Tag Archives: John E. McLaughlin

Donald Trump

That was the week that was (or wasn’t), but definitely shouldn’t have been

A brief review of an extraordinary week for U.S. diplomacy and the American presidency:

Sunday, Donald J. Trump on Twitter: “Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!”

Monday, during the Trump-Putin news conference: “My people came to me — Dan Coats came to me and some others — they said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.

I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be …”

And moments later: “So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. And what he did is an incredible offer; he offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 people. I think that’s an incredible offer. Okay?”

Tuesday, the walk back: “… I thought I made that clear yesterday, but having just reviewed the transcript of yesterday’s press conference, I realized that there is the need for further clarification. In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘WOULD’ instead of ‘WOULDN’T.’ The sentence should have been: ‘I don’t see any reason why it WOULDN’T be Russia’ — a double negative.

I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.”

But, while his written statement expressed confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies, he stressed that Russian actions had no effect on the 2016 election and suggested that Russia might not be fully culpable: “So I’ll begin by stating that I have full faith and support for America’s great intelligence agencies, always have.

I have felt very strongly that while Russia’s actions had no impact at all on the outcome of the election, let me be totally clear in saying that — and I’ve said this many times — I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. It could be other people also. There’s a lot of people out there.

There was no collusion at all, and people have seen that and they’ve seen that strongly.”

Wednesday, at a press availability before a cabinet meeting:

Q: “Is Russia still targeting the U.S., Mr. President?”

A: “Thank you very much. No.”

Q: “No?! You don’t believe that to be the case?”

A: “No.”

Two hours later, Sarah Huckabee Sanders offered an alternative account of what reporters heard.

When she was questioned about the “incredible offer” made at the summit by Putin – Robert Mueller could travel to Russia to interview with Russian officials the 12 recently indicted GRU (military intelligence agency) spies, if the U.S. would send its former ambassador, Michael McFaul and other Americans to Russia for interrogation by Putin and company – which was widely condemned, she held open the possibility that Trump would agree to Putin’s offer: “The president is gonna meet with his team and we’ll let you know when we have an announcement on that.”

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert was more dismissive: “I can’t answer on behalf of the White House … but what I can tell you is that the overall assertions that have come out of the Russian government are absolutely absurd – the fact that they want to question 11 American citizens and the assertions that the Russian government is making about those American citizens. We do not stand by those assertions.”

Thursday, another walk back from Ms. Sanders – this time on the incredible offer: “It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump disagrees with it. Hopefully President Putin will have the 12 identified Russians come to the United States to prove their innocence or guilt.”

Friday, Director of National Security Dan Coats is in the midst of an onstage interview at a security forum in Aspen when Andrea Mitchell advised him of “breaking news” – a tweet from Sarah Sanders announcing that Vladimir Putin is coming to the White House in the fall.

“Say that again. Did I hear you?”

Upon hearing confirmation, amid laughter: “Okaaay. That’s going to be special.”

The nation’s top intelligence official had known nothing about another summit.

The interview offered even more unsettling news: Four days after the two hour meeting between Trump and Putin – with no other American present except for an interpreter – neither the Director of National Security, nor any other U.S. diplomatic or intelligence professional, knew the agenda or the substance of that conversation, or any agreements that the two men had made.

In contrast, by this time Putin had briefed Russian diplomats on the one-on-one meeting and lauded a number of “useful agreements” the two men made. Anatoly Antonov, the Russian Ambassador, had said that his country was prepared to move forward to implement the “important verbal agreements” concerning arms control, among other issues.

At this stage, on the American side, only Trump was privy to what had been discussed and what agreements had been made.

These events led to this exchange on “The 11th Hour with Brian Williams,” July 20, 2018, with Williams and John E. McLaughlin (who had 30 years experience in intelligence and counter-terrorism in the CIA):

Williams: “I have to ask you your reaction to finding out that our D of N I is unaware that an adversary has been invited to Washington, say nothing of others of our allies who have yet to receive their first invitation of this presidency.”

McLaughlin: “Well, Brian, you know, my reaction sitting there in the audience today was, you know, our government has slipped out of gear. It is not functioning normally. And that would not happen – I’ve served seven presidents – that would not happen in any other administration. And it shows that the President was not prepared for the Helsinki summit and is now improvising again.”

Monday, July 23, 2018 update: “Trump has now walked back his walk-back on U.S. intelligence and Russia.”

(Photo: Reuters / Kevin Lamarque; source: The Nation.)

Donald Trump, Polls, Republicans, Tribalism

The President sided with the enemy and his base stuck with him

“To state it baldly: the United States was attacked and the President sided with the enemy in his Helsinki remarks.”

This observation, by John McLaughlin, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and its former Acting Director, followed an extraordinary week of U.S. diplomacy and unprecedented conduct by an American president.

McLaughlin served in the CIA under seven presidents, from Richard Nixon through George W. Bush (including Ronald Reagan, pictured above at the Berlin Wall). He spoke in a thoughtful, low-key manner. By all appearances he is hardly prone to making questionable claims or besmirching American presidents.

It’s unlikely that many avid supporters of President Trump heard his remarks, because he made them during an interview on MSNBC (“The 11th Hour with Brian Williams,” July 20, 2018). This circumstance, along with the fact that he was voicing criticism of the President, makes it likely that Trump’s base would discredit the observation – never mind McLaughlin’s 30 years of public service in U.S. intelligence.

An Axios/Survey Monkey poll asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Trump handled his press conference with Putin?”

Although only 40% of respondents expressed approval, among Republicans 79% approved.

A Washington Post-ABC poll taken several days later asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Trump handled his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week?” and recorded these results: 33% approval overall, but 66% among Republicans.

A second question, “Overall do you think Trump went too far in supporting Putin, not far enough, or handled this about right?” While 40% said too far, only 14% of Republicans agreed.

(It’s possible that strong criticism from Congressional Republicans and other GOP leaders – between the two polls – dampened the enthusiasm of grassroots Republicans.)

What’s going on? Ronald Reagan, the perennial icon of Republicanism, is widely credited with winning the Cold War against “the Evil Empire.” Among Republican elites – with only an exception or two, such as California’s Representative Dana Rohrabacher – revanchist Russia, circa 2018, is hardly more trusted than was the U.S.S.R. Have Republican voters had any reason – apart from taking a cue from Trump – to look favorably on the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin?

Of course not. This poll reflects contemporary political tribalism. Trump voters – which include huge majorities in the mainstream Republican Party – are in his corner come what may.

In her book, Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations, Amy Chua writes about the human instinct to bond – and exclude – and about how groups shape who we are and how we act toward others. The group identities that people are most tightly bound to are ethnic, regional, religious, sectarian, and clan based.  Group loyalties lead people to “seek to benefit their group mates even when they personally gain nothing. They will penalize outsiders, seemingly gratuitously. They will sacrifice, and even kill and die, for their groups.”

In successive chapters on U.S. foreign policy failures (in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq), Chua looks at tribal loyalties –the ethnic Chinese vs. the Vietnamese, the Pashtuns vs. numerous other clans in Afghanistan, and Sunnis vs. Shias in Iraq – which dominated the conflicts (even when American leaders were completely oblivious to these divisions) and frustrated U.S. military, political, and economic objectives.

In each of these situations, a “market-dominant minority” – the Chinese, Pashtuns, and Sunnis, respectively – held sway over the poorer majority population, creating anger and resentment. “Market-dominant minorities are one of the most potent catalysts of political tribalism.”

The American blindness to group identities abroad is true as well of social divisions in our own country – at least it has been until recently, as political polarization has come to be a defining feature of our national life. It has become harder to overlook, especially since the election of Donald Trump in November 2016. And, as awareness of tribalism in developing countries has increased, many have seen a similar dynamic in the U.S. with rising economic inequality and a growing gap between the richest Americans and the rest of us. This picture is complicated, as Chua notes, by the existence of not one, but two white tribes in this country – on opposite sides of the cultural issues that divide us.

Much post-election analysis and discussion has focused on competing theories of the Trump vote as it relates to working class white folks (whose strong turnout in a number of states Clinton expected to win instead put Trump over the top). Was it racism or economic hardship that moved these voters?

After watching Trump’s campaign – and hearing from his voters – many have pushed back against the idea of economic distress as an explanation, as Chua observes. She writes:

“But to see the divisiveness in today’s America – and the forces that brought about Trump’s election – as solely about racism, while ignoring the role of inequality, misses too much of the picture. Even putting economics aside, it misses the role played by white-against-white resentment and antagonism.”

For the purposes of this post, we need not resolve this issue – race or economics – to conclude: tribalism, not sweet reason or logical consistency or respect for facts, has kept Trump’s base behind him – even when events have cast doubt on the measure of his loyalty and his devotion to protecting and defending our country.

July 23, 2018 update – Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll:

“Mr. Trump’s job approval rating rose to 45% in a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the highest mark of his presidency and up 1 percentage point from June….

Underpinning Mr. Trump’s job approval was support from 88% of Republican voters. Of the four previous White House occupants, only George W. Bush, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, had a higher approval rating within his own party at the same point in his presidency.”

(Photo: Ronald Reagan speaking at the Brandenburg Gate on June 12, 1987.)