Muslim Brotherhood aligned politician who got elected (and then overthrown not that long after)? Because it's arguable that the Egyptian branch isn't a terrorist group.

[Reelya]

It's not a given that Ghadaffi was worse than Mubarak by a long shot.

The stories about Ghadaffi massacring civilians in 2011 turned out to be false.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/obamas-libya-debacle

Another interesting thing was that the USA under Reagan basically used Libya as a talking point whenever Reagan's poll numbers dropped. Usually this involved flying over the Gulf of Sidra and deliberately targeting Libyan ships. Then if the Libyans retaliated American would cry foul about how their planes in international waters came under attack. Chomsky writes in a book how the British actually caught them doing this, as the British had sold radar systems to the Libyans and actually had officers present at the radar stations when this sort of thing happened.

[smjjames]

The last people to 'occupy' Egypt were the British (well, protectorate technically) and that ended after WWII, so, your argument still fails.

And the West never occupied Libya, it fell into chaos because of tribal and factional fighting and a lack of a strong government.