Jump to content
Baseops Forums
disgruntledemployee

The Next President is...

Recommended Posts

Quals:

- American citizen

- seen a few Administrations

- able to read/write/draw my own conclusions about politics, the political establishment, and recognize hypocrisy of whatever political bent.

- sadly, the only pilot quals are all too seldom used FAA-issued PPL from some decades ago.

Never much of a Heath Ledger/dark Batman genre.

And I'd go with this for me over characterization.

tumblr_m7vuhbQZmp1qdqr1xo1_1280.jpg

Since 'facts' are important to you, perhaps you can stick with those in your arguments versus personal attacks.

I can play that and am not too shabby at it, but then we become liberals if we stay on that path.

I do have standards after all.

 

edited to remove superfluous personal achievement stuff.

Edited by brickhistory
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's really what you took from my statement suggest reading glasses to go with the beers and firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that for the first time in history, a political strategist will have a permanent role on the principals committee of the NSC.

You can be as cynical as you want to be, and say that all decisions are political, but the facts of the matter are that no other NSC regularly included a political strategist. And in those cases where one was invited to meetings (I.e. Axelrod) there was significant consternation.

Politics has no role in national security decisions, and past presidencies have borne that out in the constitution of their NSCs.

This is a new, and concerning, twist.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Politics has no role in national security decisions, and past presidencies have borne that out in the constitution of their NSCs.

This is a new, and concerning, twist.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Is it worth noting that a political advisor is sitting on the NSC? Absolutely.

Look, I am no fan of Bannon and I think having him there is a mistake...but your statement that I quoted above shows your naïveté of politics and national security decisions.

Go back and look at the Johnson Whitehouse and his Tuesday lunches which marginalized the NSC, for one example, along with just about any other decision. National security decisions are NOT made in a vacuum and they are not shrouded in some cover of "it's the right thing to do". Every decision is political.

Wring your hands about Bannon, if you want. I will buy you a scotch and we can discuss it at length but don't try to make this sound like more than it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, daynightindicator said:

It's worth noting that for the first time in history, a political strategist will have a permanent role on the principals committee of the NSC.

You can be as cynical as you want to be, and say that all decisions are political, but the facts of the matter are that no other NSC regularly included a political strategist. And in those cases where one was invited to meetings (I.e. Axelrod) there was significant consternation.

Politics has no role in national security decisions, and past presidencies have borne that out in the constitution of their NSCs.

This is a new, and concerning, twist.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

*cough*  Ben Rhodes  *cough**cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

*cough*  Ben Rhodes  *cough**cough*

Ben Rhodes was the Deputy National Security Advisor. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most intelligent military minds to have ever lived.

 

Edited by tk1313
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics has no role in national security decisions[/url]

Sheer lunacy.

The only difference now is that instead of the political advisors listening in the corner then bending the president's ear after, the discourse can happen with all other players present. If politics have no role, why is the secretary of state on the PC? Or do only international politics have a role in national security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This story highlights exactly why you don't want high level political figures (like Bannon) involved in national security decisions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?postshare=7731486222921115&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b20f15d565f1

Good on Sec. Kelly for refusing Bannon's "orders" and using the chain of command (i.e. POTUS). Kelly, Mattis, Tillerson, CJCS, are in the chain of command for their various agencies and departments and all report to the President - Bannon or anyone like him is distinctly not in that chain.

Re: Rhodes...call him unqualified if you want, but his portfolio was NATSEC issues based on his role as Deputy National Security Advisor. President Trunp has several of those in his admin and they are all appropriate attendees to NSC meetings and that decision-making process. Not as principals (that would be Flynn), but I'm sure they're in the room and they should be.

Unless the President wants to dual-hat Bannon as the National Security Advisor, he has no place on the PC. Unless he's also a deputy NSA or NSC staffer of some kind on top of his role as chief strategist, he shouldn't even be in the room, let alone trying to tell the DHS Secretary what to do. 

In my opinion, W did this right based on accounts of the process he ran. He had his political folks and his NATSEC folks and they had a bright, clear line between those two portfolios. He, as the President, sat in the middle and over everything and alone or with the VP made the appropriate decisions on if and when politics played a role in national security decision making and vice versa.

Now, I think Bush made lots of foreign policy mistakes, but FFS they at least ran the interagency process in a logical, deliberate manner and respected and upheld the institutions that exist solely to help the President succeed. 

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

This story highlights exactly why you don't want high level political figures (like Bannon) involved in national security decisions.

You don't like Bannon.  Got it.  Neither do I for that matter, but this doesn't pass the sniff test, unless your indignation applies across previous administrations as well.  Do I need to name names?  I could go back to at least Reagan off the top of my cranium, but I'm sure the Google machine will help me find earlier examples.

Copy: the WH has been running the first few weeks like a rally car race, with fender scuffs to prove it.  The article that you provided was that at the end of the day they are adults and found their designated lanes.  Like the author said at the end: a tie.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this entertaining 82fdb9d6d38f7f8e63f7cbcdb43dd0e4.jpg

Because screw that bitch and her "it's my turn" mentality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 14
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This story highlights exactly why you don't want high level political figures (like Bannon) involved in national security decisions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?postshare=7731486222921115&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b20f15d565f1

Good on Sec. Kelly for refusing Bannon's "orders" and using the chain of command (i.e. POTUS). Kelly, Mattis, Tillerson, CJCS, are in the chain of command for their various agencies and departments and all report to the President - Bannon or anyone like him is distinctly not in that chain.

Thank you for proving my point. Wanna check that article again?

It's unfortunate, but in this media environment, reading, seeing, or hearing it in the news isn't enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One need only look at political advisor Colonel House advising  President Woodrow Wilson on matters of state or Truman's "Kitchen Cabinet" when addressing MacArthur's insubordination and it would play politically and most significantly when Robert Kennedy (although appointed Attorney General) considered the political angle above all else, even during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Politics cast a giant shadow regardless the arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't like Bannon.  Got it.  Neither do I for that matter, but this doesn't pass the sniff test, unless your indignation applies across previous administrations as well.  Do I need to name names?  I could go back to at least Reagan off the top of my cranium, but I'm sure the Google machine will help me find earlier examples.
Copy: the WH has been running the first few weeks like a rally car race, with fender scuffs to prove it.  The article that you provided was that at the end of the day they are adults and found their designated lanes.  Like the author said at the end: a tie.


Please, name names. As actual NSC PC principals. In the 70ish year history, the NSC has not had permanent PC members that were political strategists.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Please, name names. As actual NSC PC principals. In the 70ish year history, the NSC has not had permanent PC members that were political strategists.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums


Who said that any of them were permanent members? Rove, Jarrett, Emanuel, Axelrod; none of them were statutory NSC members, yet they all participated in meetings and discussions as Bannon is now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dudes, there's a huge difference between a reporter getting something wrong and some guy just making shit up to get clicks. 

The paper posts a correction and updates the article plus admits mistakes. Fair enough. Should have got it right the first time and verified sources better.

Romanian guy writes that Trump is eating little children's hearts for breakfast at the White House. Unrepentant and will even tell you directly that he just made everything up to get ad dollars from clicks.

One of those is fake news and the other is the normal ups and downs of journalism.

Or it's all the same, morally equivalent.

https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/54120

Kind of like Putin is a killer...there are a lot of killers or there. Are we so innocent?

Y'all know you would have completely lost your GD minds if Obama had said that, regardless if there's a kernel of truth to it. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BFM this said:

 


Who said that any of them were permanent members? Rove, Jarrett, Emanuel, Axelrod; none of them were statutory NSC members, yet they all participated in meetings and discussions as Bannon is now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

Cite one source that Rove ever attended an NSC meeting. My understanding is that he was never permitted to attend. 

Access = power. This is court politics signaling that Bannon has more power than someone like Coats as DNI or Dunford as CJCS, which many people find very troubling.

A permanent seat at the PC table is way different than occasional attendance to broader NSC meetings when the President seems it appropriate. 

Also Rahm was the Chief of Staff, like Reince, and has a far different role than the political strategists. Let's talk apples to apples here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you so afraid of?  That politics play into national security decisions? 

BTW, I think I once read that a president (last 30 yrs?) rarely ever used the NCS.  Law says he gets to have one and calls out specific positions, but does the law mandate how the NCS is used?  And I'm too old or lazy to look up sources.

Look, the Pres is going to listen to whomever he wants for whatever reasons, just like all the ones in the past.  If the Pres thinks that putting a politics guy in the fish bowl to "stir it up" because he thinks that may yield better results, let him try it.  If the dude fucks it up, he'll get fired.  I heard 2x Obama holdovers got canned already for not following orders.  Did O ever fire anyone?  And I'm not talking about the touchy feely mention of someone resigning but was actually fired.  This Pres flat out fired two people.

Now I've got to get ready to see Tom Brady lose it tonight, you all have fun out there.

Out

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

If the dude fucks it up, he'll get fired.  

Maybe. Or maybe we'll find ourselves in a conflict in the South China Sea. Seriously, the stakes are extremely high here. That's why many are so concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in the cobwebs of officer school I remember learning that military action was an end to political means.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Seriously, the stakes are extremely high here. That's why many are so concerned. 

Ah, yes.  Because the National Security Councils of the past gave been so infallible, and have such an impressive track record of good decisions......

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Somewhere in the cobwebs of officer school I remember learning that military action was an end to political means.

Huge difference between international politics driving decisions to go to war (as they should and do) and domestic political strategists bringing up poll numbers and re-elect-ability when national security decisions are at stake (and I'm not suggesting we're there yet, but that's the slippery slope).

It's completely true that the President can make whatever decisions and listen to whoever they want...and I understand that in the past some presidents have marginalized the NSC or other agencies/positions when making their policy decisions.  But the fact of the matter is that the NSC is supposed to provide non-political advice on what's in the best interest of national security, which is why there has never been a political strategist as a permanent member of the PC.  In fact, as the article posted earlier shows, most of the time, when a political staffer attended meetings, it was met with strong rebukes from others in the administration/NSC.

Edit to add that the NSC works for the President, so obviously he's free to appoint whomever he wants on the council.  I just disagree with the judgment.  Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Edited by daynightindicator
clarification
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huge difference between international politics driving decisions to go to war (as they should and do) and domestic political strategists bringing up poll numbers and re-elect-ability when national security decisions are at stake (and I'm not suggesting we're there yet, but that's the slippery slope).

Please. All of Obama's decisions, for 8 years, were made seemingly based on re-elect-ability and his "legacy" instead of the best interests of the United States. I don't like the thought of either one of them making decisions that way, frankly, nor am I yet comfortable with Trump's motives...but Obama and his Harvard-smart team were the kings of making decisions to make him look good. Just without the guy on the NSC facade.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...