Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Former NSC member Mullen: Steve Bannon doesn't belong on the National Security Council
Former NSC member Mullen: Steve Bannon doesn't belong on the National Security CouncilThat's the title of the article at Politico. They're referring to this oped in the NYT:
I Was on the National Security Council. Bannon Doesn’t Belong There.
By MICHAEL G. MULLEN FEB. 6, 2017
....
The security council was formed in 1947 to serve a unique role in our government. It facilitates and coordinates, providing a forum through which federal agencies discuss and debate policy and, ultimately, provide counsel to the president about how best to keep the American people safe. At N.S.C. meetings, representatives from the State Department, the Pentagon, the Treasury Department, the intelligence community and other agencies speak freely and critically about the full breadth of options available to the United States. Those discussions can get heated at times. They can certainly get territorial. But they seldom get political — nor should they.
Mr. Bush understood this, as did his successor. As has been widely reported, Mr. Bush barred Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, from council meetings. And while I remember David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s political adviser, attending meetings early in that administration, he did not vote or otherwise engage in the discussion.
Having Mr. Bannon as a voting member of the principals committee will have a negative influence on what is supposed to be candid, nonpartisan deliberation. I fear that it will have a chilling effect on deliberations and, potentially, diminish the authority and the prerogatives to which Senate-confirmed cabinet officials are entitled. They, unlike Mr. Bannon, are accountable for the advice they give and the policies they execute.
Consistent though Mr. Bannon’s presence may be with the predilections of our new president, it results in a blurring of presidential responsibilities — Republican Party leader and commander in chief — that is unhealthy for the republic.
....
Michael G. Mullen, a retired United States Navy admiral, was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 to 2011.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
By MICHAEL G. MULLEN FEB. 6, 2017
....
The security council was formed in 1947 to serve a unique role in our government. It facilitates and coordinates, providing a forum through which federal agencies discuss and debate policy and, ultimately, provide counsel to the president about how best to keep the American people safe. At N.S.C. meetings, representatives from the State Department, the Pentagon, the Treasury Department, the intelligence community and other agencies speak freely and critically about the full breadth of options available to the United States. Those discussions can get heated at times. They can certainly get territorial. But they seldom get political — nor should they.
Mr. Bush understood this, as did his successor. As has been widely reported, Mr. Bush barred Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, from council meetings. And while I remember David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s political adviser, attending meetings early in that administration, he did not vote or otherwise engage in the discussion.
Having Mr. Bannon as a voting member of the principals committee will have a negative influence on what is supposed to be candid, nonpartisan deliberation. I fear that it will have a chilling effect on deliberations and, potentially, diminish the authority and the prerogatives to which Senate-confirmed cabinet officials are entitled. They, unlike Mr. Bannon, are accountable for the advice they give and the policies they execute.
Consistent though Mr. Bannon’s presence may be with the predilections of our new president, it results in a blurring of presidential responsibilities — Republican Party leader and commander in chief — that is unhealthy for the republic.
....
Michael G. Mullen, a retired United States Navy admiral, was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 to 2011.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
