MSNBC | Disgusted by Donald Trump's antics, CIA veteran resigns MSNBC To hear Donald Trump tell it, he and the intelligence community get along swimmingly. The Republican president, who's repeatedly questioned intelligence professionals' integrity and professionalism, told the CIA on his first full day in office that the ... |
Read more:
Disgusted by Donald Trump's antics, CIA veteran resigns - MSNBC
President Trump announced Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster as his new national security adviser on Monday.
Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images
On Monday, Donald Trump chose Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster as his new national security adviser, less than a week after Michael Flynn was forced out of the position. McMaster is known as one of the Armys top strategists and intellectuals and has become as famous for critiquing military strategy and bureaucratic thinking as for leading troops in battle. In short, he may not appear to be a very Trumpian choice, which makes him an especially intriguing one.
Isaac Chotiner is a Slate staff writer.
To discuss McMaster, I spoke by phone with Andrew Exum, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East in the Obama administration and a contributing editor at the Atlantic, who has known the lieutenant general for more than a decade. During the course of a conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed McMasters ideas on warfare, why Trump made the choice he did, and the importance of giving the president honest advice.
Isaac Chotiner: You tweeted on Monday that it was not an exaggeration to say that the world should feel a little safer today. Why is that?
Andrew Exum: I just cannot say enough good things about H.R. McMaster. It sounds like hyperbole when you start to describe the man. He is one of the most talented officers the United States Army has ever produced. He has distinguished himself in two very different conflicts at two different levels of command. In the first Gulf War he led a troop of armored cavalry, and in Tal Afar in 2005 he led a brigade. He was arguably the most outstanding company commander in the First Gulf War and the most outstanding brigade commander in the Iraq war that followed. In between, of course, he received a Ph.D. in military history from the University of North Carolina. His dissertation became a best-selling book, Dereliction of Duty, which I very cleverly only read about two months ago.
That book was about the way the military dealt with the Johnson administration during Vietnam, yes? What was the general thesis?
Yeah. It was scathing in the way it discussed the Joint Chiefs and the way in which they provided advice to the president. But what I keep going back to when thinking about the book is the criticism of the national security decision-making process in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The reason I am thinking of this is because, as a friend of mine pointed out, this decision of Trumps is like bringing in Ben Bernanke to be the head of the Federal Reserve right before the Great Recession. H.R. McMaster very carefully and often caustically studied the national security decision-making process, and now he is responsible for that process. Hes a real intellectual.
He was also influential in shaping David Petraeus strategy into how to wage war in Iraq. What was his large idea there?
H.R. has this line, and I think he is quoting someone, about war being the ultimate arbiter of fighting institutions. His point is that you can go in with these great theories about how war is meant to be fought, but its really in combat that you find out how good the institutions you built are. H.R. was one of a group of commanders who came into the Iraq conflict and saw that the army we had trained was not up to the task. And to his credit, he did things differently in Tal Afar. H.R. was someone who, in an isolated area with Tal Afar, which has some of the most complex demography in Iraq, was able to wage a successful counterinsurgency operation, at least for a while, because when his unit left it was replaced by a smaller unit.
A lot of what H.R. gets credit for is all the stuff about listening to the population and trying to isolate the grievances and see what is driving the conflict. But quite frankly you should also not understate the clear part of what he did, in terms of clear, hold, and build. He put a berm around the city itself and fought like hell. He got as many civilians out as possible and then fought a very hard battle to seize Tal Afar and then to hold it. But the way in which he did it was somewhat revolutionary. It was a very patient approach to pacification and rooting out the enemy, and doing so in a way that alienated as few Iraqis as possible.
The portrait you are painting is not obviously a picture of someone Trump would like. What do you think Trump might see in him?
H.R. does not, when you talk to him, come across as an egghead intellectual. He is a big, bullish man, who takes up a lot of space in the room and has a very powerful personality. He projects strength personally, which is probably one of the reasons he is so admired and beloved by the troops who served under his command. Knowing the president, I could see him liking that.
In addition, I have little doubt that many of the people [Trump] was speaking to, including Petraeus, no doubt had very good things to say about McMaster. He is a known quantity. If you were to take the pulse of a dozen national security leaders of both parties and asked them to come up with a list of the five smartest officers in the military, H.R. would be on the list.
Without asking you to reveal private conversations, you arent describing someone who would seem to like Donald Trump. Is this just a job you cant say no to? Do you think they might have something in common ideologically that you arent aware of?
They could. I have never had an overly ideological or political conversation with H.R. McMaster. He has never struck me as a man who has the type of pungently ideological views of a Steve Bannon. But bear in mind that he is a three-star general who has been asked to do one of the most difficult tasks in the United States government. I can imagine that it is very difficult for him to turn down this job. If anything, given his academic research, and how deeply he cares about this country, and given the oath he has sworn, I couldnt imagine he would have ever said no.
How far do you think this will go toward placating people in the national security bureaucracy who are warring with the new administration?
I think its too early to tell. There are a lot of things driving the animosity between Trump and the bureaucracy. One of those things is that you had a national security adviser who was not necessarily listening to his staff and was a bit overwhelmed with the job, based on folks with whom I have spoken. But the other thing is that this is still very early days in the administration, which has fallen behind the pace in terms of putting their appointments in to Defense and State, and as a result, the folks on the National Security Council are understandably worried and dont really have leadership. I think the animosity that you are seeing will start to recede once some Trump administration officials come into the departments and agencies and people see that most of them are reasonable. I personally saw the temperature at the Department of Defense go way down after Jim Mattis was made the secretary.
OK, but he is one of the few sane people Trump has put in though.
I dont think that is true. I think that Tillerson, quite frankly, has the potential to be an excellent secretary of state and has the potential to provide the type of management for the organization that you were never going to get from a John Kerry, for example. And I also think that even when you scratch off all those people who said they would never work in a Trump administration, I think that this administration can still find a lot of talented people to serve at the deputy-assistant and assistant-secretary levels. There is talent out there, and I dont just mean smart people, but people who can be good managers. But well see. The loyalty test this administration is applying is a bit worrisome, to say the least.
I think for a lot of people this was particularly soothing, because as much as people respect Mattis, this guy will be in the building with Trump every day.
Thats right, and maybe I have too much faith in him, but frankly McMaster has staked so much of his intellectual credentials on the need to deliver blunt and honest advice to the president that it would be ironic and sad if he himself didnt do that, but I think he will. It is no exaggeration to say that I will sleep better tonight.
Or sleep better for at least two months, which is how long he will last giving honest advice to this president.
Well thats right. One of the great things is that we do have some leaders in place, not just Mattis and McMaster but the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who are real men of integrity. If things get too bad, I cant imagine them having too much patience, although it is always tempting to convince yourself that, Oh, I can do something great and stay on past the time you should have resigned. But I have great faith in him.
Thank you, Andrew. Hopefully humanity will now survive long enough for us to do this again.
See the article here:
The Intellectual Who Might Get Through to Donald Trump - Slate Magazine
Opening the largely symbolic debate in Westminster Hall, Labour MP Paul Flynn said: "We all in this room hold in great respect the US presidency, their constitution, their history," and that there was "no question of any disrespect towards that country."
But Flynn -- who described Trump's intellectual capacity as "protozoan" -- argued that to grant the honor of a state visit to a president who had acted "like a petulant child" would send the message that Britain approved of his behavior and comments.
Labour MP David Lammy said it was to be expected that the US President would be invited to the UK, but that offering Trump a full state visit after only seven days in power was not acceptable.
He said that for the country to make such an invitation was to "abandon all its principles," and suggested that the move came because the government was desperate to make trade deals.
"We didn't do this for Kennedy, we didn't do this for Truman, we didn't do this for Reagan, but for this man ... we say, 'Please come and we will lay on everything, because we are so desperate for your company,'" he said. "I think this country is greater than that."
Conservative MP Simon Burns argued that the visit should go ahead -- whatever people think of Trump -- because of the close links between the US and the UK.
"America is our greatest ally. It has been for a considerable amount of time," he said. "It has stood by us, shoulder to shoulder, in our hour of need, as we did in their hour of need, particularly during 9/11."
He added, "So it is to my mind foolish to allow our personal views and assessments of an individual, and some of their more grotesque characteristics and behavior, to blur what is in Britain's national interest."
Fellow Conservative MP Crispin Blunt said withdrawing the invitation risked embarrassing the Queen, but that the trip could simply be postponed. He suggested that 2020 -- the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrims' journey to America -- would be an appropriate moment for a state visit.
Bercow is one of three parliamentary officials who must approve any invitation for someone to speak in Westminster Hall, the venue typically used for grand occasions of state, where Monday's debate is being held.
Controversy over Trump's visit intensified after he imposed a travel ban -- later blocked by courts in the US -- on nationals from seven mainly Muslim countries.
Hundreds of people gathered outside the Houses of Parliament to protest the US President's visit, according to The Press Association.
Scottish National Party MP Patrick Grady said noise from the demonstration could be heard inside the hall.
If Trump's trip was downgraded to an "official visit," the President would be deprived of a ride in the Queen's carriage, gun salutes, a banquet at Buckingham Palace and other ceremonial honors typically associated with full state visits.
No US President has received a state visit in his first year in office.
President Barack Obama was afforded the honor 28 months into his tenure, while George W. Bush was extended the invite after 32 months at the White House.
See the original post here:
Insults fly as UK Parliament debates Donald Trump's visit - CNN
One possible reason: Trump was a frequent and vocal critic of President Barack Obama's golf habit, regularly slamming the former president for playing golf with many pressing issues before the country. Trump even suggested during a 2016 event in Virginia, in a knock on Obama, that if elected he was "not going to have time to go play golf."
"I'm going to be working for you, I'm not going to have time to go play golf," Trump said at the time.
Aides would not confirm that Trump played golf each time, but through a series of social media posts and interviews with the professional golfers who joined him, it is clear the President golfed during most of these visits. By comparison, Obama played his first round of golf as President on April 26, 2009, at Andrews Air Force Base.
The level of secrecy around golf is new for the presidency, too. While the Obama administration was hesitant to allow cameras to regularly get shots of the President hitting the links, they would tell reporters who joined the President for each round. Trump's nascent administration has not done that.
According to a picture posted by Clear Sports, a golf technology company, Trump hit the links at Trump International Golf Club on Sunday with Rory McIlroy, one of the top-ranked golfers in the world.
McIlroy later told No Laying Up, a golf blog, that he played a full 18 holes with the President, the CEO of Clear Sports and Paul O'Neill, the former New York Yankees right fielder.
The professional golfer said Trump "shot around 80" through 18 holes, eight strokes above the course's par 72 layout.
The reported 18 holes of golf, however, directly contradicts how White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders described Trump's visit to the golf course during a briefing with reporters on Sunday.
"I know he played a couple of holes this morning but I am not going to disclose any of the others that were there," Sanders said, adding that Trump also "played a couple" on Saturday, as well.
Confronted by McIlroy's comments about playing 18 holes with the President, Sanders said the President "intended to play a few holes and decided to play longer."
"He also had a full day of meetings, calls and interviews for the new (national security adviser), which he is continuing today before returning to Washington, DC, tonight," Sanders added.
McIlroy is not the only professional golfer to play with the President. While hosting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Palm Beach earlier this month, Trump played a full round with the foreign leader and professional golfer, Ernie Els.
Abe shared during a joint news conference with Trump that his golf scores are "not up to the level of Donald at all," but he's "always aiming for the cup."
Presidents have regularly turned to golf as a way to relax from their abnormally stressful job. Obama reportedly played 306 rounds of golf in office, a far cry from the estimated 1,200 rounds Woodrow Wilson played as president.
But Trump made Obama's golf a staple of his 2016 critique of the President.
"I love golf, I think it's one of the greats, but I don't have time," Trump said during a December 2016 rally in Michigan. "He played more golf last year than Tiger Woods. We don't have time for this. We don't have time for this. We have to work."
And even before he was running for president, Trump would tweet about Obama's golfing.
"Can you believe that, with all of the problems and difficulties facing the US, President Obama spent the day playing golf," Trump tweeted in October 2014. "Worse than Carter."
CNN's Gregory Wallace contributed to this report.
CORRECTION: This story has been updated to accurately reflect that Ernie Els still plays golf professionally.
View original post here:
Trump's aides don't want to admit the President is golfing - CNN
President Donald Trump took to Twitter to express further criticism of Swedens immigration policies Monday.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) President Donald Trump is tweeting further criticism of Swedens immigration policies.
The president tweeted Monday that: The FAKE NEWS media is trying to say that large scale immigration in Sweden is working out just beautifully. NOT!
Advertisement
People in Sweden have been scratching their heads since Trump suggested during a rally Saturday that some sort of incident had occurred in their country.
Trump tweeted Sunday he was referring to something he saw on television.
Get Political Happy Hour in your inbox:
Your afternoon shot of politics, sent straight from the desk of Joshua Miller.
The president might be referring to a segment aired Friday night on the Fox News Channel show Tucker Carlson Tonight that reported Sweden had accepted more than 160,000 asylum-seekers last year but that only 500 of the migrants had found jobs in Sweden. The report went on to say that a surge in violence had followed.
Read more here:
Donald Trump tweets further criticism of Sweden - The Boston Globe