Julian Borger, The Guadian: Trump Summons Entire Senate to White House Briefing
Senators are to be briefed by the defence secretary, James Mattis, and Tillerson on Wednesday. Such briefings for the entire senate are not unprecedented but it is very rare for them to take place in the White House, which does not have large secure facilities for such classified sessions as Congress.
Officials said the briefing would take place in the auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which can be adapted for such an event.
Boy-oh do the questions roll out.
Why just the Senate? What does Trump see as their role in his North Korea policy and actions?
The symbolism of being commanded to come to the President’s support is all over McConnell’s and Trump’s maneuver here. But we should have expected that, right?
One carrier group in the area and not completely positioned yet is less than most analysts think required to actually conduct military action. So, this has the air of a relaxed pitch for support, right? Except for the strange venue.
The state department appeared unaware on Monday that Tillerson would be delivering the briefing.
Mattis will also be briefing the Senators.
Other questions:
Can this auditorium be fitted out as situation room for Senators to watch a fait accompli?
We know Trump’s preference for show-and-tell setting the framework of discussions. The Chinese leader enjoyed his Mar a Lago meal while 59 cruise missiles created an object lesson (drama, drama) for him to talk to North Korea.
Why the long section of atta-boys to Xi Jinping in Borger’s article?
In recent days Haley and other US officials have underlined China’s helpfulness in seeking to increase pressure on the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un.
“Working with China for the first time — they have really been our partner in trying to make sure that we hold him at bay, and I think it’s a new day when you’ve got China and the United States working together on a statement to condemn North Korea,” Haley said.
“They put pressure on him. He feels it. That’s why he’s responding this way. And I think it is a different day.”
My guess is that this “briefing” will be huge media bait tomorrow, distracting from whether the government will be shut down shortly.
>>The symbolism of being commanded to come to the President’s support is all over McConnell’s and Trump’s maneuver here.
that’s the clearest part of this. And it will work too. They’ve noticed that the best way to get congressional Democrats and the whole national media behind their bad policy is to be warlike. He’ll tell them to get in line because national security and the entire Democratic caucus except maybe Sanders will follow like the predictable sheep they are.
>> Why the long section of atta-boys to Xi Jinping in Borger’s article?
the obvious answer if we were talking about any other administration would be that they understood that no action against NK could possibly succeed without Chinese backing. Unless you define success as merely shooting missiles at something and damn the consequences, the way they did with the Syria raid. But for this group, to make concessions to reality would be completely against who they are.
Too new for the most perceptive observers to weigh in; so, all I’m seeing is standard DC and perplexed journo speak.
Not a bad tactic to avoid having the “first hundred days” dominate the media. OTOH — serving up a nothingburger has a shelf life of about 36 hours.
Symbolically the message to the House GOP is that you’re nothing but a bunch of flunkies; so, no need for the WH to include you in a super secret briefing.
Having experienced his first high from sending US missiles, he will be looking for more. And the Mattis/Tillerson duo will aid and abet it, in part because they lack the rudimentary knowledge and skill that had kept us out of a Korean shooting war for over sixty years.
OTOH, if Trump made a deal with Xi, all that remains undetermined is the price N. and S. Korea will pay and how much Xi got paid.
It’s quite possible that this secretly blessed by China. My question is, “What did Trump have to give Xi to get his cooperation?”
From Chosun, South Korean media:
China’s Shift on N.Korea Brings Big Risks and Opportunities
It quotes the Chinese Global Times as saying that for China military intervention would be unnecessary if the US chooses to launch a surgical strike that takes out North Korea’s nuclear weapons facilities.
What did Trump promise in return indeed is a big question now.
those facilities are deep underground.
I am not ignorant of that possibility.
In fact, I think that’s why Trump still keeps a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the table. (And for the the boy-fun of a bigly explosion.)
We are depending on the sanity of those who have to carry out the orders on this matter. Trump made his Commander of Pacific Command take the rap for the confusion about where the Carl Vinson was when it was Trump’s own tweet that gave the media the run of “battle group on the way”. That couldn’t have left a good taste in that commander’s mouth although he saluted and fell on his sword. Would he obey a stupid order?
Our military has never been tested with this level on nonsense from the commander-in-chief.
“Our military has never been tested with this level on nonsense from the commander-in-chief.”
Pentagon has plenty of experience from multiple incidents from their own generals and secretaries of defense in past decades. “Patriotism” and insanity are companions when the war spirits are whipped up by dogma of our enemy, whether communist, Deutsch, Japanese, Viet Cong, ayatollah, Muslim or Red all over again. The false flag attack is easily construed and managed. When an ally is not with us, our Senate of “wise” men goes to great length to redefine french fries as “freedom” fries. Infantile comes to mind in competition from more “leaders” than just the commander in chief.
My gut feeling tells me the U.S. foreign and military matters are not led by the White House for many years now, but rather by the Pentagon, DIA, war hawks in U.S. Congress and supported by USIP and right-wing think tanks. For Europe it’s Brussels bureaucrats with NATO, IMF and the World Bank who determine the course of history. Corporations and globalization ia the fuel for global inequality andf the destruction of the middle class in the western nations converted to neoliberal economics.
It is interesting how political analysis no longer has enough basis in established (how did we used to do that) facts that it is gut feelings that get prior claim. One of the effects of extreme secrecy and ideologically polarized politics.
A lot of the leadership is self-selection. Democratic progrssives have tended to go to Congressional committees associate with domestic agendas, where they can have more direct impact on their districts or states. That leaves the foreign policy and armed services committtees for the war hawks. The civil service and uniformed military that deal with foreign policy and national security are self-selected careerist, screened for “out of step” ideas.
That wasn’t a Senate “wise” man; it was Democrat turned Republican Congressman from North Carolina, Walter Jones, who later turned against endless war as his base voters (several military installations in eastern North Carolina) changed their opinions about endless war. He now admits that he was not “wise” and got a little too carried away in catapulting the propaganda for the Iraq War.
The difference it that in principle when the commander-in-chief orders the military to do something at a certain place and a certain time, those orders will likely be carried out even if there are those who do not agree with that action. And then the political strategizing occurs to shape the next Presidential command.
My question has to do with an extreme and risky order that most even neo-cons would see as incomplete and potentially catastrophic.
Our military truly has never been tested on an order that would be self-destructive of American power on a massive scale, The Iraq War came close. Chronic Afghanistan is borderline. But in neither place has the US been decisively kicked out with the theatrics of the fall of Saigon. The establishment decided that that was a “never again” resolution of a war. So there is more focus on what no to do getting out than there is on what not to do to get in in the first place.
Finally there has been zero discussion of who should pay for these wars.
Good piece today from Katrina Vanden Heuvel, noting the utter lack of strong skeptical Dem voices on FP that I’ve complained about for months: “Where is the Elizabeth Warren of Foreign Policy?”
Or the Bernie Sanders of FP for that matter.
Instead, by my count the Dems have one lone voice, that of Rep Tulsi Gabbard, who’s courageous enough to speak out against the increasingly erratic and dangerous FP of Trump, at least on Syria.
The war party seems to be feeling its oats again, now that they’ve brought Donald to heel. A curious piece today at the NBC website reminding us how to be prepared should a nuclear attack occur.
It’s getting to feel a lot like 1962 again. I’d better start making preparations for building that backyard fallout shelter. This time, instead of having a steady hand at the ship of state, we have an insecure, immature nut who’s apparently inclined to want to prove to the grownups how tough he is.