The Next President is...

[Lord Ratner]

40 minutes ago, HU&W said:

Here's the text of the actual presidential memorandum.  It's credible, even if the media commentary isn't.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and

Also, to NS, there's more to national security than just intel and military.  Think DIME.  The memo specifically addresses your question as to when intel/mil wouldn't be needed.

What is unclear about this?

"The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings."

Edit to add: Furthermore, since the hullabaloo seems be be over the principals committee, where the memo states:

"The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed."

Since when did the SECDEF stop being the military representative within the executive branch? I don't know what "fake news" is, but if it exists, this seems pretty close. 

They were not removed. They were explicitly included. And even if they were excluded, which they were not, they aren't at the same level as the others on the principals committee. Should the CSAF be on the committee? What about the Vance wing commander? Hyperbole, yes, but I think the point is valid. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Lord Ratner

[nsplayr]

The reason this is news is because it's a pretty significant break from all past administrations.

As I said before, access = power in DC, and proximity to the President is key no matter what your title on paper says.

Removing the permanent invites of the CJCS and DNI indicates that their status and access is below that of those NSC members who retain (or gain) permanent invites.  It may seem like a lot of inside baseball "court politics," but it's relevant to how decisions get made.

Bannon, as chief strategist to the President, already has a TON of access, including a West Wing office.  Now giving him even more status in and access to the NATSEC decision-making process is in essence further increasing his already significant power and influence.

My strong misgivings about Bannon as an individual aside, the President should have a chief political person close to him.  W had Rove, Obama had Axelrod, etc. Trump can have Bannon if that's who he wants.

But very directly mixing politics with national security at the NSC Principals level is something I would have thought most military folks would be uncomfortable with.  When Presidents have even tangentially involved their more politically-oriented staff in NATSEC decisions in the past, there was strong push-back from the standing NSC principals.

So maybe this is NBD and Bannon will provide insightful and sage advice as a member of the NSC PC.  The President apparently wants him sitting there day-in and day-out so let's all hope so.  Needless to say I'm not holding my breath...

Edited February 1, 2017 by nsplayr

[Warrior]

If I remember correctly from ACSC, the only legally required members of the NSC are the VP, SECDEF, and SECSTATE.

Anyone else that the President puts on it is up to him.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The reason this is news is because it's a pretty significant break from all past administrations.

2017:

The NSC and HSC shall have as their regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the National Security Advisor, the Homeland Security Advisor, and the Representative of the United States to the United Nations. [...] The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings. 

2001:

The National Security Council (NSC) shall have as its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisors to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings. 

2017:

The PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist, the National Security Advisor, and the Homeland Security Advisor.  The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.

2001:

The NSC Principals Committee (NSC/PC) will continue to be the senior interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security, as it has since 1989. The NSC/PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Staff to the President, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (who shall serve as chair). The Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.

[Prozac]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 

But very directly mixing politics with national security at the NSC Principals level is something I would have thought most military folks would be uncomfortable with.  When Presidents have even tangentially involved their more politically-oriented staff in NATSEC decisions in the past, there was strong push-back from the standing NSC principals.

This.  This is an indication that the administration may place Bannon's opinions above those of professionals who know what the hell they're talking about.  For all the talk about how great Trump's cabinet is, he doesn't seem to be listening to them.  The past week and a half has been all Steve Bannon.  That should concern you. Remember those conservative national security experts who signed a statement stating Trump was unfit to lead?  One of them recently wrote a pretty dire piece for The Atlantic here: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/. This should be required reading for military professionals.  

 

[ViperMan]

35 minutes ago, Prozac said:

 

But very directly mixing politics with national security at the NSC Principals level is something I would have thought most military folks would be uncomfortable with.  When Presidents have even tangentially involved their more politically-oriented staff in NATSEC decisions in the past, there was strong push-back from the standing NSC principals.

This.  This is an indication that the administration may place Bannon's opinions above those of professionals who know what the hell they're talking about.  For all the talk about how great Trump's cabinet is, he doesn't seem to be listening to them.  The past week and a half has been all Steve Bannon.  That should concern you. Remember those conservative national security experts who signed a statement stating Trump was unfit to lead?  One of them recently wrote a pretty dire piece for The Atlantic here: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/. This should be required reading for military professionals.  

I consider myself to be a generally smart guy, but can anyone else, as a rule, make it through an Atlantic article and discern anything that comes close to a coherent theme? I try, but always find myself struggling to maintain any amount of real focus as they (generally) wander through what approaches 10,000 words of soup. Maybe someone has a technique for making it through one, but to this day, I have not.

Edited February 1, 2017 by ViperMan
quoted response didn't come through

[tk1313]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

 

@ViperMan Challenge accepted.

I like 1984 just as much as the next guy, but that article made some ludicrous assumptions...

"The media have grown noticeably more friendly to Trump as well. The proposed merger of AT&T and Time Warner was delayed for more than a year, during which Time Warner’s CNN unit worked ever harder to meet Trump’s definition of fairness."
-Yes, let me know when that happens and I might take the article more seriously...

"Opponents of the regime are not murdered or imprisoned, although many are harassed with building inspections and tax audits."
-Obama wrote the book on that one...

"And congressional oversight might well be performed even less diligently during the Trump administration."
-Again, are we going to ignore the lack of congressional oversight under Obama?

"They owe this chance solely to Trump’s ability to deliver a crucial margin of votes in a handful of states—Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—which has provided a party that cannot win the national popular vote a fleeting opportunity to act as a decisive national majority."
-Saw that one coming a mile away... I know this is a new concept, but we're not giving out participation trophies for this contest.

"Trump versus Clinton was not 2016’s only contest between an overbearing man and a restrained woman."
-Reading from the playbook I see... Hypocrisy is bashing political polarization then making the above statement a few paragraphs later...

"Republicans in Congress have long advocated reforms to expedite the firing of underperforming civil servants."
-As a government worker, I read that "Mean Republicans want people who don't show up for 3 months without notice to be fired earlier than 3 months... And to also not pull a paycheck for the time they didn't show up to work."

"Presidents from Jimmy Carter onward have balanced this unique exemption with a unique act of disclosure: the voluntary publication of their income-tax returns."
-I'm actually impressed the author found something positive related to Jimmy Carter than reflects poorly on Trump...

"McDonnell then set up meetings between the favor seeker and state officials who were in a position to help him. A jury had even accepted that the “quid” was indeed “pro” the “quo”—an evidentiary burden that has often protected accused bribe-takers in the past."
-Oh, so we're talking 'quid pro quo' now? Pretty bold to ignore the *cough* e-mails *cough* mentioning those words verbatim, but with much more serious implications...

"The oft-debated question “Is Donald Trump a fascist?” is not easy to answer."
-I was actually anticipating that one as well...

Perhaps this is the wrong question. Perhaps the better question about Trump is not “What is he?” but “What will he do to us?”
-Didn't this article begin by denouncing Trump for fear mongering? Strange...

"By all early indications, the Trump presidency will corrode public integrity and the rule of law—and also do untold damage to American global leadership, the Western alliance, and democratic norms around the world. The damage has already begun, and it will not be soon or easily undone. Yet exactly how much damage is allowed to be done is an open question—the most important near-term question in American politics. It is also an intensely personal one, for its answer will be determined by the answer to another question: What will you do? And you? And you?"
-Rally the troops! Less than 2 weeks is more than enough time to draw rash conclusions and gather "evidence" to successfully accuse, convict, and topple the dictator Trump!

"We are living through the most dangerous challenge to the free government of the United States that anyone alive has encountered. What happens next is up to you and me. Don’t be afraid. This moment of danger can also be your finest hour as a citizen and an American."
-Ooo, a resistance! Can't wait to see the type of fighting the anti-gun crowd uses to win.

Edited February 1, 2017 by tk1313

[Prozac]

David Frum, the author of the Atlantic article is a well known and respected conservative thinker.  He was no friend to the Obama administration and has been highly critical of Hillary Clinton.  Neither of those two individuals is president right now though.  I find it curious how those who defend the Trump administration are so quick to point out that Trumps actions are simply an extension of the precedent set by the previous administration.  Obama was highly criticised for what his critics described as an overreach of executive power.  A lot of that criticism had merit.  So why are Republicans suddenly ok with their guy doing the same thing?  Is this the new Republican party?  Abandon your principals to put a man who is a Republican only in name into office and hopefully advance your congressional agenda on his coattails?  That seems to me to be a potentially treacherous strategy.  Isn't it more consistent to be equally critical of the Trump administration for committing the same transgressions as his predecessors, regardless of party affiliation?  Democrats could be equally chided for their (unsurprising) adoption of an obstructionist strategy after bashing Republicans for doing the same thing for the past eight years. 

[brickhistory]

46 minutes ago, Prozac said:

David Frum, the author of the Atlantic article is a well known and respected conservative thinker.  

Yep, just like David Brooks, Jennifer Rubin, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, et al.

"Highly respected" and "conservative" are not adjectives I would ascribe to Frum or the rest.

They, collectively, remind of this guy:

as they seek to curry favor with the MSM machine.

 

As to your point of "carrying on Obama's policies," it appears you miss the point. 

When Barry did it, it never raised the slightest hackle for eight loooooong years. 

If Trump does it and only after three weeks, it is the End Times.

Firing a disobedient acting AG?  A dictator.

Firing a four-star general who was quoted from off the record conversations and it's ensuring civilian control of the military.

 

Must be nice...

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Prozac said:

David Frum, the author of the Atlantic article is a well known and respected conservative thinker.  He was no friend to the Obama administration and has been highly critical of Hillary Clinton.  Neither of those two individuals is president right now though.  I find it curious how those who defend the Trump administration are so quick to point out that Trumps actions are simply an extension of the precedent set by the previous administration.  Obama was highly criticised for what his critics described as an overreach of executive power.  A lot of that criticism had merit.  So why are Republicans suddenly ok with their guy doing the same thing?  Is this the new Republican party?  Abandon your principals to put a man who is a Republican only in name into office and hopefully advance your congressional agenda on his coattails?  That seems to me to be a potentially treacherous strategy.  Isn't it more consistent to be equally critical of the Trump administration for committing the same transgressions as his predecessors, regardless of party affiliation?  Democrats could be equally chided for their (unsurprising) adoption of an obstructionist strategy after bashing Republicans for doing the same thing for the past eight years. 

Unlucky bro, it is not about governance, compromise (read being weak) and what best policies are needed to move the nation forward...it is about pettiness, revenge and political myopia. 

It seems lately, we need even bigger catastrophes and badder enemies just to find some common ground (that manner of doing things sounds expensive as shit)

Reds walked real slow on SCOTUS vacancy after Scalia death, a lot view that seat as Reds property. Wasn't Garland not qualified? Now Blues intend to block Gorsuch using the same tactic, even before he was announced. note: both men are qualified, which is the standard Blues and Reds have stated on the record that should be the way main factor.

"Responsibility for the current morass does not rest with any one party or group; ample blame can be doled out all around. But litmus tests, grudge matches and payback are not way forward. Excellence is." Neil Gorsuch, 2002, complaining about the treatment (political delay tactics) of Garland confirmation to the US Court of Appeals court way back in 2002, over a decade before Garland was then nominated for SCOTUS by Barry in 2016.

[tk1313]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

David Frum, the author of the Atlantic article is a well known and respected conservative thinker.  He was no friend to the Obama administration and has been highly critical of Hillary Clinton.  Neither of those two individuals is president right now though.  I find it curious how those who defend the Trump administration are so quick to point out that Trumps actions are simply an extension of the precedent set by the previous administration.  Obama was highly criticised for what his critics described as an overreach of executive power.  A lot of that criticism had merit.  So why are Republicans suddenly ok with their guy doing the same thing?  Is this the new Republican party?  Abandon your principals to put a man who is a Republican only in name into office and hopefully advance your congressional agenda on his coattails?  That seems to me to be a potentially treacherous strategy.  Isn't it more consistent to be equally critical of the Trump administration for committing the same transgressions as his predecessors, regardless of party affiliation?  Democrats could be equally chided for their (unsurprising) adoption of an obstructionist strategy after bashing Republicans for doing the same thing for the past eight years. 

I don't care if he's Reagan's long lost son... his article is nonsensical. It contradicts itself at all the major talking points. I'm not blindly supporting Trump, and I'm not a big fan of a lazy Congress. But this author has some deep-seated issues that he obviously took care of with a good old internet rant... And he used the oldest argument in the book:

Edited February 1, 2017 by tk1313

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Yep, just like David Brooks, Jennifer Rubin, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, et al.

"Highly respected" and "conservative" are not adjectives I would ascribe to Frum or the rest.

They, collectively, remind of this guy:

as they seek to curry favor with the MSM machine.

 

As to your point of "carrying on Obama's policies," it appears you miss the point. 

When Barry did it, it never raised the slightest hackle for eight loooooong years. 

If Drumpf does it and only after three weeks, it is the End Times.

Firing a disobedient acting AG?  A dictator.

Firing a four-star general who was quoted from off the record conversations and it's ensuring civilian control of the military.

 

Must be nice...

The point is Obama is no longer president.  The election is over and Hillary is back to giving speeches, probably at exorbitant rates.  Yet Republicans continue to lash out against them.  For fucks sake, the POTUS thinks the only way he could've possibly lost the popular vote is because the largest voter fraud conspiracy in the history of the U.S. has taken place.  It seems the only coherent conservative strategy these days is to be against whatever liberals are for.  That is pathetic.  This used to be a party run by statesmen with real, achievable policy goals, and the intention of constructively governing.  Now it's put a president in power who'd rather listen to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly than his daily intelligence brief.  Just step back and think about that for a minute.  The man would rather be consumed by outlandish conspiracy theories than deal with the real day to day crises that regularly come up.  And the most outlandish conspiracy theorist of them all now sits at the head of the NSC.  Quit whining about Obama.  His term is up.  Forget Hillary.  She lost.  Trump won and we should all be watching him like hawks.  It may not be end times, but if you are not at least slightly disturbed by a man with Trump's disposition and character in the White House then you are looking in the wrong direction.  

[17D_guy]

Every time a Republican excuses something Trump does with "but Obama did it too/first/last/etc." Reagan loses another memory cell.

[tk1313]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

The point is Obama is no longer president.  The election is over and Hillary is back to giving speeches, probably at exorbitant rates.  Yet Republicans continue to lash out against them.  For s sake, the POTUS thinks the only way he could've possibly lost the popular vote is because the largest voter fraud conspiracy in the history of the U.S. has taken place.  It seems the only coherent conservative strategy these days is to be against whatever liberals are for.  That is pathetic.  This used to be a party run by statesmen with real, achievable policy goals, and the intention of constructively governing.  Now it's put a president in power who'd rather listen to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly than his daily intelligence brief.  Just step back and think about that for a minute.  The man would rather be consumed by outlandish conspiracy theories than deal with the real day to day crises that regularly come up.  And the most outlandish conspiracy theorist of them all now sits at the head of the NSC.  Quit whining about Obama.  His term is up.  Forget Hillary.  She lost.  Trump won and we should all be watching him like hawks.  It may not be end times, but if you are not at least slightly disturbed by a man with Trump's disposition and character in the White House then you are looking in the wrong direction.  

The point is Obama is no longer president.  The election is over and Hillary is back to giving speeches, probably at exorbitant rates.  Yet Republicans Democrats continue to lash out at everyone who is against them.  For fvcks sake, the POTUS Democrats think the only way he they could've possibly lost the popular electoral college vote is because the largest voter fraud influence conspiracy in the history of the U.S. has taken place. It seems the only coherent conservative liberal strategy these days is to be against whatever liberals conservatives are for.  That is pathetic.  This used to be a party run by statesmen with real, achievable policy goals, and the intention of constructively governing.  Now it's put suffering the backlash of a departing president in power who'd rather listen to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly give Iran ransom money, free terrorists, and offer would-be ISIS fighters jobs than listen to his daily intelligence brief. Just step back and think about that for a minute.  The man would rather be consumed by outlandish conspiracy theories giving our enemies billions of dollars, freedom, and jobs than deal with the real day to day crises that regularly come up fact that bad guys aren't going to stop burning people alive if we let them serve us lattes. And the most outlandish conspiracy theorist political failures of them all now sit at the head of the NSC on the sidelines ready to curse the Russians everytime Trump makes a move.  Quit whining, about Obama.  His Your term is up.  Forget Hillary.  She lost.  Trump won and we should all be watching him like hawks.  It may not be is not the end of times, but if you are not at least slightly disturbed by willing to give a man with Trump's disposition and character a chance in the White House, then you are looking in the wrong direction just asking to be miserable for the next 4-8 years, regardless of whether  it turns out to be the best 4/8 years in the history of the US, or the worst.

Neither one of these paragraphs is accurate. You're too polarized if you think Republicans are the only ones to blame for Trump winning. Yeah, yeah.. Republicans are evil fascists and Democrats are the epitome of good will and love. I should check my straight white male privilege and all that other good stuff..

Edited February 2, 2017 by tk1313

[17D_guy]

oooh... so close;

8 minutes ago, tk1313 said:

words with underlines.

Neither one of these paragraphs is accurate. You're too polarized if you think Republicans are the only ones to blame for Trump winning. Yeah, yeah.. Republicans are evil fascists and Democrats are the epitome of good will and love evil fascists. I should check my straight white male privilege and all that other good stuff..

 

[tk1313]

33 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Every time a Republican excuses something Trump does with "but Obama did it too/first/last/etc." Reagan loses another memory cell.

And... If you look a couple posts up you can see me doing exactly that. Sorry ghost of Reagan, I just thought since Obama blamed Bush for everything that went wrong during his presidency, I could blame Obama for everything wrong that Trump will do during his presidency... SH!T... Just did it again.

[Prozac]

52 minutes ago, tk1313 said:

The point is Obama is no longer president.  The election is over and Hillary is back to giving speeches, probably at exorbitant rates.  Yet Republicans Democrats continue to lash out at everyone who is against them.  For fvcks sake, the POTUS Democrats think the only way he they could've possibly lost the popular electoral college vote is because the largest voter fraud influence conspiracy in the history of the U.S. has taken place. It seems the only coherent conservative liberal strategy these days is to be against whatever liberals conservatives are for.  That is pathetic.  This used to be a party run by statesmen with real, achievable policy goals, and the intention of constructively governing.  Now it's put suffering the backlash of a departing president in power who'd rather listen to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly give Iran ransom money, free terrorists, and offer would-be ISIS fighters jobs than listen to his daily intelligence brief. Just step back and think about that for a minute.  The man would rather be consumed by outlandish conspiracy theories giving our enemies billions of dollars, freedom, and jobs than deal with the real day to day crises that regularly come up fact that bad guys aren't going to stop burning people alive if we let them serve us lattes. And the most outlandish conspiracy theorist political failures of them all now sit at the head of the NSC on the sidelines ready to curse the Russians everytime Drumpf makes a move.  Quit whining, about Obama.  His Your term is up.  Forget Hillary.  She lost.  Drumpf won and we should all be watching him like hawks.  It may not be is not the end of times, but if you are not at least slightly disturbed by willing to give a man with Drumpf's disposition and character a chance in the White House, then you are looking in the wrong direction just asking to be miserable for the next 4-8 years, regardless of whether  it turns out to be the best 4/8 years in the history of the US, or the worst.

Neither one of these paragraphs is accurate. You're too polarized if you think Republicans are the only ones to blame for Drumpf winning. Yeah, yeah.. Republicans are evil fascists and Democrats are the epitome of good will and love. I should check my straight white male privilege and all that other good stuff..

Don't put words in my mouth bro.  It's entirely possible to think the Dems are a bunch of pussified apologists AND be extremely weary of a Donald Trump presidency.

[tk1313]

12 hours ago, Prozac said:

Don't put words in my mouth bro.  It's entirely possible to think the Dems are a bunch of pussified apologists AND be extremely weary of a Donald Trump presidency.

Eh, I'm optimistic for now.  It hasn't even been two weeks. Call me naïve, but it is what it is. I'm sure he'll piss me off sooner or later... In the mean time, I'm sure we can find millions of Americans willing to take every decision he makes and turn it into something about him being Hitler or Satan...

[TreeA10]

With this dude pouring millions into keeping things stirred up to foment hate and discontent so he can profit off the pain and suffering, I don't think we are going to see the end of this for some time.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/connoisseur-chaos-14954.html

 

[SurelySerious]

With this dude pouring millions into keeping things stirred up to foment hate and discontent so he can profit off the pain and suffering, I don't think we are going to see the end of this for some time.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/connoisseur-chaos-14954.html
 

Seriously.

[nsplayr]

As a follow-up to the discussion on Bannon and the NSC reorganization, this is a worthwhile read.

Author bio: Michael J. Gottlieb is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, and a Term Member on the Council for Foreign Relations. He served as Associate White House Counsel for President Obama from 2009-2010, and 2011-2013, and the Deputy Director of Combined Joint Interagency Task Force 435 in Kabul, Afghanistan, from 2010-2011. Earlier in his career, he served as a federal prosecutor, a Senate Judiciary Committee staffer, and as a law clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"In 2012, I witnessed a scene that has been on my mind this week: then-Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough reprimanded a less experienced staffer for merely referencing the ongoing reelection campaign during a mid-level NSC policy meeting. Why? Because, he said, “politics have no place in the Situation Room.”

We face a different question today: should the President’s chief political strategist play not merely a glancing role but an active and sustained role in the national security policy-making processes overseen by the National Security Council (“NSC”)? Until earlier this week, no administration of either political party had answered that question in the affirmative, largely because the NSC is regularly called upon to address life or death issues that transcend momentary news cycles or opinion polls. President Trump’s January 28, 2017 reorganization of the NSC, via National Security Presidential Memorandum 2, casts aside that norm by elevating Chief White House “Strategist” Steven Bannon to a permanent role as an attendee at all NSC meetings, and as a regular attendee at all Principals Committee (“PC”) meetings.

Separate from the concerns that some have expressed regarding Bannon’s ideology or his qualifications to serve in his new role, the decision to install the White House’s chief political strategist as a key decision maker within the NSC policy process is an ill-conceived decision that threatens to politicize the NSC policy-making process from top to bottom.

The President has broad discretion to select his advisors and structure his staff in the manner best suited to his management style. The NSC, however, is unlike other parts of the Executive Office of the President; it is a creature of statute, with statutorily-prescribed membership requirements, and has a specific mission that is enshrined in federal law. Congress established the NSC via the National Security Act of 1947, which provides that the purpose of the Council is “to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security so as to enable the military services and the other departments and agencies of the Government to cooperate more effectively in matters involving national security.”

Administrations from Truman to Obama have structured their NSC staffs and policy-making processes differently, but one constant aspect of the NSC throughout its history has been the existence of a process structured to provide the President with the best military, intelligence, and foreign policy advice on matters of national security. To provide the President with the best advice of the federal government on complex issues of national security, which often involve the interests and expertise of more than one agency, the NSC manages a multi-tiered policy process that is designed to narrow the issues necessary for decision by the President, consider the views of all federal agencies with interests in a given issue, and, where possible, achieve interagency consensus.

The Principals Committee, in particular, was designed to serve as the “senior interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security.” Its function is to assemble all of the views of the interagency, and to distill what are often divergent positions into coherent recommendations on which the President may choose to act. At times, these policy discussions are dense and plodding; at other times, they involve life-or-death decisions regarding foreign military operations. But regardless of the issue at hand, the goal of the process is to provide the President with the best advice of his available options from his military, intelligence, and foreign policy professionals.

The professional advice that results from the NSC policy process has never been, and can never be, perfectly insulated from politics, but it is designed to be as free from political influence as possible. President George W. Bush reportedly instructed Karl Rove not to attend any NSC meetings, for fear that his presence would suggest that life or death decisions were being made based upon politics.

The argument that President Obama took similar action to Trump’s order by allowing his chief political advisor, David Axelrod, to observe a limited number of NSC meetings is frivolous; there is a difference in both degree and kind between observing, by invitation, a limited number of NSC meetings from the back bench, on the one hand, and being a decision-maker in all PC meetings, on the other.

The law does not require the NSC to follow a strictly non-political process, but that approach is unquestionably desirable as a matter of policy for at least three reasons: 

First, better advice yields better decisions, and political considerations will erode the quality of advice the President receives from his national security professionals. The President deserves to know whether an emerging issue constitutes a genuine threat, and how that threat (if it exists) can or cannot be adequately addressed or mitigated. Whether a terrorist organization intends to launch an attack against the United States is a factual assessment with political implications—and while the President is entitled to consider those political implications, his understanding of the likelihood of an attack should not be polluted by the political fallout that such an assessment may cause. To take another example, consider the President’s view, which he frequently stated on the campaign trail, that the United States should have seized Iraq’s oil after toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. Were he to consider such an action now, his decision would undoubtedly be better informed were he first to receive the military’s best advice regarding the efficacy and consequences of such action separate from the political considerations associated with adhering to his campaign rhetoric. In sum, the President will have better information from which to assess threats and fashion responses if he receives unfiltered national security advice.

Second, an independent national security policy process protects the President. A process in which agency “equities” are debated and weighed is one that is more likely to produce consensus and reduce internal dissent than one in which the merits are subordinated to political calculations from the start. National security professionals do not expect that their views will always carry the day with political leadership, but they do expect at least to have their views considered. If that does not happen, destructive infighting and leaks will be more likely, and the President will become more vulnerable to charges that he risked (or lost) American lives for political gain. 

Third, separating politics from national security policy protects the NSC staff, which is comprised largely of career military, intelligence, and diplomatic professionals who are on loan from the interagency. Those professionals have dedicated their lives to serving their country, and they deserve to know that their expertise is valued, that their advice is considered on the merits, and that their expertise is not being used to promote a political agenda. Injecting politics into the NSC process will inevitably reduce staff morale, lead to unnecessary turnover, and produce a less capable and effective workforce.

All this brings us back to National Security Presidential Memorandum 2, which risks all of the dangers described above by simultaneously inserting the White House’s chief political strategist into a central role in the NSC process and demoting the roles of the Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Specifically, the Memorandum enshrines Bannon with a permanent decision-making role at every PC meeting, and invites Bannon to be present at every NSC meeting; meanwhile, the DNI and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have been demoted from their roles as “regular members” of the PC and instead will attend only “where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.”

In light of the fact that the PC is the “senior interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security,” the Memorandum sends an ominous message. Namely, by granting his chief political strategist a permanent seat at the table, but making the DNI and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs invitation-only participants, President Trump has declared that his political strategist has more important “responsibilities and expertise” over the “policy issues affecting national security” than the DNI or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. That prioritization is absurd – nearly all PC meetings do raise issues that intersect, in one way or another, with the responsibilities and expertise of the DNI, who speaks for the intelligence community, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who speaks for the uniformed military. The same cannot be said for the President’s chief political strategist, whose only arguable institutional interests (the President and the White House) are already represented within both the PC and NSC processes.

Some have criticized the Memorandum on the basis of Bannon’s qualifications to serve in his newfound role. But whether Bannon’s service in the Navy somehow qualifies him to make complex foreign policy decisions is something of a distraction—the more salient point is that the hat Bannon wears in this White House should make his participation in the NSC process inappropriate. The President has already raised more than $7 million for his 2020 reelection bid, and has filed an official statement of his 2020 candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. Bannon will likely be the point person for that reelection bid, and reportedly has already begun to focus on the 2018 midterms. It is inconceivable that Bannon can participate in the NSC policy-making process without inserting his political and communications views into assessments of emerging threats, diplomatic disputes, or military options. If Bannon’s political views change the outcomes of PC meetings even modestly, the President and the country will less safe, and public faith in our national security professionals will be further undermined.

The President is, of course, entitled to have his political strategist advise him regarding any action he is asked to consider. The problem with the structure President Trump has adopted is not that his chief strategist plays an important role in his decision-making process – rather, the problem is where Bannon has been placed in that process. Bannon’s permanent seat on the PC will make it difficult for the interagency to offer its best military, intelligence, and foreign policy advice to the President, while simultaneously undermining the role of the National Security and Homeland Security Advisors. The theoretical risks described above are magnified by Bannon’s hard-edged political and ideological predispositions, his penchant for crediting and promoting conspiracy theories, and the joy he appears to derive from advancing provocative anti-establishment arguments and rhetoric. All of this is fundamentally incompatible with the order and stability the NSC process is designed to promote. The breakdown of that process will, sadly, leave us all less safe."

[Lord Ratner]

Woe be unto the other members of the NSC, too weak and afraid to continue protecting America under the crushing influence of Darth Bannon.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Political advisors have been there in the past, they just made Bannon official. Obama was the most political president possibly ever, and his political advisors had their hands in everything.

I would take all of this much more seriously if the people saying it hasn't been ignoring it completely for the past 8-16 years. But then again, Trump made an art of taking previously established but unacknowledged misdeeds of the political class and weaponizing against them. Why should this be any different?

[Blue]

30 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Woe be unto the other members of the NSC, too weak and afraid to continue protecting America under the crushing influence of Darth Bannon.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Political advisors have been there in the past, they just made Bannon official. Obama was the most political president possibly ever, and his political advisors had their hands in everything.

Yeah, this.

Sorry nsplayr, I didn't read the wall of text you put up.  But on a superficial level, I don't understand the issue with Bannon and the NSC.

Open to hearing the counterpoints, but it still seems like a whole lot of sound and fury over nothing.....

Edited February 3, 2017 by Blue

[nsplayr]

14 minutes ago, Blue said:

Sorry nsplayr, I didn't read the wall of text you put up.

It's a big, beautiful wall, it's true, believe me. I wanna keep all the bad hombres out of the NSC. And you know who's gonna pay for that wall of text? Mexico!

Edited February 3, 2017 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

On a serious note, if you don't understand why experts in national security would be loudly sounding the alarms about something that on the surface doesn't seem like a big deal, maybe you should read up on it. Agree or disagree afterwards, but if you want to understand the info is out there.

The source I linked to (lawfare) and the article I copied in full is an excellent summary of the criticism.