FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Trump vs. the CIA

The unanimous rejection of the Trump administration’s efforts to reinstate the ban on travel from seven Muslim countries will lead to the first test between this White House and the intelligence community, particularly the CIA.  The three-judge panel indicated that the travel ban did not bolster national security in the United States and that there was “no evidence” that anyone from the seven countries had committed terrorism in the United States.  Former intelligence tsar James Clapper has stated that there is no intelligence to justify such a ban. However, the appeals court acknowledged that the president was owed deference on immigration and national security issues, which will compel the White House to tailor intelligence to document a threat.

The ban itself stemmed from an outrageous campaign promise by Donald Trump to place a “complete and total shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”  Rudy Giuliani was told to “put a commission together.  Show me the right way to do it legally.”  In other words, Giuliani was tasked with making the ban politically palatable, and now the Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions will have to document a case that is acceptable to the full 9th Circuit Court in Seattle or perhaps the Supreme Court. Intelligence information will be front and center.

Donald Trump’s actions have already pointed to an effort to politicize the key institutions of the national security community, so it is likely that the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency will be pressed to provide a rationale for a travel ban based on intelligence reporting.  When President Ronald Reagan wanted to increase defense spending in the 1980s, CIA director William Casey and deputy director for intelligence Robert Gates tailored the intelligence to create a Soviet threat at the very time that the Kremlin was in free fall.  When President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney wanted to make the case for war against Iraq, CIA director George Tenet and deputy director John McLaughlin made the phony case for weapons of mass destruction.

Tenet told the president in December 2002 that it would be a “slam dunk” to provide the intelligence to justify war, and McLaughlin in January 2003 delivered the “slam dunk” briefing.  Nevertheless, in his memoir, Tenet stated that the “intelligence process was not disingenuous nor was it influenced by politics.”  Paul Pillar, who orchestrated the specious White Paper for the Congress on the eve of the vote to authorize force against Iraq, falsely claimed several years later that the “intelligence community’s own substantive judgments do not appear to have been compromised.”  Meanwhile, no senior CIA official resigned or even protested in the wake of the misuse of intelligence.

The atmosphere for politicization has already been created.  Trump’s initial visits to CIA headquarters and to the Pentagon were outrageous examples of politicization, using the occasions to congratulate high-ranking intelligence and military officers for their support in the presidential election and to condemn the media. The appointment of former representative Mike Pompeo, a severe critic of the CIA, pointed to the possibility of spinning the intelligence message for the White House.  His only predecessors from Capitol Hill, Tenet and Porter Goss, certainly did so.  And the venture to the Pentagon to sign the Muslim ban was an obvious effort to humiliate Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who was opposed to such policies in his confirmation testimony.  It was totally gratuitous to sign the executive order on the Muslim ban at the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, Trump has surrounded himself with neoconservatives and ideologues who are preoccupied with branding Islam as an ideology that breeds terrorism.  In order to get the benefit of the doubt from the judiciary, the Trump administration will need to make a case that links the Islamic world to international terrorism.  There are too many examples of the misuse of intelligence information to justify extreme political actions and even the use of force itself.  In addition to the Iraq War, the Mexican-American War; the Spanish-American War; and the Vietnam War involved the spinning of intelligence to justify force.  The Defense Intelligence Agency had a long history of exaggerating the Soviet threat throughout the Cold War; tailoring intelligence on Iraq that even the CIA refused to sanction; and currently has been investigated for exaggerating the so-called successes of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the final analysis, the only protection against politicization is the integrity and honesty of the intelligence analysts themselves.  The appointment of reliable political actors as the director of national intelligence (former senator Dan Coats) and the director of the CIA (former representative Pompeo) as well as the appointment of general officers to assignments that should be in the hands of civilians (national security adviser, secretary of defense, secretary of homeland security) provides no assurance of genuine safeguards against politicization.  A neophyte at the Department of State (Rex Tillerson) only adds to the concern.

In view of the difficult issues that the Trump administration is facing in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya—involving the use of force—as well as the possible future use of force in Iran, it seems particularly outrageous for the White House to create a false security challenge over the role of immigration in U.S. security policy.  The fact that Iran is our de facto ally against the Islamic State in Iraq is entirely lost on the Islamophobes in Trump’s inner circle. The actions of the administration are particularly unconscionable in view of the deplorable conditions that refugees are facing throughout the Middle East.  Sadly, “never again” has become “once again.”

More articles by:

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent book is “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing), and he is the author of the forthcoming “The Dangerous National Security State” (2020).” Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
November 13, 2019
Vijay Prashad
After Evo, the Lithium Question Looms Large in Bolivia
Charles Pierson
How Not to End a Forever War
Kenneth Surin
“We’ll See You on the Barricades”: Bojo Johnson’s Poundshop Churchill Imitation
Nick Alexandrov
Murder Like It’s 1495: U.S.-Backed Counterinsurgency in the Philippines
George Ochenski
Montana’s Radioactive Waste Legacy
Brian Terrell
A Doubtful Proposition: a Reflection on the Trial of the Kings Bay Plowshares 7
Nick Pemberton
Assange, Zuckerberg and Free Speech
James Bovard
The “Officer Friendly” Police Fantasy
Dean Baker
The Logic of Medical Co-Payments
Jeff Mackler
Chicago Teachers Divided Over Strike Settlement
Binoy Kampmark
The ISC Report: Russian Connections in Albion?
Norman Solomon
Biden and Bloomberg Want Uncle Sam to Defer to Uncle Scrooge
Jesse Jackson
Risking Lives in Endless Wars is Morally Wrong and a Strategic Failure
Manuel García, Jr.
Criminalated Warmongers
November 12, 2019
Nino Pagliccia
Bolivia and Venezuela: Two Countries, But Same Hybrid War
Patrick Cockburn
How Iran-Backed Forces Are Taking Over Iraq
Jonathan Cook
Israel is Silencing the Last Voices Trying to Stop Abuses Against Palestinians
Jim Kavanagh
Trump’s Syrian See-Saw: From Pullout to Pillage
Susan Babbitt
Fidel, Three Years Later
Dean Baker
A Bold Plan to Strengthen and Improve Social Security is What America Needs
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Trump’s Crime Against Humanity
Victor Grossman
The Wall and General Pyrrhus
Yoko Liriano
De Facto Martial Law in the Philippines
Ana Paula Vargas – Vijay Prashad
Lula is Free: Can Socialism Be Restored?
Thomas Knapp
Explainer: No, House Democrats Aren’t Violating Trump’s Rights
Wim Laven
Serve With Honor, Honor Those Who Serve; or Support Trump?
Colin Todhunter
Agrarian Crisis and Malnutrition: GM Agriculture Is Not the Answer
Binoy Kampmark
Walls in the Head: “Ostalgia” and the Berlin Wall Three Decades Later
Akio Tanaka
Response to Pete Dolack Articles on WBAI and Pacifica
Nyla Ali Khan
Bigotry and Ideology in India and Kashmir: the Legacy of the Babri Masjid Mosque
Yves Engler
Canada Backs Coup Against Bolivia’s President
November 11, 2019
Aaron Goings, Brian Barnes, and Roger Snider
Class War Violence: Centralia 1919
Steve Early - Suzanne Gordon
“Other Than Honorable?” Veterans With “Bad Paper” Seek Long Overdue Benefits
Peter Linebaugh
The Worm in the Apple
Joseph Natoli
In the Looming Shadow of Civil War
Robert Fisk
How the Syrian Democratic Forces Were Suddenly Transformed into “Kurdish Forces”
Patrick Cockburn
David Cameron and the Decline of British Leadership
Naomi Oreskes
The Greatest Scam in History: How the Energy Companies Took Us All
Fred Gardner
Most Iraq and Afghanistan Vets now Regret the Mission
Howard Lisnoff
The Dubious Case of Washing Machines and Student Performance
Nino Pagliccia
The Secret of Cuba’s Success: International Solidarity
Binoy Kampmark
Corporate Mammon: Amazon and the Seattle Council Elections
Kim C. Domenico
To Overthrow Radical Evil, Part II: A Grandmother’s Proposal
Marc Levy
Veterans’ Day: Four Poems
Weekend Edition
November 08, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
The Real Constitutional Crisis: The Constitution
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail