President Not-Obama
How Trump’s Syria strike got even some key Obama advisers cheering.
Is this the week Donald Trump found a foreign policy? Or a foreign policy found him?
President Trump bombed Syria, talked tough on North Korea, dumped his chief political ideologist, Steve Bannon, from his National Security Council, opened up a rift with Russia over the Middle East, and summited with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and China.
Amid the head-spinning drumbeat of new developments, few doubted that Trump had made what conservative commentator Byron York called a “whiplash-inducing change” in his administration’s foreign policy, by all accounts impulsively jumping into a Syrian quagmire he had long pledged to avoid, and doing so in response to the televised barbarity of a chemical attack just days after his own top advisers publicly declared they were no longer interested in forcing Syrian dictator Bashar Assad from power.
Ever since his shocking election upset victory in November, national security hands have been waiting for Trump’s first international crisis to understand more about how an untested president would lead, and this week will undoubtedly be studied as key to decoding his presidency’s emerging—and fast-evolving—approach to the world. So what have we learned from all the months of debating whether Trump will prove to be the “America First” neo-isolationist leader his campaign rhetoric suggested, or a dangerous warmonger who’s promised not to let the United States get pushed around anymore, now that the crisis has actually erupted?
First and perhaps most important: No matter how Trump ultimately comes out of the foreign-policy ideology test, what he really seems to want to be on the world stage is the not-Obama. And when faced with a choice, the best way to understand what Trump will do is to expect he will opt to differentiate himself as much as possible from his predecessor.
“He’s proved he’s not Obama—and that’s useful to him,” one former senior Obama official told me, one of many veterans of the previous administration I spoke with Friday who were supportive of Trump’s airstrike on Syria.
Indeed, the one thing in common among all Trump’s statements this week was that each contained a strong element of Obama-bashing, whether it was lamenting the “mess” he inherited in the Middle East and North Korea in a Wednesday appearance at the side of Jordan’s King Abdullah or his dramatic late-night Thursday announcement that he was doing what Obama would not by bombing Syria to retaliate for a horrific chemical weapons attack. It was necessary, Trump noted pointedly, because “years of previous attempts” to stop such behavior by Assad had all “failed.”
At a time when so much remains uncertain about Trump’s approach to the world, and when it is far too soon to conclude, after one Tomahawk missile barrage against a single Syrian air base, that he’s abandoned his previous insistence that America not act as the world’s policeman, his I’m-not-Obama stance may well be the most consistent theme of Trump’s foreign policy so far. Several Republicans who’ve had extensive contact with Trump and his foreign policy team in recent months have told me they believe this to be the key to understanding Trump’s approach not only to the Syria chemical weapons attack but to many seemingly confounding foreign policy causes Trump has taken up: from the near-impossible task of trying again to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians after Obama-brokered talks went nowhere, to reaching out to Russian President Vladimir Putin at a time when he and Obama were barely on speaking terms.
Whether it represents a new strategic approach to the world or merely a snap political decision to act decisively where Obama would not, Washington foreign policy hands—in both parties—were widespread in praising Trump for doing what they believed Obama should have done many years ago. Though there were notable exceptions on both the left and the right, the praise from much of the American national security establishment was so lavish in the immediate aftermath of the bombing that at times you could be forgiven for wondering: Did Donald Trump just join the hawkish Beltway mob that Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes so dismissively called The Blob?
“Great move.” “Brilliant.” “Finally!” were some of the comments I heard from veteran foreign policy hands in both parties Friday morning. Elliott Abrams, the Reagan and Bush veteran rebuffed by Trump to be his deputy secretary of state, took to The Weekly Standard website to laud the president who wouldn’t hire him as having proved this week he “finally accepted the role of Leader of the Free World.”
Just a few days earlier, when news of the Syrian chemical attack broke and Trump’s team said nothing much, Senator John McCain, the Republican who has emerged as the leader of his party’s tough-on-Trump faction, had called their response “another disgraceful chapter in American history.” By Friday, McCain was praising the president, consulting with him and his team and promising the action heralded the “beginning” of a renewed involvement in the troubled Middle East.
Many of the most head-snapping comments I heard came from Obama’s own top advisers, who had long pushed him to confront Assad more aggressively and viewed his 2013 refusal to take military action against Syria after drawing a “red line” on chemical weapons use as a major American foreign policy debacle. There’s no love lost for Trump in this group, whose members found themselves in the uncomfortable position of cheering a leader they still both loathe and fear.
“Our administration never would have gotten this done in 48 hours,” one former senior official of the Obama administration told me. “It’s a complete indictment of Obama.”
“I feel like finally we have done the right thing,” Anne-Marie Slaughter, who served as Obama’s first-term chief of policy planning at the State Department and long publicly urged a more forceful response to Assad’s horrific attacks on civilians during the six years of war that have wracked Syria, told me. “The years of hypocrisy just hurt us all. It undermined the U.S., it undermined the world order.”
Slaughter, now the head of the New America Foundation and a major backer of Trump’s defeated opponent Hillary Clinton last November, tweeted, “Donald Trump has done the right thing on Syria. Finally!! After years of useless handwringing in the face of atrocities.” I later asked her if it was awkward to be cheering for Trump now. “I’m just glad to see it,” she said. “It was the right thing.”
But if it was clear that Trump had played the Blob masterfully Friday, it was less clear what his Syria decision would mean for his broader strategic goals, especially as the day went on with increasingly tough criticism directed at Washington from Moscow, where Putin has been propping up the Assad regime over the past few years and sees his stepped-up presence in Syria as the key that has unlocked an enhanced role for Russia throughout the Middle East.
The Russia factor makes the Trump pivot of recent days all the more striking, given Trump’s refusal to criticize Putin even amid the escalating U.S. political scandal here in Washington over Trump and his team’s Russian entanglements. A few months ago, when I spoke with current and former senior U.S. government officials, they worried to me about the Trump team’s initial orders to Russia hands inside the government to look for elements of a “grand bargain” with Moscow that could include lifting sanctions imposed after their invasion of Ukraine and enhanced cooperation in Syria against anti-Assad elements.
Russian officials were so confident after Trump’s election they openly talked at European policy forums about the possibility of making a “Yalta 2” deal with the new American president to carve out new spheres of influence in the mode of Franklin Roosevelt’s end of World War II summit arrangement with Soviet leader Josef Stalin.
Instead, just 75 days into Trump’s presidency, Putin is calling Trump’s Syrian intervention a “serious blow” to the U.S.-Russian relationship and Trump critics back in Washington are saying for the first time that if Putin intervened in the American election to help Trump, he might not have gotten what he bargained for. All of which means that Trump’s untested new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, will head for his first meeting in Moscow on Wednesday with the entire relationship under a cloud.
But that’s where another fact about Trump’s foreign policy comes in—one that may well prove to be as important as his I’m-not-Obama instincts: the hawkish, Pentagon-tinged nature of the team advising him. With Trump new to the complexities of international superpowerdom, his White House national security team under Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster and Defense Department run by Gen. Jim Mattis have emerged as the forces to watch in the new administration, and both are seen as tough-minded veterans of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan whose views fit well within the GOP mainstream.
“These are the people who are going to be talking to him and explaining global events and presenting options, and it’s a much more traditional Republican foreign policy,” said Vali Nasr, an early Obama State Department adviser-turned-critic who is now the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “That leaves the president himself to say: Will I be more the ‘America First’ president I promised during the campaign, or more of the ‘indispensable nation’” leader that American presidents have seen themselves to be since the end of the Cold War?
Then again, it’s entirely unclear that Trump thinks about his foreign policy in anything like those terms. Trump is all about winning and losing, who’s up and who’s down. It’s why he still obsesses at every turn about the close results from his election victory over Hillary Clinton. And why, increasingly now that he’s in the Oval Office, the person he most wants to beat these days is Barack Obama.
Susan B. Glasser is POLITICO’s chief international affairs columnist.
Tags
Who is online
63 visitors
I'm not even confident the Assad Regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in spite of what is published about it. I do know one thing, the Obama Administration led the American public to believe we removed all of Syria's chemical weapon, while behind closed doors he knew he was lying.
There have been several chemical attacks since we got all of the chemical weapons and the news ignored it for the most part. It's really sad the MSM, who we should be able to trust in giving us the truth has done such a poor job in doing so and we have to search in other places to actually find the truth. We often find it in what they call fake news, even after the MSM has been caught so many times for actually being fake news.
I don't even know if I agree with the strike in the first place whether it is true or not. I know Hillary Clinton wanted to do something like this and Obama didn't. There are those who want war and there are those who will do nothing and cause war.
IMO it doesn't add up Assad was winning and the day after the US says their end game is not pulling him from power the attach occurs. A little too coincidental don't you think?
I read the other day that the rebels have had some success around Hama, retaking numerous government held towns.
A little too coincidental don't you think?
Provides a nice distraction from the Trump/Russia investigations. For a bit anyway.
Then Press Secretary Sean Spicer said :
I think the president has been very clear that there are a number of lines that were crossed last week. He’s not going to sit down — you saw this with the last administration, they drew these red lines, and then the red lines were run over. ... The answer is that if you gas a baby, if you put a barrel bomb into innocent people, I think you will see a response from this president. That is unacceptable.
That's clearly "barrel bombs are a red line"... which means one of three things:
- Spicer doesn't pay any attention to his own words,
- Spicer uses the term "barrel bomb" without knowing what it means,
- we are about to begin an eternal war in Syria.
Then an unnamed White House official walked back Spicer's remarks :
"Nothing has changed in our posture," a White House spokesman said. "The president retains the option to act in Syria against the Assad regime whenever it is in the national interest, as was determined following that government's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens. And as the president has repeatedly made clear, he will not be telegraphing his military responses."
The U.S. military strike on Syria's Shayrat airfield was launched last week specifically because the regime's chemical attacks on civilians originated at the airfield.
Spicer's Monday comments caused confusion at the Pentagon. One senior Pentagon official said he believed the threshold for attack had not been lowered.
"I just talked to the secretary this morning, and it's all about chemical weapons with him," that official told the Washington Examiner, referring to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
"No idea," said another senior military official when asked if barrel bombs are the new red line. "That would be a policy decision, not military. "
So it kinda sorta looks more like the same general confusion we have seen thus far in this Administration, rather than any new foreign policy strategy.
Let's all repeat in unison:
These people do not know
what they are doing!
Let's all repeat in unison:
These people do not know
what they are doing!
That is a foregone conclusion!
And unfortunately if not alarmingly, their followers mock and reject the realities even when handed to them. You cannot reason with them, they view knowledgable people as arrogant and condescending, and, for whatever reason, they possess such zeal as to speak and act contrary to their own best interests.
I'm sorry for the derailed mess that this has become, Six.
But you know how it works: some random Skirting the CoC [ph] posts off-topic in a manner that provokes others to respond... equally off-topic... and soon the original article is forgotten.
Your seed was interesting, and deserved a good discussion. Try Red Rules, next time.
This is not intended to be a snarky remark about President Trump-- but it is very clear that he is not Obama. I commend him for taking action against Assad, and doing it with prudence-- he gave them a chance to get out. A nice, moderate approach-- as opposed to a scorched earth policy that I expected from him. I was pleasantly surprised and felt that he was doing his best to make a positive statement. Maybe with Bannon gone from the National Security Counsel, we can expect more sensible moves in the future.
Actually Dowser, Bannon being gone is the very reason for the attack, not the other way around as you seem to believe. Trump has been hijacked.
Hillary herself wanted to do exactly what Trump did, but Obama let it slide. He made a threat and looked like a fool for not standing behind it. Hillary also wanted a no fly zone, even though she admitted it would take the lives of thousands of innocent civilians to accomplish it.
There have been other chemical weapon use all during the last few years as well, but it was not publicized because it would make Obama look even worse, knowing the deal with the Russians didn't go the way they tried to make the American Citizens think it did.
I agree that the declining influence of Bannon and his isolationism is important here.
At the same time... I am stymied as to what the purpose was (unless purely domestic) and what was accomplished (unless purely domestic).
As you say, "wait and see"... but that was exactly the situation before the Tomahawks.
Ok, Six. I understand what you are saying.
The Trump strike was a planned failure for show; it destroyed no aircraft nor significant runway.
Defense Secretary James Mattis said on Monday that the US cruise-missile strike against a Syrian air base destroyed 20 percent of the military’s aircraft.
“The assessment of the Department of Defense is that the strike resulted in the damage or destruction of fuel and ammunition sites, air defense capabilities, and 20 percent of Syria’s operational aircraft,” Mattis said in a statement .
“The Syrian government has lost the ability to refuel or rearm aircraft at Shayrat airfield and at this point, use of the runway is of idle military interest,” Mattis said in the statement.
I suppose Mattis is part of some worldwide conspiracy involving Trump, Putin, Assad, and probably Colonel Sanders and Queen Elizabeth too. How far does it go?
That's the beauty of the truly whack job conspiracy theory, every piece of evidence that destroys the alleged conspiracy is just another part of the conspiracy.
What difference does it make, Sean? Ten aircraft destroyed or twenty or none? The question is, "What next?"
What next?"
Hopefully, no more usage of chemical weapons. That was the point of the exercise. If there is, I would assume a stronger response will be forthcoming.
It's how the game is played. Trump did it masterfully.
What would that "stronger response" be? Boots on the ground?
No. This seems to be the continuation of the false choice offered by Obama between doing nothing and launching a full scale invasion. It's clear the new administration is capable of nuanced thinking that escaped the old one.
Trump was presented with a number of plans just for Tomahawk strikes by Mattis and chose the "smallest" one.
So... not "boots on the ground". OK. But... what??
I think I understand what you are trying to say with "nuanced". We have lived for so long with the reality that America solves its international problems by sending in the Marines... that any "action" that is not military is perceived as no action at all. And in that mind-set, a military action that is less than "boots on the ground" is "nuanced".
But now that President Trump has fired that cartridge... what is the next step? Do we now return to standby, and as long as no one uses poison gas, we remain on the sidelines? Status quo ante?
Yes, so long as no chemical/biological weapons are not employed against cvilians, I assume we will let the Syrian Civil War rage on.
Yes, so long as no chemical/biological weapons are not employed against cvilians, I assume we will let the Syrian Civil War rage on.
Assume what you want … until there's a viable plan … Asad is Putin's boy and that may well hold up anything REAL in the way of a plan.
Yes, so long as no chemical/biological weapons are not employed against cvilians, I assume we will let the Syrian Civil War rage on.
So our $100 million expense will have accomplished . . . . ??
So our $100 million expense will have accomplished . . . . ??
Blood money for war profiteer corporations … and their stock holders?
Blood money for war profiteer corporations … and their stock holders?
Well, yes... there is that, of course. But that is true of all our wars, and as loyal Americans we must praise the military-industrial complex that keeps us safe!
No... I was wondering what our $100 million expense will have accoplished within the strict context of Syria, and the somewhat larger context of the Middle East.
" No... I was wondering what our $100 million expense will have accoplished.."
What did Obama's 12,000 bombs accomplish? Less than nothing?
I don't understand. Are you saying that a predecessor's errors must be repeated?
While candidate Obama came to office pledging to end George W Bush’s wars, he leaves office having been at war longer than any president in US history. He is also the only president to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.
President Obama did reduce the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.
Looking back at President Obama’s legacy, the Council on Foreign Relation’s Micah Zenko added up the defense department’s data on airstrikes and made a startling revelation : in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.
While most of these air attacks were in Syria and Iraq, US bombs also rained down on people in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. That’s seven majority-Muslim countries.
One bombing technique that President Obama championed is drone strikes. As drone-warrior-in-chief, he spread the use of drones outside the declared battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly to Pakistan and Yemen. Obama authorized over 10 times more drone strikes than George W Bush, and automatically painted all males of military age in these regions as combatants , making them fair game for remote controlled killing.
What does the administration have to show for eight years of fighting on so many fronts? Terrorism has spread, no wars have been “won” and the Middle East is consumed by more chaos and divisions than when candidate Barack Obama declared his opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
And someone is worried about 60 Tomahawks? What about $20 trillion dollars, a country that is divided more than it ever has in my lifetime. And now $50 billion dollars of accounting errors in HUD. Now wonder they wanted Hillary so badly. Evidently some were getting filthy rich like the Clintons and they wanted their piece of the pie. six
So our $100 million expense will have accomplished???
I can't believe I have to spell this out, but the fact that WMDS are not being used against civilians is a good thing. Do you have an objection to that? Or do you think it's not worth bothering about?
By backing up Obama's red line, the President also begins the process of restoring American credibility that has been pissed away the last eight years by a President who was indistinguishable from a doormat when it came to dealing with hostile countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea etc etc..
I would think these benefits are blindingly obvious.
... the fact that WMDS are not being used against civilians is a good thing.
WMDs have not been used in the few days since the Tomahawk raid. Since they weren't being used every day before the raid, I don't really think we have enough distance to draw any conclusions at all. Certainly, if no more poison gas is used, that's a good thing. But we won't know until the war is over in... oh... perhaps another ten years??
ut we won't know until the war is over in... oh... perhaps another ten years?
Yes, human beings lack omniscience. We don't have perfect knowledge of how decisions will play out in the future. It's a failing of our race. You got me there.
Sean,
I wasn't playing "gotcha". I was underscoring the problem of criteria that have no real limits. "No more WMD" is a desirable goal. But it is, pragmatically, unprovable. Or you'd have to add a clause like "no more WMD before 1 January 2018", obviously artificial and utterly absurd if WMD are used on 2 Jan 2018...
I'm not mocking, Sean. Setting criteria in a context as messy as Syria is problematic.
Therefore! Let's assume assume that Trump's staff are not stupid. (Well... aside from Conway...) Trump's people have, very loudly, NOT announced any kind of criteria. The Tomahawk raid was a consequence of the chemical attack. Period. Full stop. There was no Red Line. Basically, nothing changed before/after. America will bomb if it wishes.
So... Why did Trump send the Tomahawks?
This seems to be the continuation of the false choice offered by Obama between doing nothing and launching a full scale invasion.
If the attack is what Trump says it is, then I partially agree … but I don't think we know conclusively. Beyond that, Trump is a hypocrite, on the one hand denying Syrian refugees … including children, a safe have in America, and on the other, taking bullshit credit for avenging those who might still be alive had he allowed them here.
Trump is a hypocrite, on the one hand denying Syrian refugees … including children, a safe have in America
Trump has not done what you said . His exec order was a temporary hold on allowing in refugees from certain dangerous regions to avoid the real possibility of terrorist incursions until thorough vetting can be accomplished . This is nothing above what Obama has done during his admin .
Trump has not done what you said . His exec order was a temporary hold on allowing in refugees from certain dangerous regions to avoid the real possibility of terrorist incursions until thorough vetting can be accomplished . This is nothing above what Obama has done during his admin .
ARTICLE: Syrian Refugees in the United States
More than 18,000 Syrian refugees have been resettled in the United States since civil war broke out in Syria in 2011; nearly half are under age 14. This article offers a demographic profile of Syrian refugees, including age, gender, language, and religion, as well as top state and city destinations.
ARTICLE: Refugees and Asylees in the United States
The United States is the largest refugee resettlement country in the world, with 69,933 newly arrived refugees granted protection in 2015. This article delves into U.S. refugee and asylum data, including top countries of origin, states of settlement, age, gender, and more.
FACT SHEET: Ten Facts About U.S. Refugee Resettlement
This fact sheet offers key facts about the U.S. refugee resettlement program. It answers questions such as how the current refugee admissions ceiling stacks up historically, the types of screening would-be refugees go through, how they fare in the labor market, their public benefits usage, and more.
ARTICLE: Profile of Syrian Immigrants in the United States
Approximately 86,000 Syrian immigrants resided in the United States in 2014. Most come through family reunification channels rather than humanitarian or employment-based ones. Syrian immigrants on average are significantly older and more highly educated.
______________________________________________
Zero Americans have been killed by Syrian refugees in a terrorist attack in the United States.
Between 1975 and 2015, the “annual chance of being murdered by somebody other than a foreign-born terrorist was 252.9 times greater than the chance of dying in a terrorist attack committed by a foreign-born terrorist …
Zero Americans have been killed by Syrian refugees in a terrorist attack in the United States.
But ISIS is a major force in Syria NOW . Apparently you're OK with letting their members in ...
But ISIS is a major force in Syria NOW . Apparently you're OK with letting their members in ...
SHARE
Refugees Entering the U.S. Already
Face a Rigorous Vetting Process
By HAEYOUN PARK and LARRY BUCHANAN JAN. 29, 2017
President Trump has suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, and he has barred Syrian refugees indefinitely. The current screening process for all refugees involves many layers of security checks before entry into the country, and Syrians were subject to an additional layer of checks . Sometimes, the process, shown below, takes up to two years.
1. Registration with the United Nations.
2. Interview with the United Nations .
3. Refugee status granted by the United Nations.
4. Referral for resettlement in the United States.
The United Nations decides if the person fits the definition of a refugee and whether to refer the person to the United States or to another country for resettlement. Only the most vulnerable are referred, accounting for less than than 1 percent of refugees worldwide. Some people spend years waiting in refugee camps.
Refugees Entering the U.S. Already
Face a Rigorous Vetting Process
Summary of your statement : Yeah sure things have changed since earlier Syrian problems but who cares ... I can't be bothered to worry about ISIS !
Didn't the United Nations vote against Israel? Wasn't it Obama who said he was Israel's greatest ally? So you cut and paste something from the United Nations to back up your validity of vetting.
Cut and paste. TLDR.
The idea of safe zones for the civilians was passed around, but the Democrats aren't for that. They can't vote Democrat over there even though it appears some would rather be in their own country than a foreign country.
MISSION FAILURE: US struck base deliberately avoided destroying chem weaps/killing crews. Warned Ru/Sy. Message? Kabuki lives. #SyriaStrikes
You got me there, the world famous Malcolm Nance is the premier go to source for information. Silly me looking to General Mattis.
Keep moving the goal posts though. Destruction of 20% of the Syrian Air force is now kabuki theater. I guess Pearl Harbor was a pinprick strike. Do you think that Assad is happy 20% of his air force is destroyed?
Now the complaint is that Trump didn't act like Buck Turgedson and kill a bunch of Russians and risk starting WWIII. Trump acts calculatingly and proportionally, harms Assad without triggering a wider war and yet progressives are mad he wasn't reckless enough? I guess he should have just nuked the airport to ensure that a few more planes were destroyed. Then would you be happy?
Seriously, if Russians had been killed because there was no warning, you and your ilk would be the first calling for Trump to be impeached for recklessly endangering our security and provoking a war. The loony Trump hater really have no credibility. You'll always demand something other than what he did.
I am just glad he didn't nuke them. And I give him credit for initiating a proportional response. Am I a moonbat for praising his actions? Hope not.
I am just glad he didn't nuke them. And I give him credit for initiating a proportional response. Am I a moonbat for praising his actions? Hope not.
Me too. Then we would be in deep do do for sure. You said you wanted to give Trump a chance. So do I. I'm not happy with several things he has and is doing, especially since he had taken on the world stage instead of what he ran for in the first place.
Understand the media is totally against him. The Democrat Party is totally against him. Many of the Republicans are totally against him. I know he is doing some things you don't like even more so that I.
We can only hope and pray he makes the right decisions and we have one thing in our favor, nobody likes him and few are willing to work with him. As I said a long time ago, he will be bumping into walls with every move he makes. That is to our advantage in many ways and also can be to our disadvantage in other ways, but I feel it will be alright in the end.
This is the classic quandary for the opposition party: "Hoping of the President to fail" is dangerously close to "hoping the country will fail".
We must all hope the President succeeds, because his failure could be very harmful to the country.
We may remain dubious, though... and we may oppose particular policies if we believe they are bad for the country.
I also said I would give him credit where credit is due-- and I'm trying to do that. I think we, as country, will survive as long as all those against him puts the brakes on some of his wildest dreams... I felt very reassured that he didn't nuke them. He's not a total wack job! Maybe my expectations for him are just too low...
Well, since you seem to know all about Malcolm Nance, rather than keep it to yourself, let everyone in on your knowledge.*
Malcolm Wrightson Nance (born September 20, 1961) is a retired United States Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer in naval cryptology and author, scholar and media commentator on international terrorism, intelligence, insurgency and torture.
Nance is an expert in the history, personalities and organization of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL); jihadi radicalization , Islamic extremism in Middle East, Southwest Asian and African terror groups, as well as counterinsurgency and asymmetric warfare . He speaks Arabic and is active in the field of national security policy particularly in anti- and counter-terrorism intelligence, terrorist strategy and tactics, torture and counter-ideology in combating Islamic extremism. In 2014 he became the executive director of the Terror Asymmetrics Project on Strategy, Tactics and Radical Ideologies (TAPSTRI), a Hudson, New York -based think tank .
Early years
Nance is a graduate of West Catholic Boys High School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [
Military career
As former U.S. Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer in Naval Cryptology he was involved in numerous counter-terrorism, intelligence and combat operations. He received military decorations and speaks Arabic. He became an instructor in wartime and peacetime SERE where he trained Navy and Marine Corps flyers, both pilots and aircrew to survive captivity as a prisoner of war . He conceptualized and spearheaded the Advanced Terrorism, Abduction and Hostage Survival school (ATAHS), a special survival program designed to train Special Mission Units, Navy SEALS and members of the U.S. Intelligence Community in resisting torture, exploitation and escaping terrorist captivity by al-Qaeda. At ATAHS, he led an al-Qaeda simulation group to expose trainees at high risk of capture to the Al Qaeda organization and its abduction and attack tactics. [ citation needed ]
Post-military career
In early 2001, Nance founded Special Readiness Services International (SRSI) an intelligence support company. On the morning of 9/11 , driving to Arlington he witnessed the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. He acted as a first responder at the helipad crash site where he helped organize the rescue and recovery of victims. Nance served as an intelligence and security contractor in Iraq, Afghanistan, the UAE and North Africa. [3] [4]
Academia and security industry
Between 2005–2007 Nance was a visiting lecturer on counterterrorism in Sydney, Australia at Macquarie University 's Centre on Policing, Intelligence and Counter-terrorism (PICT) and at Victoria University of Wellington in Wellington, New Zealand . Nance has been a guest lecturer on al-Qaeda and counter-ideology at the Defense Intelligence University and international law enforcement colleges. Nance is a keynote speaker in the security industry on mitigating terrorist strategies and tactics including for the American Society of Industrial Security (ASIS), the Austral-Asian industrial security industry and the International Air Transport Authority (IATA). [
Small Wars Journal and torture controversy [ edit ]
In 2007 Nance wrote an article for the counterinsurgency blog Small Wars Journal titled " Waterboarding is Torture... period." Republished in the Pentagon Early Bird, it set off a firestorm as the first credible description of the torture technique as used in SERE. The article strongly swayed the Pentagon against the use of the waterboard because its misuse would damage America's honor worldwide. Nance claimed that using the torture techniques of America's former enemies dishonors the memory of US service members who died in captivity through torture, and that torture does not produce credible intelligence. Nance was called to testify before the U.S. Congress about the use of " enhanced interrogation techniques ". He told the House Judiciary Committee that:
Journalism and media appearances
Nance is often a guest policy analyst on television frequently for BBC, CNN, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera America and radio on BBC World Service , London Broadcasting and WAMC in New York and Western Massachusetts .
Nance was a frequent guest analyst on terrorist strategy on Fox News with Tony Snow , who would later become the Press Secretary of President Bush. He was featured on numerous international political talk shows including PBS's NewsHour , BBC's Hardtalk and World Have Your Say , Australian Broadcasting's Dateline , German TV's ZDF Frontier 21, TV 5, France 24 and others.
In 2016, Nance urged readers to be skeptical of Podesta emails leaked by WikiLeaks , writing that the documents were "riddled with obvious forgeries" and were black propaganda "not even professionally done" and arguing that even if all the emails were authentic, WikiLeaks' excerpts of the emails were posted to Twitter in a way that distorted their meaning.
________________________________________
* Denigrating with feint praise based on no actual knowledge is not respectful nor helpful in the interest of reality.
But now you know better for the future.
Deft avoidance of substance.
Deft avoidance of substance.
Possibly you make yourself feel good with that kind of a response … I take the time and care enough to provide information …
Matthew 7:6 - Wikipedia
Amac, when you cut and paste wikipedia entries about some half assed expert that no one cares about, what kind of response do you expect?
Let's be clear, you think trump should have killed Russians to and risk starting WWIII. I don't.
I see why you'd rather cut and paste wikipedia entries.
But this is priceless, so I'm glad you pointed it out:
Nance urged readers to be skeptical of Podesta emails leaked by WikiLeaks , writing that the documents were "riddled with obvious forgeries" and were black propaganda "not even professionally done" and arguing that even if all the emails were authentic, WikiLeaks' excerpts of the emails were posted to Twitter in a way that distorted their meaning.
Thanks for showing just what kind of partisan hack you rely on for your conspiracies. It makes things so much easier when you provide the evidence discrediting your source.
If you knew anything about hackers, you'd know that typically, the will release factual-hacked information in part initially … that in order to appear "trustworthy" in what they leak … after which come the spoofs and forgeries.
Don't talk down to me … make your case … if it's good, I'll agree … if it's not, I'll correct it.
How is it, everything leaked on the DNC is Gospel while everything leaked on Trump is "fake"?
How is that?
No one involved, not even Podesta, has disputed the validity of the leaked emails.
"I've looked at a lot of document dumps provided by hacker groups over the years, and in almost every case you can find a few altered or entirely falsified documents," said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of cybersecurity firm Taia Global. "But only a few. The vast majority were genuine. I believe that's the case with the Podesta emails, as well."
"I would be shocked if the emails weren't altered," said Jamie Winterton, director of strategy for Arizona State University’s Global Security Initiative, citing Russia’s long history of spreading disinformation .
Experts pointed to the Democratic National Committee email hack that happened earlier this year. Metadata from the stolen and leaked documents showed the hackers had edited documents. For example, hackers were kicked out of the DNC network June 11, yet among their documents is a file that was created on June 15, found Thomas Rid , a war studies professor at King’s College London.
Did you read your own article?
This is the "proof" you just cited: "It is possible the WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s emails includes forged or altered documents," Hennessey said. "With any large leak, it is wise to proceed with caution and skepticism and verify the authenticity of documents before reporting."
The Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent.
It's been months, and no evidence of any fraudulent emails related to the Podesta leak has been brought forward.
You cited a loon and then backed him up with evidence that undercuts him. I don't need to do anything, you make my arguments for me.
The Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent.
It's been months, and no evidence of any fraudulent emails related to the Podesta leak has been brought forward.
You cited a loon and then backed him up with evidence that undercuts him. I don't need to do anything, you make my arguments for me.
Failure to deny is not synonymous with agreement … the burden of proof is on the one making the allegation.
Trump has failed to prove that the allegations regarding Russian connections are false … his denials neither prove nor disprove the allegations.
Beyond the leaked DNC e-mails, most of what the Russian bots and the right-wing smear machine foisted with regard to Clinton, have been debunked … but you and others never questioned their veracity.
For starters …
She was a poor choice of a candidate; that doesn't justify the smears.
It's funny how you always claim the other side has the burden of proof in any dispute you are in. That's not how it works. When CBS tried to fake documents to discredit George Bush, his campaign didn't just say well they could be fakes and CBS has to prove every document is real. Instead, they conclusively proved the documents were forged.
Don't even pretend you would argue the Bush documents were false just because some people on the internet said there is the possibility they may have been faked. That's simply ridiculous.
It's been 7 months. Every email that has been publicly examined has been verified. No one has provided the slightest bit of evidence to discredit the Podesta emails. Random peoplle on the internet saying it's possible some emails were faked is not evidence.
You like to talk about coutroom procedure. The initial evidence of Podesta email's validity has been presented. (read your own link). If the evidence can't be rebutted or challenged (and it hasn't been) than Podesta's email is preemptively valid.
It's funny how you always claim the other side has the burden of proof in any dispute you are in. That's not how it works.
In America, that IS how it works; if/when you or anyone/any entity makes an allegation while offering no specifics, or, false specifics, they should be challenged to validate the allegation. Be it a matter of law, or, a matter of common sense and integrity …
n. the requirement that the plaintiff (the party bringing a civil lawsuit) show by a "preponderance of evidence" or "weight of evidence" that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are presented and are probably true.
Imagine trying to explain to the press, eager to publish the worst of the details in the documents, that everything is accurate except this particular email. Or that particular memo. That the salary document is correct except that one entry. Or that the secret customer list posted up on WikiLeaks is correct except that there's one inaccurate addition. It would be impossible. Who would believe you? No one. And you couldn't prove it.
Trump has failed to prove that the allegations regarding Russian connections are false … his denials neither prove nor disprove the allegations.
Let me see if I understand this correctly Amac. A person is charged with a crime and they have to prove they are innocent. Or maybe I have it wrong. He is accused and denies it so where do we go from here? Since all three agencies have said they have found no collusion between Trump and the Russians, maybe we could start there.
Since all three agencies have said they have found no collusion between Trump and the Russians, maybe we could start there.
YET! You state it as if that's what they have concluded. The investigations are in process, so it is too early to say they have found no collusion. Especially from the FBI, because they would not reveal what evidence they have until they are ready to suggest arrests and indictments. The leak of a FISA warrant today for survailing Carter Page and yes, despite the administration's denial, he was a foreign policy advisor to Trump and Trump said so himself in an interview when asked who he had assisting him the second name he said was "Carter Page, PhD", suggests that the FBI has something on some people in the Trump campaign. Also during the RNC Convention it was Carter Page who met with the Russian Ambassador in Cleveland (or so he said on "All in with Chris Hayes") and immediately afterward the plank in their platform that chastised Russia for their involvement in Ukraine disappeared. There is waaaaaay tooooooo much smoke for there not to be a fire under it.
YET! You state it as if that's what they have concluded. The investigations are in process, so it is too early to say they have found no collusion.
Good luck with that one. What could he have done? He did go to Russia to speak at a graduation and was paid Zero. Maybe you should focus your attention on someone who was paid $500,000 to a Russian bank after a uranium sellout.
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Clinton had no voting power in the transaction … that has been cited many times.
Let me see if I understand this correctly Amac. A person is charged with a crime and they have to prove they are innocent.
The opposite is what I always post; when one is charged with a crime, the one making the charge has the burden of proving guilt … that is the so-called tenet of "Presumption of Innocence."
The failure of someone charged, to deny the charge, is not an admission of guilt as Sean wants to have it in terms of Wikileaks/Russian hacked e-mails.
In America …
The Miranda warning, which also can be referred to as the Miranda rights, is a right to silence warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal ...
Sean, in seeming to believe that Trump's declaration of innocence somehow proves his innocence, is an incorrect corollary to his incorrect premise about the DNC e-mails.
I trust this makes clear my position, Six.
You know this isn't a court of law, right? It's politics. Common sense dictates when you are falsely accused of political wrongdoing you deny it. You don't admit it, like many of the authors in the Podesta release have. There is a mountain of evidence that the Podesta emails are genuine. There is zero actual evidence that any are forged. ZERO.
The idea that these emails are forgeries and no one involved in writing them will say so is so far beyond belief as to be insane. I'm not playing this silly game anymore. Do you think Podesta, Clinton and the main stream journalists are really that stupid?
Let's cut the B.S. Your "expert" who you rely on instead of James Mattis claims the Podesta emails contain " obvious forgeries." Provide some evidence of these "obvious forgeries" or admit your expert is a partisan hack.
That said, I have to hand it to you, Amac. You are a master of sophistry. It's truly amazing how you've taken the defense of an preposterous claim that the Podesta emails were "obvious forgeries" and cut and pasted enough material from Wikipedia to start all sorts of irrelevant tangents.
At the end of the day, your expert made a completely bogus claim and you can't defend it. rather than flooding the site with misdirection, just admit it and move on.
The opposite is what I always post......
Maybe I missed something in the conversation. In my opinion, guilt has to be proven whether a person refuses to admit guilt or denies guilt and so far all three agencies have stated they haven't found anything to indicate collusion between Trump and Russia.
I understand I had it wrong in my interpretation of what you are saying as to how I responded.
Senior chief petty officer? Lol.
Senior chief petty officer? Lol.
Read the rest of his resume.
Tell you what C. … next time you're in Philly, I'll introduce you to Mr. Nance and you can LOL directly.
Just give me a day or two heads up before your visit.
Keep your macho threats to yourself or you'll get banned.
Keep your macho threats to yourself or you'll get banned.
Is that any way to respond to an invitation?
The Trump strike was a planned failure for show; it destroyed no aircraft nor significant runway.
Exactly. He might as well have had the missiles aimed at the Damascus garbage dump.
False news.
It's amazing how easily progressives simply make up fact to support their arguments. Doesn't matter the subject, they simply make things up. It's like they don't know google was invented and their falsehoods are so easily disproven.
Back to the topic of the thread : President not-Obama has been very vocal about the abuses of China in currency manipulations . This is in direct opposition to Obama who fawned over everything that China did . Since the current Pres. has made his recent China comments some changes in US relations with China have changed , thusly :
After Meeting With Trump, China May Offer to Drop 13-Year Ban on U.S. Beef
President not-Obama has been very vocal about the abuses of China in currency manipulations .
Indeed. Despite the fact that China has done nothing of the sort for at least five years. Now he will take credit for something that is already years in the past...
- The Treasury Department for the final time during President Barack Obama’s tenure declined to label China a currency manipulator, in an implicit rejection of Republican nominee
Donald TrumpThe Obama administration added Switzerland to a currency watch list that already included China, Japan, Germany, South Korea and Taiwan, according to a semiannual report on global foreign-exchange policies from the Treasury. However, it found that no major trading partner met the legal definition of a currency manipulator, and the U.S. said China’s recent efforts to prop up the yuan were preventing a rapid depreciation that would hurt the global economy.
China was found to meet only one of three criteria used to determine the watch list, compared with two of three in April. If China still meets only one condition in the next report, it could be removed from the list.
_________________________
When Trump and his daughter end the manufacturing of their products in China, we can talk "currency manipulation".
Poor formatting on your latest cut and paste. I know that's important to liberals...
China Seen Allowing Bigger Yuan Declines as Trade Tensions Ease
“China is still motivated to depreciate the yuan," said Hong Kong-based Garcia Herrero.
How Trump’s Syria strike got even some key Obama advisers cheering..
You can tell the who the loons are when they attack Obama's foreign policy team as clueless Trump supporters.
Party over nation.