Daily Beast - Rex Tillerson Is Not Going to Fire the Top Asia Diplomat Bannon Hates

Of course, this is eclipsed by today's latest leaks from the White House.

Spencer Ackerman at the Daily Beast ("Independent. Irreverent. Intelligent.") interpreted the present and predicted the future.

Money quote(s):

"The State Department is standing firmly behind a senior Asia-focused diplomat under attack by Steve Bannon."

That is a nice thing to see.

"Thornton is a widely respected and non-ideological career diplomat"

At that level, most of them are.  Both.  (Or they are neither.)

"Bannon’s pledge to remove Thornton from State is the latest chapter in a long-running feud between Tillerson and the White House. For months, the Secretary of State has pushed back against efforts to meddle in his affairs and undermine his top aide, even reportedly yelling at White House personnel official over their resistance to making Thornton the permanent assistant secretary."

I don't mind a secstate who will raise his voice in support of his personnel picks.

"Haas said that the only reason for dumping Thornton was to ensure her position goes to a political loyalist.

“The only rationale I can think of for seeking to get rid of her is fact she’s a foreign service officer,” he said. “As a lapsed foreign service officer myself, I find that deeply disappointing – that anyone would be disqualified on basis having devoted their life, being sent around world, working long hours in high stress, for low pay, for the sole purpose of advancing America’s interest.” "

The real ideologues come and go with each administration.  They're called political appointees.  And with the housecleaning across State's sub-cabinet level earlier this year, the message should be clear among the career folks in both civil and foreign services.

"But if recent reports turn out to be true, Thornton may stick around longer in her gig than Bannon in his."

I suppose he'll go back to Breitbart.Com.  Which hasn't been the same since Andrew died.

re: "The Rebirth of Birthers?"

William Sullivan at American Thinker (" a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans ") considered this news from Arizona.

Money quote(s):

"Two years, three months, and seven days after his inauguration, Barack Obama finally offered evidence to prove his eligibility for the presidency. On the White House website, officials posted an electronic document purported to be a scan of Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate. It was a grand "I told you so" moment for the media and the left, which had worked feverishly to marginalize "birthers" as the radical counterpart of the zany "truther."

Of course, there was never really any parity. Truthers constructed silly conspiracy theories about George W. Bush being an international super-criminal that orchestrated impossibly complex measures to frame al-Qaeda on 9/11. Birthers, on the other hand, merely demanded that the president, who is required by the Constitution to be a natural born American citizen, show proof of his eligibility. And in reality, that is an entirely reasonable expectation, albeit unprecedented." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

&

"Sherriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, at the behest of a petition presented by the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party organization, organized a "cold case posse" and completed a six-month examination of the released birth certificate in order to determine its authenticity. The results are in, Joe says, and they point to the document being a fake."

&

"Lord Christopher Monckton, who has experience investigating high-level fraud as a policy adviser under Margaret Thatcher, has given the claim added veracity.

According to World Net Daily, Monckton said that "it appears that the document was cobbled together in layers, pointing to evidence that three date stamps and a registrar's stamp were superimposed on it from another document." If there were a single, original document to verify the president's Hawaiian birth, why "go to all that trouble, he reasoned."

Monckton's conclusion? "My assessment is that they are right to be worried... That document is not genuine." "

CAA's expertise, however limited, in estimating the genuine-ness of vital documents such as birth certificates and travel documents (i.e., passports and visas) does not extend to digital photographs of said documents.

"Anyone calling Obama's birth certificate into question will have to entertain the notion that perhaps the forgery was made because the president does not have legal proof of his American birth. And anyone carrying that message will have the stink of "right-wing birther" on him, and he will be swiftly devoured by the attack dogs in the media and marginalized. So in a way, I don't blame conservative lawmakers and pundits for treading lightly around the issue."

&

"Reasonably, it should never have been incumbent upon Americans to prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen, but rather it should have always been incumbent upon Obama to prove to the American people, verifiably and indisputably, that he was born in the United States."

Anyone with actual proof of someone having committed passport or citizenship fraud should get in touch with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Criminal Investigative Division.

4/6

re: "The exit is the strategy"

Kori Schake at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") judged by actions, not words.

Money quote(s):

"(B)oth the White House and Pentagon had been repeatedly emphasizing that negotiations with Iraq were ongoing, that no decision had been made. In truth, the decision was made even before Barack Obama was president: he got elected campaigning that Iraq was the wrong war, not worth the lives and money.

He did what he said he was going to do. He set an end date for combat operations so that he could show "progress" before the midterm elections. Progress not toward consolidating our gains in Iraq, but toward being out of Iraq. Having appointed special envoys for every problem he considered important, there was no special envoy for Iraq, to help build fostering regional relationships and coordinate our policies. He appointed an ambassador who knew nothing about Iraq."

Knowing "nothing about Iraq" is quite an achievement in itself, given the circumstances.

"(T)he withdrawal of troops is a lagging, not a leading indicator of the administration's indifference.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to affirm our commitment to Iraq. The QDDR says "in Iraq, we are in the midst of the largest military-to-civilian transition since the Marshall Plan. Our civilian presence is prepared to take the lead, secure the military's gains, and build the institutions necessary for long-term stability." State grandiosely imagines a wholly civilian mission of 17,000 personnel most of whom will be "third country nationals" supporting 1,750 diplomats and other USG government personnel. Eighty percent of the mission will be contractors. Current plans call for them to operate at five consulates around the country, costing $6 billion a year.

The Commission on Wartime Contracting (including Shadow Government colleague Dov Zakheim), the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee all take a dim view of State's plans for Iraq. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee assessed that "fundamental questions remain unanswered," including whether the scope of the mission in Iraq is compatible with the resources available, including State Department capacity. They question whether the State Department can sustain its proposed presence without military support and the cost effectiveness of consulates requiring 1,400 security and support personnel for only 120 diplomats. They recommended that if a complete withdrawal occurred, "given the prohibitive costs of security and the capacity limitations of the State Department, the United States should consider a less ambitious diplomatic presence in Iraq." This is likely to end badly."

CAA's formula for right-sizing the U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq is akin to what most after-action-reviews of the RMS Titanic's sinking would include: only have as many passengers and crew as you have lifeboat capacity for.

"Members of Congress could be forgiven for wondering why should we provide $5 billion to Iraq in a time of austerity when the Iraqis are so ungrateful. The Wartime Contracting Commission's conclusion that "significant additional waste -- and mission degradation to the point of failure -- can be expected as State continues with the daunting task of transition in Iraq," will also tighten Congressional purse-strings, as it should."

10/22

re: "Writing off Afghanistan, too"

Kori Schake at Shadow Government ("Notes from the Loyal Opposition") saw the writing on the wall.

Money quote(s):

"The evident confusion among senior policy makers in the administration prefigures the administration's cratering commitment to win the war in Afghanistan. The White House has narrowed its war aims from defeating all threats to only defeating al Qaeda. The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified to Congress this week that the deaths of senior al Qaeda leadership have brought us to a "critical transitional phase for the terrorist threat," in which the organization has a better than 50 percent probability of fragmenting and becoming incapable of mass-casualty attacks.

The White House appears set to use progress against al Qaeda as justification for accelerating an end to the war in Afghanistan. Since the president has concluded that we aren't fighting the Taliban, just al Qaeda, no need to stick around Afghanistan until the government of that country can provide security and prevent recidivism to Taliban control. The president will declare victory for having taken from al Qaeda the ability to organize large scale attacks, and piously intone that nation building in Afghanistan is Afghanistan's responsibility.

This policy will not win the war in Afghanistan. It will not even end the war in Afghanistan. It will only end our involvement in that ongoing war. Because arbitrary timelines do not translate into having achieved the objectives that cause enemies to throw down their weapons. And it is the enemy ceasing to contest our objectives that constitutes winning. Interrogations with prisoners in Afghanistan have caused the American military to conclude that "Once ISAF is no longer a factor, Taliban consider their victory inevitable."" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

2/2

Implementing the laws and regulations as they're written, not as we might write them ourselves

One of CAA's boring little bromides about being a foreign service officer (FSO) generally (and a consular officer specifically) is that FSOs don't make U.S. foreign policy; they implement and facilitate the foreign policy of the United States as established by the president, the Congress, and the secretary of state.

(There are exceptions to this, but they tend to be in situations of grave extremity out somewhere far beyond the beltway, sort of when an FSO becomes a "strategic corporal.")

So most sober FSOs, if they meet someone who says they're interested in making foreign policy, shouldn't encourage them to become FSOs. They should instead direct them to the arena of electoral politics, because it is politicians who make foreign policy, not diplomats.

(Of course, if a politician makes a successful foreign policy, or even survives long enough that people forget their unsuccessful foreign policies, they become known as statesmen.)

For consular officers the mantra is slightly different: consular (and immigration) officers don't make immigration law, regulations, or policies. Consular (and immigration) officers implement the immigration laws, regulations, and policies as they are written, and not as we might (even if we agreed among ourselves) have written them ourselves.

One corollary to all that has to do with public criticism of existing immigration laws, regulations, and policies.

CAA is more than happy to discuss positive and negative aspects of proposed or pending legislation while Congress is debating and deliberating. However, once something is signed into law, CAA will salute smartly and do his best to make it work.

That's what you sign up for when you raise your right hand and take the oath of office. (And if you get to a point where you just can't do that anymore, then it's time to think about hanging up your guns.)

Not that long ago, a change in visa interview policy raised some eyebrows (and hackles). You see, CAA maintains a very post-9/11 mindset when it comes to interviewing visa applicants, and is very on-board with the post-9/11 policy of interviewing all visa applicants, and in conducting as thorough a screening of visa waiver travelers as is practical.

So CAA viewed the Visa Pilot Program with a critical, even jaundiced eye. And came away somewhat grudgingly satisfied with what they have in mind.

So what about the president's recent statement?

Well, CAA tried to find if this was an executive order, but there doesn't seem to be anything published by the White House to indicate that one's actually been published on the subject. Apparently that's not how this is being handled.

(CAA had assumed, based upon all the hollering by the commentariat, that the president had essentially enacted the DREAM Act as an executive order. But that's not actually the case.)

But the president's remarks, once read in their entirety, left a big enough clue: the secretary of homeland security is the person actually issuing this order.

The key points:

"DHS continues to focus its enforcement resources on the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders. Today’s action further enhances the Department’s ability to focus on these priority removals.

Under this directive, individuals who demonstrate that they meet the following criteria will be eligible for an exercise of discretion, specifically deferred action, on a case by case basis:

1. Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
   
   
2. Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
   
   
3. Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
   
   
4. Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;
   
   
5. Are not above the age of thirty.

Only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action. Individuals will not be eligible if they are not currently in the United States and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding today’s date. Deferred action requests are decided on a case-by-case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that all such requests will be granted. The use of prosecutorial discretion confers no substantive right, immigration status, or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.

While this guidance takes effect immediately, USCIS and ICE expect to begin implementation of the application processes within sixty days"

Essentially, the DHS secretary is going to de-prioritize enforcement of immigration laws against a class of persons residing unlawfully in the U.S. based upon the reality that DHS has only so much in the way of resources, only so many enforcement agents, only so many budget dollars, only so many hours in a day, and only so many cells in their jails.

Executives are expected to exercise both leadership and management. Prioritizing the outlay of limited resources is part of the function of an executive. So that sounds, on the face of it, reasonable enough.

CAA is something of an executive, a manager, even (dare I say it?) a leader in the consular arena of immigration and has been known, when mentoring new vice consuls about how to implement and apply visa ineligibilities, that the bottom line for all the different reasons that someone can be legally barred from coming to the U.S. is a simple question: is this person a danger to the republic? Is this person likely to present a threat to national security, to commit crimes against U.S. citizens, to transmit dangerous (when considering certain medical ineligibilities) contagious diseases among the American people?

The group of people described by the DHS secretary don't, aside from their having been (as minor children) brought to the U.S. illegally, fit the bill for the bottom line as I've described it above.

It follows logically enough that if you're going to publicly announce that DHS finds this particular, clearly-defined, class of illegal aliens an insufficient threat to the nation to expend resources to deport them, that you then cowboy up and not ignore the problem the represent either.

It's quite clever, really, except that the solution DHS is going to, temporarily mind you, pursue will then require the expenditure of those scarce resources I mentioned, in order to receive, process, and provide temporary work permits, &tc.

You see, for legal immigrants, the cost expended in processing their immigration paperwork is recouped through the imposition of application fees. That is, Congress expects that the system will pay for itself so that they don't have to appropriate a huge budget every year to pay for it out of general tax revenues.

So I'm missing the part about what sort of application and processing fees are going to be imposed on the one million (give or take) illegal immigrants who may qualify for this temporary dispensation. Because, assuming all of those eligible go ahead and apply, a million (temporary) amnesty applications are going to take a lot of people away from processing the paperwork of legal immigrants who've been patiently waiting their turn to immigrate lawfully to this country.

Oh, and remember that oath of office? It's to the U.S. Constitution. So I read that every once in a while, when the mood strikes me. (It's really not that long a document.)

So CAA will admit there may be some Constitutional issues about whether it's strictly lawful for the executive branch to simply announce that it's too hard to implement and enforce the laws that Congress passes (or doesn't pass).

It's a gutsy move, frankly, and I'd have liked to see it done long ago in relation to immigration laws, but not necessarily in this context.

Congress has, IMHO, long left the immigration enforcement arms of government somewhat starved of resources to enforce the entirety of the immigration laws it's passed, and many have suggested that to be deliberate, that Congress (or at least some congressmen) wanted the laws on the books, but didn't necessarily want them enforced all that thoroughly. (Reasonable people can disagree on this.)

That being said, I'm sure this will end up in the courts, one way or another; will likely reach the Supreme Court, and in the meanwhile the rest of us working stiffs in government will just follow the lawful directives of our elected and appointed officials while the big paychecks, er, brains sort this out for us.

After all, either Congress will enact legislation making it legal, or the courts will tell us it's legal for the executive to prioritize this and handle the fallout accordingly, or it'll all get thrown out and DHS will have plenty of information on about a million self-identified illegal immigrants with which to jump-start their deportation proceedings.

re: "Lt. Col. Ralph Peters Goes Off On Media And Government’s ‘Rush To Condemn Troops’ Over Photos"

Noah Rothman at MEDIAite provided great coverage of a Ralph Peters detonation.

Money quote(s):

"After White House condemnation of the L.A. Times for publishing photos of uniformed military posing with the bodies of suicide bombers, Fox News contributor and retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters described himself as “furious” at the L.A. Times and the civilian military leadership for their handling of the nascent scandal. Peters told Megyn Kelly this controversy was an example of the “moral cowardice of military leaders who never stick up for our troops but protect their own careers.” " (Emphasis in original post. - CAA.)

That's not all he said, but that was the cherry at the top.

"Kelly asked Lt. Col. Peters what his take on the controversy was, and Peter’s said that he believed the L.A. Times was complicit in a “terrible scandal here,” but that scandal has “nothing to do with our troops in combat.”

“No terrorists were harmed in the taking of those snap shots,” said Peters. “The real scandal is that the L.A. Times, desperate to survive, creates a scandal, publishes those pictures over the Pentagon’s objections. The real scandal is that the establishment media leaps on another chance to trash our troops. The worst of the scandal is that our leaders, in and out of uniform, rush to condemn our troops – no explanation, no context.”

“I suggest the White House spokesman Jay Carney join the military and see what it’s like himself before he condemns our troops,” Peters continued. “I’m especially appalled that those in uniform, General [John R.] Allen, our commander in Afghanistan, just jumped to trash our troops.”

“The Greatest Generation sent Japanese skulls home to their girlfriends,” said Peters. “I’m not condoning it, but I’m trying to make the point that our soldiers out on the front line and our marines are under tremendous stresses. War is not a ladies auxiliary tea party, and it’s all too easy for people comfortable in Los Angeles, or New York or the White House to condemn the troops without context.”

Peters said that there should have been a formal reprimand for the soldiers in question but little else. He went on to criticize the impact that this budding scandal has already had on the civilian leaders of the military as a sign that the mission in Afghanistan is poorly defined.

“If our strategy and doctrine is so pathetically weak that it can be derailed, destroyed, shattered, by a few burning Koreans or a few photographs – the dead body parts of terrorists – well that’s not much of a strategy or doctrine,” said Peters. He became visibly agitated and said that he was “furious” at the “moral cowardice of military leaders who never stick up for our troops but protect their own careers.” "

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if we didn't have Ralph Peters out there, safely in retirement, saying the outrageous and offensive (but true!) things that needed to be said, we'd have to invent him. He's just too useful in keeping things from getting too comfortably (and stupidly) politically correct.

------

Hat tip to KG at Crusader Rabbit ("For Liberty").

4/18

re: "Obama Has Been Hurt by the Media's Leniency"

rdbrewer at Ace of Spades HQ remembers a time when the media gave less deference to power.

Money quote(s):

"Remember the days when the press rudely shouted questions at Ronald Reagan during news conferences? I do. There were times when they seemed angry and wouldn't let him answer. Now they won't even hit-up Obama over something as serious as, say, Operation Fast and Furious where lives were lost and the trail of dirty deeds appears to lead all the way to the White House. When they do venture close to a topic not on the official White House approved topics list, they are sheepish, almost apologetic. Pathetic, primitive, in-group territoriality. I'd call it childish if it weren't so reptilian.

Republican administrations have to stay on their toes. Democrat administrations do not."

This actually seems to changing, or at least shifting a bit, as the presidential election campaigns (and politicking, to include class- and race-warfare smokescreens) begin to gain momentum.

Nonetheless, it doesn't seem to have penetrated into the White House press corps.

8/28

re: "Pipeline, &tc."

CAA (that's me!) continued his response to Jeff Emanuel's post at RedState:, responding to romeg's comment of Thursday, February 9th at 7:13 AM EST(link).

romeg said:

"Saddam Hussein and his family was pilloried publicly in Western media.

While there may be dedicated career members of the Diplomatic Corps and serious-minded State Department employees, it is an agency that is rotten to its core and overrun with fops.

While they are downsizing missions abroad, they may want to consider making equivalent cuts here at home. Why is it that an agency with a budget as large as the State Department takes years to figure out if a pipeline can be built across the U.S./Canada border?"

Response:

"Do you really think that decision was made in Foggy Bottom and not at the White House?

Take another look at Departmental budgets. State is miniscule compared to others.

Oh, and thanks for entertaining the notion that State does include some dedicated employees. Seriously."


2/9

re: "Why is Mark Lippert still on the White House payroll?"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") questioned the status of a reservist mobilized from a highly-place position.

Money quote(s):

"When the White House published its report of White House staff salaries last month, there was one senior staffer on the list who hasn't actually worked at the White House in almost two years -- Mark Lippert.

Lippert was listed as receiving $147,500 in 2010 under the title of "deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff for national security operations," according to the disclosure. Lippert was chief of staff at the National Security Council until he left in October 2009 to serve a deployment as a reserve Naval intelligence officer. The chief of staff position was filled in December 2010 by Brooke Anderson."

It's perfectly normal for a deployed reservist to be formally kept on the payroll (whether receiving any pay or not) for the period of their mobilization. Just as it's perfectly normal to hire someone to do the work during that reservist's mobilization.

Veterans re-employment rights don't guarantee you the exact same job and desk, only a comparable one.

"So what is Lippert doing now, and why is he still listed on the White House payroll? A White House official told The Cable that Lippert never officially "detached" from the White House and that's why he was never taken out of the human resource system or removed from the payroll.

Three former NSC staffers said that it was commonplace for staffers to keep their White House billets when they deployed overseas with the military and that all federal employees have the option of keeping their federal salaries when deployed, rather than taking what is often a lower military salary.

But Lippert didn't get any pay or benefits from the White House in 2010, the White House official said. So what happened to that money? It remains in White House coffers and was used for various other salaries, events, and travel expenses, according to the official."

This is the very first I've heard of being offered the option of getting paid at ones (higher) federal civilian pay rate in lieu of ones military pay grade. Must be something special just for White House staff.

"Now that Lippert has finished his deployment to an undisclosed location, the White House is looking for another job for him."

Anybody know where he's landed?

7/21

re: "For God's sake Amb. Munter, don't Go Native on us now"

Pundita ("US foreign policy for the 21st Century") has some sharp criticism of the Department.

Money quote(s):

"In yet another sign that the U.S. Department of State should relocate to Brussels U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter advised White House officials that President Obama should deliver a "formal video statement," according to White House officials interviewed by the New York Times, regarding the NATO air strike inside Pakistan on November 26."

Amb. Munter is a career professional diplomat who gave, from his in-country vantage point, foreign policy advice tempered by knowledge of local politics, sentiment, and conditions.

That's kinda/sorta his job.

(Disclaimer: CAA met, briefly and in passing, the aforementioned ambassador a few years ago.)

He was notably one of the senior FSOs who, fairly early, volunteered for service in Iraq, where he lead the first PRT in Mosul in 2006; he also served at the Baghdad embassy in 2009-2010.

I recall him stating publicly (paraphrase follows) that if senior leadership was going to ask FSOs to volunteer for service in war zones it would behoove them to lead by example. Or word to that effect.

"As to how Munter's highly sensitive discussion with White House officials came to be made public, I'd say that the U.S. Department of State is the prime suspect."

Leaking to the press is simply outside of CAA's area of competency. I got nothing.

"As to how State arrived at the idea that any advice they could give on Pakistan would be helpful to the United States is beyond me. State's track record on Pakistan since the Afghan War heated up has been awful"

Frankly, the United States' track record on Pakistan is something that needs to be examined holistically, from top-down decisions down to our working level relationships. The State Dept. doesn't set policy. It implements it, it provides advice beforehand and feedback as implementation proceeds.

"Moving along, Munter's advice was given on the 28th, just two days after the NATO air strike, when the U.S. Department of Defense was still trying untangle how the strike came about and exactly what had happened during the strike. So it's almost beyond belief that a career diplomat of Munter's experience would ask the President of the United States for a formal apology before the strike had been properly investigated.

Yet when it comes to State not much is beyond belief anymore. State officials have come to think of themselves as 'policymakers' even though State is only supposed to advise the White House on policy."

See my comments above. That being said, at a certain level and above, senior officials are not only implementers and advice-givers, they are policy-makers. This is just as true at DoD, the CIA, and the DoJ as it is in Foggy Bottom.

"This is no way to run foreign policy; this is no way to conduct any kind of policy and certainly not the way to run a war. This is headless horseman thinking, which means there is no real thinking at all; there is just a bureaucracy's obsession with expanding its turf by attempting to please scores of competing factions."

Part of the problem is the pretense that Pakistan is not part of a.) the larger campaign in Afghanistan; and b.) the larger "war on terror."

That being said, while we do send our honorable diplomats abroad to lie for their country, they must always take care to tell only the truth when reporting back to Washington, whether that is to the Department or to the White House.

12/1

re: "Obama Overruled Lawyers at DoD and DoJ Over Libya and War Powers Act - BUMPED"

Dave In Texas at Ace of Spades HQ opines upon advice of counsel.

Money quote(s):

"(O)ur military operations are not hostilities. Or something like that. Even though Pentagon general counsel and acting head of the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel advised otherwise." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Our air crews are getting combat or hazardous duty pay, so this reasoning appears fairly specious. Granted, sometimes hazardous duty means only the serious threat of combat or hostilities. But delivering explosive payloads in a kenetic fashion sounds pretty combatty to me.

"The White House counsel, State Dept counsel, .... argued Obama was not bound by the Act."

&

"Obama is dancing on the head of a pin if he thinks he can sell drone-launched missiles as some kind of NATO logistical support (what, our "our explosives are transporting large amounts of concrete and steel to thousands of different locations within the proximity of the boom"?)"

re: "The right to be wrong, but not the right to lie"

Peter Feaver at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") walks us through the action.

Money quote(s):

"At issue is the extent to which the senior commanders endorsed the option that President Obama selected: truncating the surge and rushing the withdrawal in a fashion that interrupts the 2012 fighting season (but dove-tails with the 2012 presidential campaign season)."

The president is the commander-in-chief. He gets to decide these things and, within the legal and Constitutional limits of their oaths of office, the generals and admirals have to salute smartly and carry out his instructions.

"(T)he White House sought to depict the president's decision as one well within a range of options developed by the military."

Quite possible, depending upon the meaning of the word "within."

"(T)he option Obama picked was not on the menu. Obama's plan -- presumably the arbitrary summer 2012 deadline and perhaps also the numbers involved -- was apparently devised elsewhere, perhaps by White House advisors."

So. Perhaps "within" means something like dates-and-figures-not-matching-anything-on-the-menu-but-somewhere-inside-the-outlying-dates-and-figures.

"Hayes emphasizes that President Obama over-ruled Petraeus's advice, which is true but, as I have argued, he was well within his rights as commander-in-chief. On this, I point to no less an authority than General Petraeus himself. From a civil-military point of view, it is important to know whether or not the military refused to even present this as an option: it would have been inappropriate if they had tried to tie the hands of the president in that fashion. But if they did in fact present a range of options that included ones they thought too risky, and then President Obama chose yet another still-riskier option, that would not constitute a civil-military foul by either side. It is worth knowing whether the military endorsed the option, but that should not be viewed as the dispositive factor.

To me, the most important part of the Hayes story is that, if accurate and complete, it means the White House did not tell the truth about the military advice it received. Rather than admit that the president listened carefully to his generals and then chose something that they did not recommend, someone at the White House tried to pretend that the president simply chose among a range of options endorsed by the military. This is a subtle difference, but in civil-military terms it is a profound one. Civilians do not owe the military prerogatives over policy choices; they do owe the military a decision-making process in which the military voice can be heard and in which military views will be faithfully described to those authorized to hold the president accountable on these decisions, namely us.

If the president wants to elicit from the military an option and an endorsement of an option that the military does not initially prefer, as President Bush did with his Iraq surge, then he must engage in the lengthy back-and-forth that President Bush engaged in, cajoling the military into something resembling a consensus. The president does not have to do that -- he can simply decide, as President Obama did -- but he owes the military (and the voter) to tell the truth about what he did."

Dealing with policy-level decision-makers is touchy business, exacerbated by the tyranny of PowerPoint (TM), which can force briefers into limiting the range of options to that which can be displayed (and explained) on a single briefing slide.

I'm not actually suggesting this is what happened, but the phenomenon extends well beyond actual PowerPoint (TM) briefings as it seems to have measurably reduced the capacity for those being briefed to hold onto things like facts and figures.

"(T)he White House has just replicated the Johnson-McNamara error that was at the heart of H.R. McMaster's influential Dereliction of Duty account of the Vietnam War. Although many read McMaster's book as accusing the senior generals of dereliction for going along with Johnson's decision to escalate the war more gradually than they thought prudent, in fact McMaster's primary point was that the generals were derelict in going along with Johnson and McNamara's willful misrepresentation to Congress and the American people about the content of the military advice. What McMaster wanted the generals to do was simply tell Congress what their advice had been, correcting the record that Johnson and McNamara had muddied by pretending that their Vietnam decisions were consonant with military counsel."

Read the whole thing here.

re: "White House’s ‘Libya Isn’t A War-War’ Defense Not Going Over Well In Congress"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") describes the push-back by Congress.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he Obama Administration responded to Congressional demands for more information regarding the mission in Libya by saying that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply because American forces are not engaged in hostilities in or near Libya. Not surprisingly, that explanation has not gone over well among Congressional critics of the Administration’s policy"

"(T)he House may consider cutting off funding for the Libya mission if the Administration does not further clarify its position"

IIRC, that's kind of what the Constitution envisions in a situation like this.

"The White House, meanwhile, has basically said it doesn’t intend to respond any further to the House"

Yeah, ignoring Congress is a win-win of a strategy. (Oh wait: I meant just the opposite.)

"(W)e may be headed for some kind of real confrontation between the House and the White House over the mission in Libya. Frankly, it’s already gone further than I expected. Usually, Congress just rolls over and plays dead on these sorts of things but it’s clear that the hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, combined with the fact that the Libya mission remains decidedly unpopular, have emboldened Boehner and others to actually take a stand here.

If that’s the case, I’m glad to see it. It’s been far too long, since the passage of the War Powers Act really, that Congress has acted in any decisive manner to try to reign in the Executive Branch’s power grabs in the war making department. Regardless of the outcome of this particular policy dispute, the fact that Congress, or at least part of it, is acting with some backbone here is a welcome sight, especially in light of the specious reasoning that the Administration uses in its report."

Not to be too hung-up on process when results do matter, but since the only oaths or vows I've ever publicly sworn have been (in order) to the Constitution and to Madame-At-Arms, I take Constitutional processes pretty seriously. (That's just how I roll.) But let's look at results as well:

Qahdafi has been on my better-off-dead list since at least the 1980's. He's just that bad of a "blackhat." But realities of international politics and diplomacy have meant that we've let him stay alive lo all these intervening decades.

Pres. Bush (#43) even managed to get the guy, after publicly naming Libya as part of the Axis of Evil and then taking down Saddam's Iraq in about a week, to give up his WMD programs and start playing responsible adult (as much as the murderous tyrant was capable of portraying, anyhow).

So going on the warpath and trying to take out Qahdafi (while saying we're doing something else, but that's another argument) just doesn't make sense to me from an American perspective. Does. Not. Compute. Arab Spring or no, we had Muammar Qahdafi in the box we wanted him in, not troubling us and not looking to trouble us.

And now, any other dictator with WMD has got to wondering how it's to his benefit to give that up.

So how does this make sense?

"(T)he idea that the President can engage in hostilities with a nation that has not attacked us and poses no threat to our interests, and then fund the military war without Congressional appropriations seems to defy any reasonable reading of the Constitution."

I'm pretty good at reading comprehension (less so reading-between-the-lines) and I concur with Mr. Mataconis' assessment

re: "President Obama To Congress: War Powers Act Doesn’t Apply To Libya"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") considers the question.

Money quote(s):

"Taking a position that is certain to raise eyebrows, the White House sent a response to Congress today regarding the request for further information about the military action in Libya that argues that the War Powers Act is inapplicable to current American involvement there"

Curious. Mr. Mataconis quotes from the New York Times article explaining this position before continuing.

"The question then is whether United States United States military forces are still involved in “hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” There seems to be no real contention by anyone that American forces, or NATO forces for that matter, are actually on Libyan territory or in Libyan territorial waters. The Administration seems to be arguing that since there are no American ground troops and no American fighter planes involved in action over Libya, then the answer to that question is no. As John Cole notes, though, we are using Predator drones to launch missiles at Libyan target on an as-needed basis, so the idea that we’re completely off the grid on this mission isn’t entirely true."

&

"(F)or the Obama Administration it’s not just a question of how Congress reacts, but also how the public reacts. A response like this could potentially be spun as the Administration trying to get around the requirements of the law by means of a technicality. The fact that we are still engaging in offensive action in Libya, albeit in a limited fashion that doesn’t endanger American forces, makes this kind of legal argument hard to sell — it’s a war they’re saying, but not a war war. That doesn’t strike me as something that’s going to play very well with the public, especially given how unpopular the Libya mission is to begin with."

re: "Can we afford the Afghan war?"

Kori Schake at Shadow Governments ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") dissects a bad idea.

Money quote(s):

"The White House has opened a new front in the Afghan war - or, rather, in their effort to shed the burden of the Afghan war. The Washington Post reports that cost will be a new and major element for consideration. The $113 billion spent this year for Afghanistan is described as unsustainable; the article concludes, "To many of the president's civilian advisers, that price is too high."

This is preposterous from an administration that budgets a tripling of our national debt by 2018. President Obama has twice submitted budgets that never eliminate deficit spending, yet now claims it cannot sustain the $107 billion to fight a war the president described as "no idle danger; no hypothetical threat," but a vital national security interest to our country. The Obama White House is trying to seize on conservative momentum to reduce federal spending by cutting the only government program they don't support: winning the war."

All that is required, at this point, from our military efforts in Afghanistan and in Iraq is that we not lose.

That's all.

Much of the heavy lifting has been done. It's now a matter of finishing what we started and not letting ourselves be run out, by either Afghan or Iraqi insurgents or by our own "anti-war" faction at home, until we say we're done.

(After all, it's not over 'til we say it is.)

"The American military is not culturally predisposed to nation building. They undertake it because it creates the highest likelihood of achieving our military objectives. What the White House is attempting to do is paint that approach as profligate, contrasting it to the cost-effectiveness of a narrower counter-terror approach. They ought to ask themselves why none of our military leadership is supporting the approach."

&

"Responsible people can advocate different approaches to defending ourselves against the terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan and Pakistan. They can also advocate further cuts to defense spending. But it is dangerous to argue the cost of prosecuting a war that, while high, is marginal to our expenditures and by no means the driver of our debt, cannot be afforded. "

re: "Mubarak was wrong, and so were we"

Peter Feaver at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") dissects in the aftermath.

Money quote(s):

"(A)lmost everyone, including bloggers like me, managed to get it wrong:

The Intelligence community. The beleaguered IC was already reeling from White House criticism about failing to predict events unfolding in Tunisia and Egypt. (This criticism is a bit unfair since I bet there were some warnings -- given the volume of intelligence products and the way they are written, virtually everything has been predicted as "possible." Moreover, it is clear that those with vastly better intelligence and sources on Egypt than anything the IC ever could hope to amass, the Mubarak regime itself, were also surprised by the flow of events.) Then came the gaffe by Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the "largely secular" Muslim Brotherhood, a statement his staff was obliged to walk back later in the day. And the topper was CIA Director Panetta's admission that his forward-leaning prediction yesterday about Mubarak's departure was based not on intelligence analysis but on television reports. This is an almost textbook case of the CNN effect."

WP - Federal agencies must post public data online

From my archive of press clippings:

Washington Post

Federal agencies must post public data online


By Ed O'Keefe


Washington Post Staff Writer


Wednesday, December 9, 2009


The White House released a series of wide-ranging mandates Tuesday designed to make agencies more transparent and cooperative in the public's requests for information about the inner workings of government.

Read the whole article here.

re: "Obama: You Know, We Might Want To Start Thinking About Comprehensive Immigration Reform"

Drew M. at Ace of Spades HQ considers the timing.

Money quote(s):

"Considering that immigration isn't exactly a front burner issue for most people, this is clearly an effort to get the Democratic base, especially Hispanic voters, energized. After a year of issues that unite Republicans and divide Democrats (Cap and Trade, Health Care, Afghanistan, etc.), the White House must desperately want to put something on the table that divides Republicans for a change. Yes, there are some members of the Democratic coalition that oppose immigration reform, though labor has come along recently, but it's still a more divisive issue for Republicans and conservatives."

PTV - US asks Iran help over ex-FBI agent

From my archive of press clippings:

Press TV

US asks Iran help over ex-FBI agent


Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:09:18 GMT


The White House has appealed to Iran to help locate former FBI agent Robert Levinson saying 'his case remains a priority for the US government.'

Read the whole article here.

TE - Supporters of Iranian exiles in Iraq urge White House to restore military protection

From my archive of press clippings:

The Examiner

Supporters of Iranian exiles in Iraq urge White House to restore military protection

By: ROBERT BURNS


Associated Press


09/03/09 6:05 PM EDT

WASHINGTON — Supporters of an Iranian dissident group based in Iraq called on the Obama administration Thursday to restore U.S. military protection for the exiles, who were attacked by Iraqi security forces on July 28.

Read the whole article here.