Trump removes JCS and DNI from National Security Council

Please read the actual order:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...mNMqUjKfDio-og6I4bTvhw&bvm=bv.146094739,d.amc

CJCS and ODNI have not been removed. They are not required to attend all Principals Committee (PC) meetings. Per the order, "The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed." Stop the Hysteria.
 
Umm, no hysteria here. That said, discussions during meetings have a way of morphing into subjects or issues not on the published agenda. The DNI and CJCS will not know for sure whether there were discussions at the PC meetings that pertained to their responsibilities and expertise, unless they participate in the PC meetings. Just sayin'.

I suppose if the Trump administration would like to consult with someone other than the DNI and CJCS, it could consult with Frederick Douglass.
 
Superior rocks said:
Umm, no hysteria here. That said, discussions during meetings have a way of morphing into subjects or issues not on the published agenda. The DNI and CJCS will not know for sure whether there were discussions at the PC meetings that pertained to their responsibilities and expertise, unless they participate in the PC meetings. Just sayin'.

I suppose if the Trump administration would like to consult with someone other than the DNI and CJCS, it could consult with Frederick Douglass.
Click to expand...
Again, they were not removed from the PC and can attend any meeting they want, but are required to attend meetings that pertain to their areas of responsibility. Articles like this just distract from the truth. If military parents should be concerned about this, why not concerned during previous adminstrations that had fewer vets in top positions? Were you concerned when only one of four Defense Secretaries (DOD, Army, Navy, AF) had military experience under Obama? Only 2-3 vets in his cabinet? Of course not, it just just selective outrage. And yes, it is hysteria from left. Their tears haven't stopped flowing since November.

P.s. were you this snarky when Pres. Obama said there were 57 states?
 
KP2020Dad said:
Were you concerned when only one of four Defense Secretaries (DOD, Army, Navy, AF) had military experience under Obama? Only 2-3 vets in his cabinet? Of course not, it just just selective outrage.
Click to expand...

Well first, don't assume what people think by simply answering your own question with "Of course not" Personally I would have liked every SECDEF to have had military experience, but that's not always the best either. Having a SECDEF and branch Secretaries that served a one obligation stint in the military hardly makes them qualified for such a position, and not every retired General or Admiral is cut out for the job either. The President's cabinet is large and diverse in nature, I'm not really sure that being a Vet should be a litmus test for most of them. I'm not sure outrage is the right word.

KP2020Dad said:
P.s. were you this snarky when Pres. Obama said there were 57 states?
Click to expand...

Yep, as well as many other things. You can include Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and so on to that list, but then again I don't live exclusively on the Left or the Right. Just to be honest, over the past 5 presidential elections I have voted almost equally for both Democrat and Republican candidates. Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing.

I can learn to live with the CJCS and the ODNI not being permanent members of the NSC, what I can't support is the White House Chief Policy Strategist (Bannon) being made a voting principle member that will have the ability to shape National Security Policy. Put this together with his role in the recent travel restrictions and honestly, it's beginning to make Trump look like a puppet. It's one thing to have that perception in this country but when that perception begins to spread around the world, it becomes a much larger issue.
 
Last edited:
Jcleppe said:
Well first, don't assume what people think by simply answering your own question with "Of course not" Personally I would have liked every SECDEF to have had military experience, but that's not always the best either. Having a SECDEF and branch Secretaries that served a one obligation stint in the military hardly makes them qualified for such a position, and not every retired General or Admiral is cut out for the job either. The President's cabinet is large and diverse in nature, I'm not really sure that being a Vet should be a litmus test for most of them. I'm not sure outrage is the right word.



Yep, as well as many other things. You can include Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and so on to that list, but then again I don't live exclusively on the Left or the Right. Just to be honest, over the past 5 presidential elections I have voted almost equally for both Democrat and Republican candidates. Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing.
Click to expand...
The original post included, "Any of you with children in uniform should be horrified right now, I'm sad to say." That implied that by not having ODNI or CJCS at all NSC meetings, it would be dangerous for our military. My point is, why should it be any different than past administrations? Even if CJCS were not at the PC meetings, by having Mattis, Kelly, and Flynn at the meetings, there would be more military exerpience than past adminstrations. Was Susan Rice, Condi Rice, Sandy Berger more qualified than Gen. Flynn? The ODNI position has only served on the NSC since W. created the positon. How did we ever survive? Lastly, yes..."Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing" but misinformed scare tactics is unnessessary. In my opinion, our military men and women are in a better position with Gen. Mattis at the helm.
 
KP2020Dad said:
How did we ever survive?
Click to expand...

I think that's the point, we didn't survive all that well. Prior to the establishment of the ODNI our intel agencies worked on their own private islands, the sharing of intel was sparse at best. The fact that the different agencies rarely talked or coordinated their intel made for a lack of seeing the big picture. Years ago our enemies were well defined, as time went by that definition became very blurred and the sharing and coordination of intel became more important and more dangerous when it didn't happen. The system wasn't working in this new threat environment, 9/11 proved that to be true. The ODNI was created to coordinate the intel from all agencies, created a little to late as far as I'm concerned. This administration made noise at the start as to eliminating the ODNI, instead at this point they have reduced it's position on the NSC. I can understand why this makes people nervous.
 
Jcleppe said:
I think that's the point, we didn't survive all that well. Prior to the establishment of the ODNI our intel agencies worked on their own private islands, the sharing of intel was sparse at best. The fact that the different agencies rarely talked or coordinated their intel made for a lack of seeing the big picture. Years ago our enemies were well defined, as time went by that definition became very blurred and the sharing and coordination of intel became more important and more dangerous when it didn't happen. The system wasn't working in this new threat environment, 9/11 proved that to be true. The ODNI was created to coordinate the intel from all agencies, created a little to late as far as I'm concerned. This administration made noise at the start as to eliminating the ODNI, instead at this point they have reduced it's position on the NSC. I can understand why this makes people nervous.
Click to expand...
I've been in the IC for 28 years, some of this is partially true. The agencies worked on "islands" because it was law. We were sevrely limited in what we could share between agencies. The establishment of ODNI hasn't had the effect it was suppose to have on intel sharing. In theory, ODNI would be great for the IC, but it's not. I would be more concerned about not having CJCS in all of the meetings. (If this administration didn't have 3 other generals on the staff.)
 
Jcleppe said:
The jury is still out on Flynn, his closet is not devoid of skeletons.

You get no argument from me on Mattis.
Click to expand...
You're right about Flynn. He is a mixed bag of reviews and I would be concerned if he were the only senior military leader in the adminstration offering advice in the absence of CJCS. He's not. Kelly and Mattis will be there and can offer the same type of advice as any CJCS. POTUS says and does a lot of "questionable" (I'm trying to be nice) things. One thing he's done right is have Kelly, Mattis, and even Flynn in top positions. As a retired vet and the parent of possibly another (DS just said he's thinking of going AD), I feel better about having this cabinet (with its generals and vets).
 
KP2020Dad said:
Please read the actual order:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=19&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjE7MfUnP7RAhUEsVQKHYcWBcQ4ChAWCEgwCA&url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and&usg=AFQjCNGXjgOqmNMqUjKfDio-og6I4bTvhw&bvm=bv.146094739,d.amc

CJCS and ODNI have not been removed. They are not required to attend all Principals Committee (PC) meetings. Per the order, "The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed." Stop the Hysteria.
Click to expand...

Please read the entire thread. Already discussed. Stop the knee-jerk reaction.
 
KP2020Dad said:
You're right about Flynn. He is a mixed bag of reviews and I would be concerned if he were the only senior military leader in the adminstration offering advice in the absence of CJCS. He's not. Kelly and Mattis will be there and can offer the same type of advice as any CJCS. POTUS says and does a lot of "questionable" (I'm trying to be nice) things. One thing he's done right is have Kelly, Mattis, and even Flynn in top positions. As a retired vet and the parent of possibly another (DS just said he's thinking of going AD), I feel better about having this cabinet (with its generals and vets).
Click to expand...

The SecDef does not have the same role nor is he equipped to offer the same advice as the CJCS. That's why they are distinct positions.

Flynn is an embarrassment.

What does being a retired vet have to do with the argument?
 
scoutpilot said:
The SecDef does not have the same role nor is he equipped to offer the same advice as the CJCS. That's why they are distinct positions.

Flynn is an embarrassment.

What does being a retired vet have to do with the argument?
Click to expand...
Is your question about retired vet about the 3 generals or me? If you are talking about the 3 generals, here you go: the original thread had to do with CJCS and ODNI not being "full time" on the NSC and I argued that having the military experience in the cabinet should ease some fears. If you are talking about me, than I am only talking about my opinion. I feel more comfortable with more veteran representation in this cabinet than previous cabinets. When POTUS and his administration make military decisions, I feel better having those that have served being in advisory roles. As for "Flynn being and embarrassment," have you ever served with/for him? I have and many that I know have. It's still a mixed bag of opinions, but he is more qualified than Susan Rice. Were you critical of her appointment?
 
KP2020Dad said:
It's still a mixed bag of opinions, but he is more qualified than Susan Rice. Were you critical of her appointment?
Click to expand...

The old "OH YEAH WELL YOUR TEAM" argument. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of Susan Rice. She's gone. That's pure deflection.

Veterans are a vast group and are certainly no replacement for the duty-bound leaders who can now be excluded from the process. As I and others mentioned, the real issue is Bannon.
 
KP2020Dad said:
P.s. were you this snarky when Pres. Obama said there were 57 states?
Click to expand...

I don't remember it, but I'm sure and I hope someone was snarky about it. I remember Will Farrell and Bush 43. Dan Akroyd and Jimmy Carter. Chevy Chase and Gerald Ford. David Frye and Richard Nixon.

What I remember most clearly is Bush 41, during the 1988 Presidential campaign remembering Sept 7 as Pearl Harbor Day, to a flabbergasted American Legion convention no less. For the next four years President Bush was caricatured by Dana Carvey most Saturday nights as an out of touch stiff who could only speak in clipped phrases. That caricature was carried straight into the voting booth in 1992. Bushes reaction? He invited Carvey to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom and attend the White House Christmas Party...after he lost the election.

In comparing Bush's, Obama's and Trump's Social Studies gaffes, we all knew that Bush knew the date of Pearl Harbor and Obama knew there are 50 states. We don't know if Trump knows the difference between Fredrick Douglass and Buster Douglas.

I don't know what balance of grace, humility and self-confidence is in President Trump's foundation. Right about now that foundation looks like a three-legged stool with two legs missing.
 
KP2020Dad said:
As for "Flynn being and embarrassment," have you ever served with/for him? I have and many that I know have.
Click to expand...

KP2020Dad said:
You're right about Flynn. He is a mixed bag of reviews and I would be concerned if he were the only senior military leader in the adminstration offering advice in the absence of CJCS.
Click to expand...

You worked with Lt. Gen. Flynn and this is your endorsement? And it's okay because Gen. Kelly and Gen. Mattis are in the cabinet. Flynn has an office in the White House and has proven to be POTUS' closest advisor on Nat'l Sec matters. He explains complicated issues to the President, like what's the difference between Al Qaeda and the Quds force. Or what's the difference between a Sunni and a Shia Muslim. Or why we can't bomb the $h!+ out of ISIS. Or why we can't "take their oil fields".

Bannon, the main theme of this thread, has been covered by enough retired US flag officers, intelligence chiefs, Senior Republicans and right leaning media, that any further discussion is a waste of time. Referring to the inevitable pushback as "left wing hysteria" is hardly the discernment I'd expect from a 28 year IC veteran.
 
It's my understanding that the CJCS & the DNI will be invited to NSC meetings where their input is needed. I assume that will be about 95% + or so. Therefore, could the their status in reality be semantics; something that sounds dramatic but in reality, the status quo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top