A week after Donald Trump asked Mike Flynn to resign from his post as national security advisor, the president has announced another Army general, H.R. McMaster, as Flynn’s replacement. If there are any worthwhile objections to McMaster’s appointment among the broad national security, military, and political realms, I have yet to read them. The universal admiration for Trump’s pick is reminiscent of his selection of Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court vacancy—something conservatives, moderates, and even a few liberals are happy about.
McMaster’s military service and leadership are well known and well regarded in national security circles. His 1998 book Derelicition of Duty about the mismanagement of the Vietnam War at the top of the command chain was a popular read among commanders in Iraq. McMaster was one of those commanders, leading the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment to take back the northern Iraq town of Tal Afar from al Qaeda in 2005. He was instrumental in developing the surge strategy with David Petraeus. McMaster is also perceived as fairly hawkish on Russia, which contrasts him greatly with Flynn and the president himself.
Worth a read is this 2014 interview of McMaster with the Columbus, Georgia, Ledger-Enquirer when the officer was stationed at Fort Benning. The interview gives a window into how McMaster may approach his job advising President Trump. “If you think about influence, what you basically can do to influence your organization is to give people the freedom to take initiative because they will always exceed your expectations,” he told the paper.
Will McMaster Shake Up the NSC?
As the president prepared to leave Mar-a-Lago for Washington Monday afternoon, deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told the press pooler that Trump “gave full authority for McMaster to hire whatever staff he sees fit.” What will this mean for the still new staff at the National Security Council?
The thinking among some in the White House is that if anyone will be asked to leave, it’s deputy national security advisor K.T. McFarland. McFarland worked well with Flynn, say sources, but McMaster could decide he’d prefer to have his own deputy. On the other hand, in an office that’s seen a lot of turmoil in just a few weeks, there’s an argument that continuity, not more disruption, would serve the national security council.
More Russia Questions
Over the weekend, the New York Times had an explosive story that alleged a “back-channel plan” for softening U.S.-Russia relations. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, reportedly delivered the policy proposal, hatched by a Russian-American businessman and a shady Ukrainian politician, to the White House about two weeks ago. The Times article suggested a suspect channel for shifty business interests to shape foreign policy in the Trump White House. But wait—the Washington Post‘s own story on the matter says Cohen claims his meeting with Felix Sater (a Trump business associate who’s had past run-ins with the Mob) and Andrii V. Artemenko (the Ukrainian lawmaker with support from Russian president Vladimir Putin) to discuss the plan “lasted less than 15 minutes.”
“[Cohen] said he received the proposal and took it with him from the hotel meeting out of politeness but never relayed its contents to anyone in the administration,” wrote the Post. “He said he attended the meeting as a courtesy to Sater, a former business colleague”
So was the policy proposal delivered to the White House, or wasn’t it? The Times has stood by its story that Cohen “hand-delivered” the document to now-former national security advisor Mike Flynn at the White House sometime around February 6. According to one source in the White House, however, Cohen claims to have thrown away the proposal before visiting the White House. But both the White House and Cohen have not been much more forthright with information.
“No one in the White House—including the President, Vice President and senior members of the NSC—has spoken to Mr. Cohen about any Russia-Ukraine peace proposal, and no one has spoken to Andrii Artemenko at all about any matter,” a senior White House official told me. “In addition, the NSC keeps comprehensive records of documents received, and we have no record of receiving any proposal from Mr. Cohen. This is another absurd, misleading attempt to distract from the real reform taking place under President Trump.”
Cohen was just as dismissive in an email. “If this continued fake news narrative wasn’t so ridiculous, I would be angered. Despite the multitude of statements issued denying any nexis between Presidents Trump and Putin, the mainstream media just keeps on trying to perpetuate this lie,” he said. “I acknowledge that the brief meeting took place, but emphatically deny discussing this topic or delivering any documents to the White House and/or General Flynn.”
Cohen added that he has told the Times as much.
When did Cohen visit the White House in early February, and who did he meet with? Neither the White House nor Cohen will say, and the White House visitor log webpage is “being updated.” Cohen would also not confirm what he did with the plan he received from Sater and Artemenko.
CPAC Update: Trump In, Milo Out
A brief update to controversy over the Conservative Political Action Conference. Alt-right provocateur and Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos will no longer be speaking at this week’s conference. The American Conservative Union, which organizes CPAC, rescinded Yiannopoulos’s invitation after outrage from conservatives and others over the 33-year-old’s past statements defending pederasty.
Vice President Mike Pence was among the many conservative political figures who had been scheduled to speak at this year’s CPAC. Hours before Yiannopoulos was pulled from the schedule, organizers announced President Trump would also be addressing the conference.
Song of the Day
“What a Fool Believes,” the Doobie Brothers.
