Isolationists and anti-interventionists on both the left and the right have scored a lot of political points by decrying so-called endless war. It’s a great polemical talking point. Who, after all, is for “endless war”?
The talking point resonates because the United States has been in Afghanistan for 19 years and in Iraq for almost as long. But the term “endless war” is misleading, and it obscures more than it clarifies. And, in so doing, it distorts the policy options and choices that lie before us.
The choice that we face as a nation is not between peace or “endless war.” The choice that we face is between: a) a proliferation of dangerous threats; or b) a steady and consistent military and diplomatic presence abroad that keeps those threats at bay.
No one, after all, is talking about launching another 2003-style Iraq War, another 2007-style Iraq surge, or another 2001-style “shock and awe” campaign in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter. Large-scale occupying forces are neither needed nor desired now.
That’s because we’ve learned a lot in the past two decades of ongoing military engagement. We’ve learned that a large and massive military footprint isn’t always ideal and in fact, can sometimes be counterproductive.
But we’ve also learned that small numbers of highly trained U.S. military personnel and advisers can have an extraordinarily beneficial and outsized impact.
They can seriously stiffen the spines of our friends and allies; dramatically strengthen and enhance our diplomatic and negotiating leverage; and, in general, keep a lid on things, so to speak, by containing threats that otherwise would imperil our national security and safety worldwide.
Iraq and Syria. We saw this, for instance, in Iraq and Syria, where small numbers of U.S. special forces, aerial intelligence assets, and American air power were instrumental in uprooting the Islamic State and destroying its so-called caliphate.
Trump has since redeployed some of those troops to other parts of Syria; but his oft-expressed desire to leave altogether has weakened our position and embolden our enemies.
Trump should have learned from Obama’s foolish decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq. That decision led to the Islamic State, which, in turn, forced Obama to send U.S. troops back into Iraq.
Afghanistan. Yet, here are we are again, only this time in Afghanistan. A small contingent of U.S. forces there (roughly 12,000 troops), playing a key support role, have been critical in containing a witches’ brew of the Taliban, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and assorted other Jihadists. Yet, all Trump can do is talk about withdrawing U.S. troops and leaving Afghanistan.
“Time to come home,” he said Sunday. “They want to stop. You know, they’ve been fighting a long time. They’re tough people. We’re tough people. But after 19 years, that’s a long time.”
Yes, it is a long time. You know what also hasn’t happened in a long time? An attack on the United States that was planned and executed from a terrorist base in Afghanistan. Let’s keep it that way.
But the only way we’ll continue to protect the American homeland is not by “coming home,” but rather by keeping our foot on the enemy’s throat, so to speak, through a steady and consistent forward presence overseas.
A myopic and misplaced obsession with “endless war” obscures this reality. It’s long past time that we stopped—or ended, if you will—using the term altogether. As a policy option, it is inaccurate, and it doesn’t help or clarify the U.S. foreign policy debate.
Many critics, myself included, lament the fact that President Trump tweets so much. In truth, though, the problem is not that Trump tweets so much; it’s that so much of what he tweets is embarrassing, juvenile, and blatantly detrimental to his own political interests.
But just imagine, if you will, a president who had greater self-awareness, self-discipline, maturity, wisdom, savvy, and political smarts. Why, such a president could tweet regularly and often, but to much greater political effect. I thought about this when reading an excellent piece by Thomas Joscelyn in The Dispatch.
Joscelyn is a senior editor at the Long War Journalpublished by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He notes that, according to fresh reporting by Martin Chulov and Mohammed Rasool in The Guadian, the Islamic State’s new leader is Amir Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Mawli al-Salbi, also known as Haji Abdullah; and he is not an Arab, but an ethnic Turkmen.
Salbi (or Haji Abdullah) became the leader of ISIS after their previous leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, blew himself up in a U.S. military raid in late October 2019. And the fact that Salbi is not an Arab, but an ethnic Turkmen is a real problem for the Islamic State: because it calls into question Salbi’s legitimacy as a ruler in the eyes of the jihadists whom he’s supposed to lead and command.
Why is that? Because ISIS’s claim to legitimacy its based on the fact that its rulers supposedly descend from the Prophet Muhammad; but such a claim is dubious, Joscelyn points out, if in fact, Salbi is not an Arab.
An earlier leader of the Islamic State, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, had much the same problem, he notes.
Jihadist critics argued that no one really knew Abu Omar’s true identity or background, so it was absurd for anyone to declare their fealty to him. Bin Laden had to answer this charge in both his private correspondence and public statements.
There’s more to the story, but the point is that this could be a real problem for the current Islamic State, which split off from al-Qaeda. But thus far the U.S. and its allies have done little to exploit it.
“If the U.S. and its allies were adept at messaging—and, trust me,” Joscelyn writes, “they are not—this is the sort of apparent discrepancy that would be trumpeted far and wide as part of a counterterrorist media campaign.”
This is especially important because, as Joscelyn observes, ISIS is not yet dead. Indeed, despite the loss of its territory, the terrorist group retains an estimated 14,000 to 18,000 combatants in Syria and Iraq combined, including “key veteran personnel” such as Haji Abdullah.
Haji Abdullah, in fact, “is a founding member of the Islamic State’s first incarnation, with his jihadist biography stretching back to the days of al-Qaeda in Iraq (circa 2003-04),” Joscelyn writes.
An American President who understood this (not President Trump, obviously) could use his Twitter feed smartly and wisely to wage war agains the Jihadists.
And there is no need for heavy propaganda or editorializing either. Simply tweeting out a link to this Guardian article, for instance, and mildly asking some fair and legitimate questions about the ISIS leader would do the trick.
Unfortunately, Trump would rather tweet in juvenile and idiotic fashion about what he last saw on Fox News or how he was wronged by the “Deep State.” But the problem is not Twitter, which, in the right hands, can be used well and to good effect. The problem is the man—or the adolescent in a man’s body—behind the tweet.
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-New York) today repeated an old smear of LTC Anthony Vindman, to wit: that Vindman circumvented his chain of command when raising concerns about Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Plus, Zeldin charged, Vindman told the whistleblower about the call and then lied to Congress when asked whether he knows the whistleblower. These charges are, first and foremost, a complete diversion from the sum and substance of the impeachment hearings.
The impeachment hearings focused on whether President Trump tried to get a foreign government (Ukraine’s) to investigate a domestic political rival, Joe Biden, while using Congressionally-authorized aid as leverage to secure such an investigation.
The impeachment hearings proved conclusively that this was, in fact, the case, and Republican members of Congress know that that’s the case. So, rather than contest these basic facts, or objective reality, they have homed in on completely irrelevant side issues to try and divert attention away from Trump’s obvious culpability and wrongdoing.
Thus Zeldin’s charges against Vindman.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) leveled these same charges while adding a new one, to wit: that Vindman raised concerns about the phone call because he objected to Trump’s foreign policy vis-a-vis Ukraine.
Again, given the importance of U.S. civil-military relations and how poorly understood these relations are, even within the U.S. military, it is important to review these charges and explain why they are completely false.
First, did Vindman circumvent the chain of command? Zeldin and Blackburn note that Tony Morrison was Vindman’s supervisor. Yet, Vindman did not first notify Morrison before contacting National Security Council (NSC) lawyers to express concerns that he (Vindman) had about Trump’s phone call with Zelensky.
Therefore, viola! Vindman circumvented his chain of command and was insubordinate.
Not so fast. While the chain of command is clear, explicit, and unambiguous in a war zone, it is typically more porous and flexible in a politicized and bureaucratic work environment.
A squad of Marines under fire in Fallujah, for instance, need to know—to the man—who, exactly, they are accountable to. Staff officers working on the National Security Council in Washington, D.C., by contrast, typically have many masters and more complex, multifaceted work relationships.
While Tony Morrison may have been Vindman’s immediate supervisor, he no doubt was one of many people Vindman worked directly for and with. Plus: the military sometimes gives U.S. servicemen and women explicit authorization to bypass their chain of command on matters involving sensitive personal or legal matters.
For example, if a member of the U.S. military is sexually assaulted, they are told explicitly that they can reach out to a myriad of people, and not just their immediate supervisor in the chain of command.
Given the sensitive nature of the president’s phone call, and the myriad political, legal, and policy issues that it raised, it is entirely reasonably to think that Vindman believed he had authority to reach out directly to NSC lawyers with his concerns.
Morrison, moreover, was a career Capitol Hill politico and Trump political appointee who seemed more concerned about protecting the president than in adhering to the rule of law and preventing presidential wrongdoing.
Morrison had been on the NSC for more than a year, but had been Vindman’s supervisor for only six days at the time of the phone call. Vindman no doubt understood that his new boss was a domestic political hack and Trump apologist. He therefore might reasonably have concluded that he needed to reach out to the NSC lawyers directly and without interference from Morrison.
This is not insubordination; it is prudence and wisdom—and that is something the U.S. military expects of its leaders and officers. Indeed, we expect our military men and women to exercise sound and prudential judgement, and not to be automatons who mindlessly follow orders and slavishly follow their immediate supervisors no matter what.
So no: Vindman did not circumvent the chain of command, and he was not insubordinate. He was thoughtful, prudential, and tactical in what he did and how he did it. The U.S. military at least respects that.
Second, did Vindman tell the whistleblower about Trump’s call, and then lie to Congress when asked whether he knows the whistleblower?
Zeldin and other Trump apologists note that Vindman, upon advice of his counsel, refused to identify the intelligence community official with whom he discussed the call. And, when asked to name that person, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) quickly interjected and instructed Vindman not to answer that question if doing so might reveal the identity of the whistleblower.
Therefore, they conclude, Vindman must know the whistleblower; otherwise, why would he not answer the question?
Again, not so fast. Here’s what most likely happened and why it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Vindman truthfully told Congress he does not know the whistleblower:
Vindman discussed the call with the person now known to the House Intelligence Committee as the whistleblower. However, Vindman did not then know, nor was he subsequently told, that that person is the whistleblower. After all, it’s not as if the whistleblower wears a neon sign around his neck identifying himself as “The Whistleblower.”
Instead, the whistleblower sought and received anonymity as the law allows, and did not draw attention to himself.
Thus it is entirely reasonable to believe that when Vindman spoke with the whistleblower, he knew him only as a colleague and not as “The Whistleblower.” And it is entirely reasonable to believe that Vindman never asked that colleague whether he is the whistleblower.
Knowing who the whistleblower is, after all, would not help Vindman; it would hurt him, as the charges leveled by Zeldin and Blackburn show—though if he had to hazard a guess as to who the whistleblower is, Vindman probably would guess right.
Still, the reality is: Vindman does not know the whistleblower, because the whistleblower no doubt never identified himself as such to Vindman. So no, Vindman did not lie to Congress. He answered honestly and forthrightly, as the law demands.
Third, did Vindman raise concerns about Trump’s call because, as Blackburn alleges, he had a policy dispute with the president? No, of course not. We debunked this canard in a separate article about the smearing of Vindman:
Obviously the president (and Congress) decide U.S. foreign policy. No one—including Vindman—disputes that. That’s never been at issue.
Indeed, Vindman did not raise concerns about Trump’s phone call because he disagreed with Trump’s policy, or the policy of the U.S. government vis-a-vis Ukraine. To the contrary: he was an enthusiastic supporter and executor of that policy.
Instead, he raised concerns because it appeared to him that Trump was demanding that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent (Joe Biden), and because he believed that such a demand would undermine stated and long-standing U.S. foreign policy.
Unfortunately, it takes some time and effort to explain all this and to defend the honor and integrity of LTC Vindman. Yet, it takes almost no time at all for Trump, Zeldin, Blackburn and other agents of disinformation to smear the man. But at least because of the impeachment hearings, all of us can know the truth.
Feature photo credit: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via the Washington Post.
Trump and his National Security Adviser, Robert O’Brien, dug an even deeper hole for themselves today by continuing to focus public attention on the president’s quest for revenge over impeachment, and by continuing to defame the good name of one Alexander Vindman, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army.
[He] did a lot of bad things. So we sent him [Vindman] on his way to a much different location, and the military can handle him any way they want. Gen. Milley has him now. I congratulate Gen. Milley. He can have him, and his brother also…”
When asked whether Vindman should face disciplinary action, Trump said: “That’s going to be up to the military; we’ll have to see. But if you look at what happened, they’re going to, certainly, I would imagine, take a look at that.”
This led to a flurry of news headlines like this one in Politico: “Trump says military may consider disciplinary action against Vindman.”
Later in the day, in a Q&A before the Atlantic Council, O’Brien chimed in with this gem: “We’re not a banana republic where lieutenant colonels get together and decide what the policy is.”
Margaret Brennan, the host of CBS News’ Face the Nation, then reportedly challenged O’Brien. Is that what you think happened? she asked. O’Brien said no, he was just making the point that that’s not how U.S. policy is made, tweeted Ali Rogin, a reporter with the PBS News Hour.
In other words, O’Brien first smeared Vindman, then says he doesn’t believe the smear. He’s just making the point that people who defend Vindman have a distorted or warped understanding of how public policy is made in the United States.
They (we) think that “a group of lieutenant colonels” (or other National Security Council bureaucrats) get to override the commander-in-chief and make public policy. But that’s not how it’s done. The United States, after all, is not a “banana republic.”
False Talking Point. This has become a favorite talking point of Trump apologists Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham: the notion that Vindman and other NSC staffers (“bureaucrats”) tried to superimpose their will over that of the president.
As these apologists tell it, the real wrong was not Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, but rather the effort by Vindman and other bureaucrats to falsely malign Trump simply because they did not like his policy, which they viewed as straying from their prepared talking points. But the president gets to make policy, not the bureaucrats! cry Hannity and Ingraham.
Nice try, but no cigar. Obviously the president (and Congress) decide U.S. foreign policy. No one—including Vindman—disputes that. That’s never been at issue.
Indeed, Vindman did not raise concerns about Trump’s phone call because he disagreed with Trump’s policy, or the policy of the U.S. government vis-a-vis Ukraine. To the contrary: he was an enthusiastic supporter and executor of that policy.
Instead, he raised concerns because it appeared to him that Trump was demanding that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent (Joe Biden), and because he believed that such a demand would undermine stated and long-standing U.S. foreign policy.
Vindman had a solemn obligation, both as a U.S. citizen and as a U.S. military officer, to raise those concerns with his chain of command, which he did. Yet, in typical Trumpian fashion, O’Brien nonetheless smears Vindman with an utterly false charge.
Banana Republic. O’Brien is, however, absolutely right about America not being a banana republic. This means that the president, even Trump, does not have dictatorial power. He is restrained (or at least should be restrained) by the Constitution, Congress, and the rule of law. Yet, O’Brien and other Trump lackeys seem not to fully appreciate this.
As for disciplinary action against Vindman because he testified before Congress after being subpoenaed, it won’t happen. The U.S. military is far more professional than the president.
The Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, have stated publicly that Vindman will be protected from retribution “or anything like that.” “We protect all of our people [and have] already addressed that in policy and [through] other means,” Esper said.
In fact, to anyone who knows anything about the U.S. military, the notion that Vindman would suffer retribution is ludicrous. Senior military leaders fully recognize and appreciate the political perils and landmines that accompany service on the National Security Council.
They also recognize and appreciate that Trump is, to put it mildly, a completely unique and unusual president. Thus Vindman’s service will not be held against him. To the contrary: it will be recognized for what it was: exceptional, especially considering how politicized national security decision-making had become under pressure from Trump and Rudy Giuliani.
But what does this sordid incident say about the Commander-in-Chief when he suggests that a U.S. military officer should be punished for testifying, truthfully and dispassionately, before Congress?
What does it say about his understanding of the men and women whom he’s entrusted to lead? What does it say about his understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law? And what does it portend for our future as a free and self-governing people?
In twotweets Saturday, President Trump charged Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman with “insubordination,” “leaking information,” and “bad judgment.”
He further charged Vindman with failing to adhere to the chain of command and mischaracterizing the contents of his [Trump’s] “prefect” call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.
These charges are demonstrably false and say far more about Trump and his bad political judgment than they do anything about Vindman. However, because so much about U.S. civil-military relations is poorly understood, even within the U.S. military, it is worth explaining in some detail why these are charges are utterly groundless.
Origins. The charges arose last fall during the impeachment hearings. Tony Morrison, a Trump political appointee and Republican politico from Capitol Hill, had been brought onto the National Security Council (NSC) and served briefly as Vindman’s supervisor. He testified that he had concerns about Vindman’s “judgment.”
But Fiona Hill a professional Russian and foreign policy expert, who was Vindman’s supervisor before Morrison and for a much longer period of time than Morrison, clarified that their concern over Vindman’s “judgment” was specifically a concern about his domestic political judgment, and not a general concern about Vindman’s judgement as a Russian and Ukraine foreign policy professional serving on the National Security Council.
[Lieutenant] Colonel Vindman is a highly distinguished [and] decorated military officer. He came over to us from the chairman’s office in the Joint Chiefs of Staff…
I did not feel that he had the political antennae to deal with something that was straying into domestic politics. Not everyone is suited for that. That does not mean in any way that I was questioning his overall judgment. Nor was I questioning in any way his substantive expertise.
He is excellent on issues related to Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, on Russian defense issues. He’d been in charge of the Russian campaign, thinking though at the Chairman’s office and in the Pentagon.
This was a very specific issue: because by June, we saw that things were diverging, and you needed a completely different sensitivity…
Mr. Morrison had come from Capitol Hill. He knew politics inside and out; and we said that Colonel Vindman did not. And we were concerned about how he would manage what was becoming a highly charged and potentially partisan issue, which it had not been before.
In other words, Vindman was doing a superb job, but seemed unwilling to compromise his integrity and his work product to meet the political demands of Trump and Rudy Giuliani, who were determined to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and Burisma.
That’s at least how I interpret this concern over “judgment” in light of the impeachment hearings, Hill’s testimony, and everything we now know. Indeed, during his Congressional testimony Vindman read from his military fitness report signed by Hill:
Alex is a top 1% military officer and the best army officer I have worked with in my 15 years of government service. He is brilliant, unflappable, and exercises excellent judgment… He was exemplary during numerous visits…
So much for the concern over Vindman’s “judgment”—which, in any case, is a bureaucratic weasel word designed to deprecate high-achievers who refuse to stay in their bureaucratic box. As the Air Force puts it, “if you’re not catching flak, you’re not over the target.”
If Vindman wasn’t causing consternation among bureaucrats and partisan political operatives like Morrison, then he wouldn’t have been doing his job.
‘Leaking.’ As for the charge that Vindman leaked classified information, there has been absolutely no evidence whatsoever put forth to support this smear; and Vindman directly and specifically denied the charge in sworn Congressional testimony, calling it “preposterous… I never did [that and I] never would,” he said.
It is true that Vindman reported to the NSC’s top lawyer that he had concerns about Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman was concerned because, as he explained in his testimony:
It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent…
It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued investigations into the 2016 elections, the Bidens and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermining U.S. national security and advancing Russia’ strategic objectives in the region.
As a result of voicing his concern through official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command, Vindman was later subpoenaed by Congress. He did not expect this nor did he seek it, but it happened. And when U.S. military officers are called before Congress, they have a solemn obligation to come forth and tell the truth.
Pace Trump, that is not “leaking”; it is “testifying,” and it is the right and honorable thing to do.
‘Insubordination.’ And there is nothing “insubordinate” about testifying before Congress. U.S. military officers do not take an oath to the Commander-in-Chief. They take an oath to the Constitution of the United States. Their obligation is to the rule of law, not to the dictates or demands of any one man, even the president.
Nor did Vindman mischaracterize Trump’s “perfect” call with Zelensky. Quite the opposite: everything we’ve learned about the call—from the transcript itself and from a myriad of apolitical and nonpartisan witnesses—confirms that it is what Vindman said it was: inappropriate, and that’s putting it mildly.
Unfortunately, facts have never stopped Trump from deliberately lying and smearing those he perceives to be his enemies.
Still, it is important that we all realize: far from exercising “bad judgment,” Vindman instead exercised superior judgment: by sharing his concerns about Trump’s call with his chain of command and testifying truthfully and dispassionately before Congress. And, far from being “insubordinate,” Vindman instead was loyal to the country and the citizenry whom he serves.
Good on him and Godspeed.
Feature photo credit: Barcroft (via Getty Images) and Alamy Live News via the Daily Mail.
