Trump Endangering National Security

President Trump's behavior grows increasingly. The Directors of the FBI and CIA and the Director of National Intelligence testified to congress and all laid out the threats the United States faces. They have electronic intercepts, spy satellites and human agents inside all the adversaries. They have experts fluent in the languages and people who have lived in these places or academically studied them for years analyzing the raw data. Then the President throws all this out and says he thinks something else. Based on what, any facts? Then he also denigrates their work and them as people. National security is at stake here. To me, this by itself is impeachable dereliction of duty. The commander in chief is refusing to fulfill his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

Trump Creating Serious Damage to World Order

Here's an astute observation from my friend Micah Escobedo:

Until Trump leaves office, the United States will remain one of the biggest destabilizing forces to the post-WWII global order. 

He found the following summative quote, which I share with you, from Heather Hurlburt, a Senior Fellow in National Security at Human Rights First:

“Our European allies may keep coming to the summits, politely tolerating his abuse, and even upping their defense spending — but they are getting the message. So are leaders in Moscow, Beijing, and elsewhere. Much more than about NATO, it’s a message that the leader’s personal pique means a great deal — and years or even decades of commitments and partnership may mean very little. That monumental shift in how the U.S. is expected to conduct itself cannot be “cleaned up” — not by Cabinet “adults” or staff, not by a good meeting in London or Helsinki, and definitely not by tweets.”

Neocons Back At It

Back in 1997 a group of prominent people interested in foreign policy formed an organization to advance their view of America's role in the world. You can still visit the website of the Project for a New American Century. There you can read the views of such people as William Kristol, Donald Kagan, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld on how the United States needed, in the new post-Soviet world, to increase its military might and use that might to cow the world into submission to American interests during a "New American Century." This new "neoconservative" world view led to the fiasco of the Iraq War, which has empowered Iran, isolated the United States in the region and all but shelved progress on the Israeli-Palestinian question for six years.

Undeterred by the ignominy of the horrendous results of all they advocated, the principals of this band of ideological bulls in the global china shop are at it again. Apparently at least aware that their previous vehicle has lost a bit of credibility thanks not only to its crackpot advocacy of American aggression but also to the pathetic incompetence of some of its central personages in carrying it out (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Senor, Libby, for instance) they have now set up a new think tank to advocate the same lunacy all over again. Like a bad 1950s Wolfman sequel, no matter how many times the monster is killed he always returns in the latest remake at the next full moon. It seems those who call for more defense spending and more war are never at a loss for funding.

The latest apparition is called The Foreign Policy Initiative, an innocuous-sounding name for the same old philosophy of trying to dominate the world through the threat and use of military force. Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Dan Senor are the leading lights, if such is a fair description of what it is they shed on the literate public. It is ironic commentary on society that there is seemingly still a market for ideas that have been so decisively refuted by their application while doing such grievous harm to their practitioners. If the American people ever again put anyone else in power who is in the least way associated with these gentlemen or their schemes they will unfortunately prove themselves richly deserving of all that will thenceforth ensue.

Protecting America

Richard A. Clarke has written an important book about the state of America's national security. In Your Government Failed You, Clarke speaks from a world of experience about American strengths and weaknesses and offers a convincing set of essential reforms that must urgently be undertaken if we are to avoid more failures like 9/11 and Iraq. I have just finished the book and heartily recommend it to anyone with an interest in security-related issues.

The 30-year veteran of Defense, State, Intelligence, the National Security Council and Counterterrorism covers a lot of ground in his volume. Among his recommendations are professionalization, accountability and clear lines of authority, human intelligence, cyberwarfare, options analysis, nuclear security, energy security and values. Clarke sees the "war on terrorism" as much more a law enforcement and diplomatic problem than a military one. Most of what we need to do militarily against terrorists can be done by special forces.

Professionalization: When the post 9/11 funding surge came through a number of abuses took place. Over 50% of the analysts in many defense and intelligence offices are employees of private contractors. They need to be phased out of the domestic and military services. Too many mid level managers are political appointees chosen for party loyalty or ideological purity rather than experience or even competence. A heavy price has been paid for the politicization of important posts like FEMA and the Embassy in Baghdad, for instance.

These people do not help; in fact they are in many cases an impediment. There needs to be a national security academy that recruits and trains according to need. It is beyond amazing that agencies like the FBI and NSA still, seven years later, have less than a dozen people fluent in Arabic, for example. We need a President who will inspire young people to public service, as Kennedy did, rather than denigrating and attempting to privatize it.

Accountability: Someone needs to be "in charge" of each important component. Who is the person responsible for getting Bin Laden? Who is the one official in charge of customs security or cyber security? There are no such individuals, and there need to be. If it is "everyone's" responsibility it is no one's. These "czars" must have authority to make different agencies work together, not battle over institutional turf.

Human Intelligence: This issue has received much publicity, and deservedly so. Pictures of buildings or trucks, as were shown at the U.N. to drum up support for invading Iraq, cannot tell you what is in them. That takes spies on the inside. Time and again he found the clandestine services reluctant to take on this type of job. That is what they are for, and has to change.

Cyberwarfare: Clarke reports on how vulnerable our industrial secrets, personal identities and defense system is to this. It needs to be a priority with, again, someone in charge. The work computer of Defense Secretary Gates, for instance, was penetrated. And wait until you read what shenanigans the Chinese are already pulling on this front.

Options Analysis: In previous years, policy makers were presented with a range of potential choices, each one of which came with assessments of the upsides and downsides of adopting them. This has been largely abandoned of late, and must be reinstated. The reason it has been abandoned, of course, is that the present Administration has generally known what it wants to do and has not wanted to hear or see anything other than its predetermined course of action. The results speak for themselves.

Nuclear Security: Terrorists do not pose an "existential threat" to America or the West-unless they get their hands on a stockpile of nuclear weapons. The remaining less-than-secure materials in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere have to be accounted for and locked down. There cannot be any further delay on this.

Energy Security: National security would be greatly enhanced by getting control of our own energy supply. The world is running out of oil, and the climate repercussions of its continued use create new security threats in themselves.

Values: America is most secure when it has reliable allies, and our allies are most reliable and numerous when we live up to the principles we espouse. There is no advantage to be gained from violating international law and the precepts of our own Constitution. They are the structure we ourselves have established domestically and have fostered globally. They are the principles we are defending and what set us apart from our adversaries.

I've only scratched the surface of this fascinating and timely book. Check it out for yourself. Oh, and one more thing. Barack Obama is said to have asked Mr. Clarke to advise him on national security matters.