Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Bannon’s Ouster from NSC Certainly Can’t Hurt

Steve Bannon's removal from the NSC's Principals Committee doesn’t mean that he’s gone from the White House or no longer exerts a powerful influence on Trump. His office is still located very close to the Oval Office, and there’s nothing to indicate that his dark and messianic worldview has changed.

Print Friendly

Lobelog

Although it’s too soon to assess the import of the removal of Trump’s top strategic advisor, Steve Bannon, from the Principals Committee of the National Security Council (NSC), it’s certainly not bad news. Indeed, it’s probably very good news for those concerned about the impact of Bannon’s strongly anti-European Union (EU) and Islamophobic views on U.S. foreign policy.

It’s not yet clear what were the proximate causes of Bannon’s ouster. Various explanations have been offered—from Trump’s sudden apparent disillusionment with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in the wake of this week’s devastating chemical attack to increasing tensions between Bannon and Jared Kushner. For more of the initial speculation, Politico and The Washington Post offer different explanations. What clearly isn’t the case, however, are the clarifications offered by Bannon himself—that he had completed his mission in “de-operationaliz[ing]” the NSC—or that his original function on the council to monitor or “babysit” Gen. Michael Flynn was now no longer relevant. The latter explanation is particularly absurd: if Flynn was placed on the Principals Committee to watch over Flynn, why did Trump appoint Flynn in the first place? That explanation indeed makes look Trump bad.

Of course, it’s important to stress that Bannon’s removal from the Principals Committee doesn’t mean that he’s gone from the White House or no longer exerts a powerful—if baleful and quite dangerous, as I tried to explain a couple of months ago—influence on Trump. His office is still located very close to the Oval Office, and there’s nothing to indicate that his dark and messianic worldview has changed. At the same time, however, such a public departure from the NSC—after the White House spent so much political capital defending his presence there—clearly marks a demotion, if not something of a public humiliation for the former Breitbart CEO. And, if it’s true that the so-called “Strategic Initiatives Group” (SIG) was either dissolved or was never actually constituted, it makes a number of individuals, including Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland and Sebastian Gorka, currently serving on the NSC much more vulnerable to be redeployed or removed. Although McFarland was more associated with Flynn than with Bannon, her Islamophobic and Sinophobic views as expressed as a Fox News analyst and in other fora are certainly compatible with Bannon’s, while Gorka, the former national security editor at Breitbart, almost certainly wouldn’t be where he is today without Bannon’s strong support.

National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster has made clear in a variety of ways—including the recent appointment of Dina Powell to serve in a parallel position with that of McFarland—that he would prefer to see KT in Singapore. As for Gorka, whose far-right associations in Hungary are exacting a growing political cost to the White House, especially in the U.S. Jewish community, his lack of experience or expertise in counter-terrorism (the position for which he was hired), as well as his bombastic style, almost certainly grates on McMaster, whose reputation as a “warrior-scholar” is well established. Especially annoying to McMaster, who emerges much strengthened by the latest shakeup, must be Gorka’s boisterous embrace and endless repetition of the mantra “radical Islamic terrorism” as the key to defeating the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. McMaster has argued that the phrase is totally counter-productive to such efforts.

Indeed, the worst fears of the Islamophobes in and out of the White House—people like Frank GaffneyRobert SpencerMichael Ledeen, the editorial staff at Breitbart, and perhaps even Bannon himself—when McMaster was appointed to replace Flynn may well be in the process of being realized. Their much-despised “political correctness” vis-à-vis the Muslim world at least appears to be staging a comeback. On the other hand, I’m hearing whispers that Michael Doran, a protégé of both Bernard Lewis and Elliott Abrams, is in the running for Near East director on the NSC. Although not Islamophobic in the same sense as the other named individuals, his interventionism and hawkishness on the Middle East are problematic to say the least.

Centrist European leaders must also feel somewhat reassured by the latest developments. Bannon’s disdain for them and his clear ambition to destroy the EU have clearly been a major and growing concern since the November election. The demonstration of McMaster’s control over the NSC, especially if followed by the departure of other NSC staff who, like Gorka, are seen as hostile to supra-national institutions is likely to cheer the foreign ministries of western Europe, in particular.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share