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

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share