This week, National Security Advisor and retired Army General Michael Flynn was asked to resign his post. It came to light last week that Flynn, before the inauguration and while he was still a private citizen, had several phone calls discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. I do not intend to discuss the Flynn business in depth just now, but I recommend this summary for the curious.
What finally produced Flynn's ouster was the revelation that he mislead several Trump administration officials, including Vice President Pence, about the content of his calls with Kislyak. There remains a great deal of uncertainty about who knew what and when about his calls - particularly who, if anyone, authorized Flynn to discuss the sanctions. It is worth noting that the primary point of President Trump's response to the story has been a castigation of the individuals responsible for leaking the details to the press, expressly claiming that the intelligence community itself is out to get him. This is only the latest act in an ongoing saga of mutual distrust and recrimination between Trump and the national security establishment.
From the time candidate Trump claimed that the intelligence community's findings about Russian interference in the election were politically motivated, there has been a great deal of tension.
The Wall Street Journal reported this week that intelligence officials have purposefully avoided giving Trump sensitive intelligence, citing concerns that it will be leaked or handled inappropriately. When Flynn was confirmed, there was consternation within the National Security Council staff about him and the people he was bringing in with him. Adding insult to injury, the appointment of political adviser Steve Bannon to permanent seat on the council, in a break with precedent, was seen as an overt politicization of national security. Yesterday evening, it was revealed that Trump's chosen successor to Flynn, Robert Harward, turned down the offer because the White House refused to allow him to replace staff brought in by Flynn.
The Wall Street Journal reported this week that intelligence officials have purposefully avoided giving Trump sensitive intelligence, citing concerns that it will be leaked or handled inappropriately. When Flynn was confirmed, there was consternation within the National Security Council staff about him and the people he was bringing in with him. Adding insult to injury, the appointment of political adviser Steve Bannon to permanent seat on the council, in a break with precedent, was seen as an overt politicization of national security. Yesterday evening, it was revealed that Trump's chosen successor to Flynn, Robert Harward, turned down the offer because the White House refused to allow him to replace staff brought in by Flynn.
It is clear that Trump blames the security establishment, in particular the FBI and CIA, for the leaks that brought down Flynn. He has gone so far as to repeatedly claim that the leaks, rather than Flynn's actions, are the "real story" of the week. His frustration with the leaks, and with the intelligence community at large, has reached the point that he is weighing inviting a Trump loyalist to investigate the leaks, and the intelligence agencies.
The tension is not confined to the security establishment. It has extended to the diplomatic community as well. Trump notoriously demanded that many diplomats return home immediately upon his inauguration without awaiting their replacements - a move that was seen as a deliberate insult. After Trump signed his travel bans, many career diplomats broke with precedent to openly protest. For their trouble, presidential press secretary Sean Spicer said publicly that they could get on board or feel free to find a new career path. Most of the high level career staff at the State Department were encouraged to resign, and did so. Even after that initial housecleaning, additional layoffs of staff at the State Department - difficult to interpret outside of a political context - are ongoing.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Trump administration itself is in more or less open conflict with the entire security establishment. On the merits of the issue this is damning for Trump, because the vast majority of the relevant expertise in the country is alarmed by both his policy and his behavior. Yet as ever in politics, the facts are only a portion of the story. Every conflict that allows Trump to play up his preferred narrative of Trump-vs-the-Establishment risks deepening the already near-mystical bond between him and his supporters, and makes building a consensus against his most alarming acts nearly impossible. Already the bellwether outlets on the Trumpist right are blaming the leaks on a conspiracy of Obama administration holdovers to hamstring the new administration.
I am not aware of any time since World War II when the entire national security apparatus of the country was so obviously at odds with its ostensible commander. There has certainly been no time when the American president has been so obviously hostile to the international consensus Americans built following that conflict, and which has been so successful to this point in preventing the kind of wholly destructive interstate conflict that marred the first half of the last century. The media are correct in pointing out that the departures from established norms are disturbing. But their consistent reinforcement of the Trump-vs-Normalcy narrative risks strengthening him at the exact time when he ought to be hemmorhaging support.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Trump administration itself is in more or less open conflict with the entire security establishment. On the merits of the issue this is damning for Trump, because the vast majority of the relevant expertise in the country is alarmed by both his policy and his behavior. Yet as ever in politics, the facts are only a portion of the story. Every conflict that allows Trump to play up his preferred narrative of Trump-vs-the-Establishment risks deepening the already near-mystical bond between him and his supporters, and makes building a consensus against his most alarming acts nearly impossible. Already the bellwether outlets on the Trumpist right are blaming the leaks on a conspiracy of Obama administration holdovers to hamstring the new administration.
I am not aware of any time since World War II when the entire national security apparatus of the country was so obviously at odds with its ostensible commander. There has certainly been no time when the American president has been so obviously hostile to the international consensus Americans built following that conflict, and which has been so successful to this point in preventing the kind of wholly destructive interstate conflict that marred the first half of the last century. The media are correct in pointing out that the departures from established norms are disturbing. But their consistent reinforcement of the Trump-vs-Normalcy narrative risks strengthening him at the exact time when he ought to be hemmorhaging support.
No comments:
Post a Comment