04-12-2018, 08:32 PM
Another national security official departs Trump administration as John Bolton cleans house
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/12/john-bolton-pushes-out-deputy-national-security-advisor-rick-waddell.html
Waddell is the latest in a growing wave of departures from national security agencies as Bolton becomes a top aide to Trump.
On Wednesday, the White House confirmed that Nadia Schadlow, a strategy advisor who worked under McMaster, is resigning and will leave her position at the end of the month.
The day before, Trump administration officials said that homeland security advisor Tom Bossert would be stepping down. "The President is grateful for Tom's commitment to the safety and security of our great country," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.
And on Sunday, a spokesman for the national security council, Michael Anton, announced that he will be leaving the White House.
.................................................................................................................................................
Bossert was recognized as extremely competent, a guy who could get things done.
I knew if I just published the above, some would say "So what, there is always changeover at the NSC," or "Obama changed personnel too," or "Of course Bolton would bring in his own people."
So to provide context, I add the following links.
First, to Obama's Presidential Directive of Feb. 13, 2009. https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/ppd/ppd-1.pdf
Typically, a president's first directive is to get the NSC up and running. Obama's lays out the four levels of leadership and responsibilities, with variations for Homeland Security Issues, Economic issues, and Science and technology issues at every level. The lowest level, the Interagency Policy Committees, working up the papers, viewpoints and options to be vetted at the next. And so on. During Obama's presidency some personnel did change--He started with James Jones as NSA, went to Tom Donilon, ended with Susan Rice. But the structural stability and functioning remained surprisingly stable. When individuals left, there was notice and new people were "worked in" and "brought up to speed" rather than thrown in with a week or two (or less) to prepare. There were complaints about Obama's NSC suffered by every one since Ike--charges of unwieldiness or too much policy direction from lower staff.
Now an excerpt from one of the early assessments of Trump's NSC.
How to Read Trump’s National Security Council Reboot
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/how-to-read-trumps-national-security-council-reboot-214709
Another notable change is the addition of the Homeland Security Council to Trump’s order in language that treats it as equal to the NSC. The significance of this is not entirely clear. President George W. Bush created a separate HSC staff in 2001, but Obama merged the two staffs early in his presidency, and Trump’s order continues “a single NSC staff within the Executive Office of the President that serves both the NSC and HSC.” In form, the order makes national security adviser Flynn and homeland security adviser Tom Bossert equal in their management authority, though Flynn is likely to predominate in practice due to his broader jurisdiction.
Most important as a signal of current and future policy making is the naming of the controversial Steve Bannon, President Trump’s chief strategist, as a regular attendee at both the NSC and its Principals Committee. He is, by all reports, close to the president and an active force in the decisions and actions of Trump’s first week. Setting aside his past role as chairman of Breitbart News, the far-right website, Bannon’s official inclusion is troubling for another reason: He could, over time, challenge the role of national security adviser Flynn, if he is not doing so already. Past presidents, including Bush, were keen to avoid the appearance of political aides influencing national security,
The above passage alludes to both a structural unclarity (a flaw, actually) and the inclusion of the unqualified and extremely political Bannon. The structural unclarity, was, like the Muslim ban, a result of working up an organizational chart without input from experienced stakeholders. The original NSC plan, unlike Obama's, is no longer to be found on the internet. We are on NSC plan #4 now, and I have not been able to find it anywhere.
Barely three months later after the NSC is formed, comes the first big shake up.
With Bannon Out, Here’s Trump’s New National Security Council
http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2017/04/bannon-out-heres-trumps-new-national-security-council/136805/
With Steve Bannon out and some new faces added, the principals committee of the US National Security Council (NSC) suddenly looks a bit different than it did during president Donald Trump’s first month in office.
It’s still unclear what prompted the removal of Bannon, exactly. But the new structure offers reassurance to those concerned that Bannon represented too political a voice on the committee, and restores some of the Washington conventions that Trump previously neglected—like making room on the committee for the director of national intelligence.
Trump’s original NSC memorandum, issued Jan. 28, specified nine sitting members of its principals committee, including Bannon. Other officials would be invited to attend “where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed”—including the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
In the new makeup, both the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs are on the principals committee, along with three other additions—the US secretary of energy, the US representative to the United Nations, and the director of the CIA.
This is before Kushner is cut out, and others with no security clearance.
Anyway, let's come full circle to my first link above, which describes the "housecleaning" following Bolton.
It is hard to understand how the NSC can function, with all that has gone on during the first year. Instability at the first two levels--the Council itself and the Principals Committee--has to mean confusion at the lower levels, where policy options are analyzed and prepared for decision. The shifts in upper level personnel mean stalled projects, unclear responsibilities, and no clear guidance at lower levels.
And remember Bolton is the adviser now. That means some shocks ahead, likely people resigning at lower levels.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/12/john-bolton-pushes-out-deputy-national-security-advisor-rick-waddell.html
Waddell is the latest in a growing wave of departures from national security agencies as Bolton becomes a top aide to Trump.
On Wednesday, the White House confirmed that Nadia Schadlow, a strategy advisor who worked under McMaster, is resigning and will leave her position at the end of the month.
The day before, Trump administration officials said that homeland security advisor Tom Bossert would be stepping down. "The President is grateful for Tom's commitment to the safety and security of our great country," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.
And on Sunday, a spokesman for the national security council, Michael Anton, announced that he will be leaving the White House.
.................................................................................................................................................
Bossert was recognized as extremely competent, a guy who could get things done.
I knew if I just published the above, some would say "So what, there is always changeover at the NSC," or "Obama changed personnel too," or "Of course Bolton would bring in his own people."
So to provide context, I add the following links.
First, to Obama's Presidential Directive of Feb. 13, 2009. https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/ppd/ppd-1.pdf
Typically, a president's first directive is to get the NSC up and running. Obama's lays out the four levels of leadership and responsibilities, with variations for Homeland Security Issues, Economic issues, and Science and technology issues at every level. The lowest level, the Interagency Policy Committees, working up the papers, viewpoints and options to be vetted at the next. And so on. During Obama's presidency some personnel did change--He started with James Jones as NSA, went to Tom Donilon, ended with Susan Rice. But the structural stability and functioning remained surprisingly stable. When individuals left, there was notice and new people were "worked in" and "brought up to speed" rather than thrown in with a week or two (or less) to prepare. There were complaints about Obama's NSC suffered by every one since Ike--charges of unwieldiness or too much policy direction from lower staff.
Now an excerpt from one of the early assessments of Trump's NSC.
How to Read Trump’s National Security Council Reboot
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/how-to-read-trumps-national-security-council-reboot-214709
Another notable change is the addition of the Homeland Security Council to Trump’s order in language that treats it as equal to the NSC. The significance of this is not entirely clear. President George W. Bush created a separate HSC staff in 2001, but Obama merged the two staffs early in his presidency, and Trump’s order continues “a single NSC staff within the Executive Office of the President that serves both the NSC and HSC.” In form, the order makes national security adviser Flynn and homeland security adviser Tom Bossert equal in their management authority, though Flynn is likely to predominate in practice due to his broader jurisdiction.
Most important as a signal of current and future policy making is the naming of the controversial Steve Bannon, President Trump’s chief strategist, as a regular attendee at both the NSC and its Principals Committee. He is, by all reports, close to the president and an active force in the decisions and actions of Trump’s first week. Setting aside his past role as chairman of Breitbart News, the far-right website, Bannon’s official inclusion is troubling for another reason: He could, over time, challenge the role of national security adviser Flynn, if he is not doing so already. Past presidents, including Bush, were keen to avoid the appearance of political aides influencing national security,
The above passage alludes to both a structural unclarity (a flaw, actually) and the inclusion of the unqualified and extremely political Bannon. The structural unclarity, was, like the Muslim ban, a result of working up an organizational chart without input from experienced stakeholders. The original NSC plan, unlike Obama's, is no longer to be found on the internet. We are on NSC plan #4 now, and I have not been able to find it anywhere.
Barely three months later after the NSC is formed, comes the first big shake up.
With Bannon Out, Here’s Trump’s New National Security Council
http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2017/04/bannon-out-heres-trumps-new-national-security-council/136805/
With Steve Bannon out and some new faces added, the principals committee of the US National Security Council (NSC) suddenly looks a bit different than it did during president Donald Trump’s first month in office.
It’s still unclear what prompted the removal of Bannon, exactly. But the new structure offers reassurance to those concerned that Bannon represented too political a voice on the committee, and restores some of the Washington conventions that Trump previously neglected—like making room on the committee for the director of national intelligence.
Trump’s original NSC memorandum, issued Jan. 28, specified nine sitting members of its principals committee, including Bannon. Other officials would be invited to attend “where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed”—including the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
In the new makeup, both the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs are on the principals committee, along with three other additions—the US secretary of energy, the US representative to the United Nations, and the director of the CIA.
This is before Kushner is cut out, and others with no security clearance.
Anyway, let's come full circle to my first link above, which describes the "housecleaning" following Bolton.
It is hard to understand how the NSC can function, with all that has gone on during the first year. Instability at the first two levels--the Council itself and the Principals Committee--has to mean confusion at the lower levels, where policy options are analyzed and prepared for decision. The shifts in upper level personnel mean stalled projects, unclear responsibilities, and no clear guidance at lower levels.
And remember Bolton is the adviser now. That means some shocks ahead, likely people resigning at lower levels.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
