Month: January 2020

The hysteria over whether or not President Trump and his National Security Advisor, John Bolton may or may not have had a conversation about withholding weapons shipments to the Ukraine in return for an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities, has the hatemongers, mainstream media, democrats in general and the House impeachment managers (Shift and Nadler) absolutely apoplectic.    

The relevant question is, if the conversation between Bolton and Trump did take place is that a crime?  After all, isn’t the ongoing impeachment trial about whether or not President Trump committed a crime? Let’s cut to the bottom line, whether or not that conversation ever took place is, in fact, absolutely irrelevant and immaterial.

Let me illustrate the issues of conversations and plans with what may have been an actual foreign policy occurrence in the Trump White House.  September, 2017 the North Korean Foreign Minister, Ro Yong-ho, in an address before the United Nations, stated, “A North Korean missile strike against the US mainland is inevitable.”  What should the president have done about it, nothing?  Doing nothing would have been irresponsible simply because the president is constitutionally responsible for US foreign policy and, by extension, national security.

Here is what may have happened; at least we should all hope it did.  There would be an emergency meeting of the National Security Council principals, most notably the Secretaries of State and Defense and the National Security Advisor.  Following that meeting they would huddle with the president and there would likely be a press release something like this:

“The National Security Council met today to discuss the reckless assertion by the North Korean Foreign Minister that a strike on the US is inevitable.  The Security Council spokesperson said that in considering a response to such a strike, everything is on the table.”

We have all learned over the years that “everything-is-on-the-table” is Washington speak for, the-entire-spectrum-of-options.  In this case on one end of the spectrum would be a nuclear strike, on the other end do nothing and courses of action in between. 

That is called contingency planning.  Contingency planning is simply the answer to the question, what if?  What if North Korea does make a preemptive strike on the US?  What every prudent leader does in such a case is to cause the options to be put into an actual set of contingency plans.  Why is that the responsible thing to do?  Because if North Korea does strike, we do not want to be caught flat-footed staring at a blank sheet of paper. 

In this scenario, the planning could even include prepositioning special weapons and delivery systems somewhere in the western Pacific region.

Contingency planning, that is what responsible leaders do. Just to finish this thought, let’s say that the conversations the president had in the Oval Office with Secretaries of State and Defense got leaked and the New York Times headline the following day is, US PLANS NUCLEAR STRIKE ON NORTH KOREA.  While the statement is technically correct, it is also completely out of context and extremely damaging to foreign relations.

In the current Washington environment, that type of headline is certainly not beyond the realm of possibilities.  The Trump haters, the mainstream media’s hate mongers, democrats and particularly the democrats in the House of Representative would all be in concert citing abuse of power by the president.  That is not an overstatement, because what is going on right now in the Senate is a perfect case in point. 

What the president talks about with his closest advisors in the Oval Office is not a crime nor is it abuse of power. 

Back to John Bolton.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that President Trump said to Bolton, “Hold up on the shipment of aid to Ukraine until I get an agreement that they will investigate Joe and Hunter Biden”.  Did the president actually hold the shipment until he got a commitment for an investigation?  Absolutely not.  Did he actually link the shipment and the investigation issues together in a conversation with Ukraine President Zalinski? Absolutely not.  Saying and doing are two entirely different actions.  Is saying it in the Oval Office a crime?  Of course not. 

What in the hell is this impeachment all about?  Where is the crime? Whatever the president and John Bolton talked about (the operative word is “talked”) is irrelevant, immaterial and every lawyer and reasonably-minded adult in the Senate chamber should know that. 

We should not forget to put the Ukraine situation in perspective.  Russia invaded Ukraine; Ukrainians were fighting for their lives and ask the US for help.  Obama sent $1 billion worth of MREs, other soft goods and VP Biden.  Ukraine is the most corrupt nation in Europe.  President Trump is actively working to curb the annual flow of tens of billions of dollars in “aid” to corrupt nations around the world.  Before sending nearly $400 million in additional aid to Ukraine it would be reasonable to assume that he had serious discussions with his senior advisors about Ukraine’s corruption. 

Bottom line, highly classified, sensitive, conversations do take place and must take place every day if the president is to properly do his job.  Labeling leaked conversations we do not agree with as abuse of power is absurd.

The larger issue:  What will future administrations be like if the President is fearful of having sensitive conversations with senior subordinates?  What will the state of our future national security be if we are fearful of performing necessary, detailed, highly classified contingency planning?  For those who see that outcome as acceptable, you can thank Nancy Pelosi.

 Where is the intellectual honesty in the Bolton hysteria in particular and in the overall impeachment monstrosity? 

Marv Covault, Lt Gen, US Army, retired

The US Constitution is arguably the most important, remarkable, document ever written. Those assembled to write it were brilliant visionaries.  Was it perfect, no; that’s why there are 27 amendments. 

The words in the Constitution were carefully chosen during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, May through September, 1787; presided over by George Washington.  But words, in and of themselves, cannot always convey precisely what the framers of the Constitution intended during their four months of deliberation.

For example, during the ensuing 230-plus years, the Supreme Court has frequently been called upon to render their interpretation of the framers’ intent.

Additionally, precedent has been a powerful factor in determining how the three branches of government operate.  While performing a significant action, if generally accepted, the government thereby sets an example (precedent) for how similar actions should be performed in the future.   This is also called establishing “norms”. 

Adhering to the words in the Constitution, judiciously determining intent and establishing precedent has served this nation well for over 200 years and the US Constitution remains the world’s greatest operational document.

Recently Nancy Pelosi has spoken out about the impeachment of President Trump as follows: 

“The House, she said, was about to cross a very important threshold in American history.”

She followed with, “When someone is impeached, they are always impeached. It cannot be erased.”

I agree 100% with those statements.  I also agree with her pronouncement last spring: “… Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country…….”.  Compelling? Overwhelming? Bipartisan? 

If one studies the literature associated with the Constitutional Convention, there was great discussion and debate as to how to word the impeachment clause so as to avoid a purely partisan act to take down a president.  The intent was clearly for the House of Representatives to identify, “…. Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” 

Pelosi cannot fall back on the expressed words or intent or precedent associated with the Constitution to back up her reckless actions. She has changed the course of this country, perhaps forever. 

How can I make that assertion?  Impeachment has now been redefined as something more akin to a no-confidence vote in the British Parliament and may well be used in the future by a House of Representative that is simply in disagreement with an opposing party president.

To illustrate, by the current standards of impeachment, once President Obama lost the House in 2011, he could have been impeached for Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power for the Fast and Furious scandal and for invoking “executive privilege” to justify administration officials’ refusal to testify to Congress.

Also, using a list compiled by the brilliant writer, Victor Davis Hanson, the new impeachment standard would have included:

• Political corruption at the IRS towards conservative groups during the Obama reelection bid.
•  The lies and obstruction about the Benghazi disaster.
• The hot-mic quid pro quo promise Obama made to Russian President Medvedev that resulted in the dismantlement of Eastern Europe missile defense in exchange for Putin’s good behavior to the benefit of Obama’s reelection campaign.
• The abuse of executive orders to nullify federal immigration law.
• The failure to consult Congress on the prisoner swap with the Taliban.
• The lying under oath to Congress by both the CIA director and the Director of National Intelligence.
• Secret monitoring of the communications of Associated Press reporters and Fox’s James Rosen, along with former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson.
• The deliberate nullification of the constitutional treaty-making prerogative of the Senate during the Iran deal, whose secret accords were never disclosed to the American people.
• The warping of the CIA, DOJ, FBI, and National Security Council respectively, in their unethical and often illegal efforts to mislead the FISA courts, surveil the Trump campaign, unmask and leak the names of U.S. citizens whose communications were tapped, and disrupt a presidential transition.

Before the Pelosi-led impeachment of President Trump, none of these offenses would have been impeachable. Now they all are and everything like them in the future will also be fair game.

The deep-seated and frenetic nature of the culture of hate that has consumed the democrats since the 2016 election of Donald Trump has blinded them to the unimaginable ramifications of taking down a president simply because they detest him.

And to think that by closing her eyes to the words of the Constitution, the intent of the framers and 200 years of precedent, one person alone, Speaker Pelosi, was, while guided by hate and ambition, able to completely orchestrate the impeachment.  And as she said, “It cannot be erased.”

Marv Covault

On January 3^rd we woke up to breaking news that the US had killed Gen Soleimani.  He commanded Iran’s most elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guards Quds Force and was in charge of virtually all Iran-sponsored foreign military terrorist operations, particularly in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq.

Retired U.S. General David Petraeus, who commanded American forces during the war in Iraq, once called Soleimani “our most significant and evil adversary in the greater Middle East.” 

The US has been engaged in a world war on terrorism since 9/11, 2001.  General Soleimani is the most senior terrorist leader in the world and therefore a valid target.

One’s initial reaction to the news of his death might simply be, oh my, now there will be a revenge attack on the US mainland and/or against military or civilians stationed overseas.  While that may be true, a simple knee-jerk reaction hardly explains the larger issue and justification for taking him out at this point in time.

To put the Soleimani incident in perspective, it may be helpful to go back in time and review Middle East policy in general and Iran in particular since 9/11 2001. 

President Bush’s policy/strategy in the Middle East post-9/11:  After building a justification for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration’s strategy evolved into one of nation building.  That is, if we can successfully establish two valid and enduring democracies, Iraq to a greater extent and Afghanistan to a lesser extent, they could be the catalyst to transform the Middle East.

Unfortunately, we discovered after trillions of dollars and many American lives, that the Middle East is not up to the task.  They are so deeply entrenched in authoritarian rule that they cannot conceive the concept of freedom as we know it. 

September 27, 2013:President Barack Obama calls Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, marking the highest-level contact between the U.S. and Iran since 1979.

What evolved from that was a strategy towards Iran of, for lack of a better word, appeasement.  That is, you be nice to us and we will be nice to you.  It was essentially a reset of US policy in the Middle East.  It was also blind to the Iranian goal of dominance in the Middle East.

What followed was two years of hard work by Obama, Biden and Secretary State Kerry at the negotiating table with Iran.  The Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was sealed July 2015. Part of the deal was to offer Tehran billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for agreeing to curb its nuclear program. The agreement was aimed at ensuring that “Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful.”

Meanwhile, throughout the two years of negotiations, on any given Friday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be viewed repeating his weekly message, “death to Americana and destruction of Israel”.

During negotiations, Obama/Biden/Kerry gave observers the impression that they would do anything to consummate the agreement.  When completed many believed it was not worth the paper it was written on and in fact it gave Iran the green light to continue their drive toward Middle East domination and development of nuclear weapons and long-range delivery missiles. 

Additionally, during the negotiations, President Obama orchestrated the return of $1.7 billion to Iran. During January 2016 an aircraft carrying $400 million cash in various currencies landed in Tehran. That money purportedly was partial payment of an outstanding claim by Iran for U.S. military equipment that was never delivered. Soon after, $1.3 billion followed.

To put this cash payment in context, Iran is the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism.  Since 9/11 one of the most important actions against terrorism has been to shut down their ability to use the services of international banking.  Cash has become the life-blood of terrorism.  There is a lot of American and innocent civilian blood on that cash.  A failed Obama strategy of appeasement. 

May 2018, President Trump pulled out of the nuclear agreement with Iran and since has strangled them with economic sanctions.  Interestingly, since the pullout, Iran admitted to advances in its nuclear weapon development. 

The Trump foreign policy/Middle East Strategy can be summed up as follows: “America First”; we will rebuild our economy and our military while imposing harshest possible economic sanctions against those who wish to do us harm.  We will avoid getting involved in large land wars around the world.  But, be advised, if you strike us, we will strike back and you will not like the results. 

On New Year’s Eve, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization in Iraq, attacked the US Embassy in Bagdad.  Dozens of terrorists breaching the compound, did so in support of Kataeb Hezbollah, which the State Department has designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani had led Iran foreign policy towards the US through an 18-month lead-up to the US Embassy attack.  Following the Iranian rocket attack on Saudi oil fields and the shooting down of a US drone over international waters, the Trump administration demonstrated unusual restraint.  However, President Trump did issue a “red line in the sand” warning to Iran. 

Soleimani flew into Bagdad to become personally involved with the Kataeb Hezbollah terrorist operations, thereby crossing the red line and presented himself as a perfect target of opportunity.

The Trump doctrine does not seek a land war with Iran.  But three loud-and-clear messages have been sent to the Iranian leadership.  One, when we identify a “red line” we mean do not cross it.  The second is an implied message that the next air strike could take out your entire oil refining capability which is your last and only source of revenue.  Finally, the take-down of Soleimani says it all; we know where you are and you might be next. 

Marv Covault