From the Washington Examiner, a conservative Republican leaning news outlet
Don't misunderstand me here. Brennan has wrongly brought partisan rancor onto the CIA's reputation by commenting so ardently against the president. As a career intelligence officer, Brennan should know more than anyone that the intelligence business requires nonpartisan credibility to function effectively. Still, the question of whether Brennan should retain his security clearance should ultimately be measured on whether that clearance serves the national interest. And as it pertains to Brennan, that measure is met.
First off, Brennan is a former CIA director of recent service. In that role, Brennan held responsibility for leading the nation's primary intelligence service in collection and assessment activities against high-priority threats. That gives Brennan the joined expertise and experience to guide current policymakers and their staffs on a wide range of concerns. These concerns include an increasingly expansionist China, a Russian government determined to degrade Western security, a North Korea that is building a nuclear strike capability against the U.S., an Iran wracked by political instability and threatening attacks on America, and a wide range of non-state actor threats from the likes of the Islamic State, drug cartels, organized crime syndicates, and weapons smugglers.
Brennan also brings specific expertise to areas that are increasingly important to U.S. interests in the 21st century. Take Saudi Arabia, for example. As an Arab-specialist and a former station chief in Riyadh, Brennan has useful insights into crown prince Mohammed bin Salman and could guide policy makers on how to handle the young, enigmatic crown prince. That matters greatly for U.S. national interests.
Moreover, even if Brennan currently had no advisory value to the Trump administration, it is impossible to know what future developments might demand Brennan's attention.
Consider, for example, if a CIA covert action program that began under Brennan's leadership develops in a manner that is unexpected or destabilizing for U.S. interests. What if a top CIA source in the Kremlin or Tehran provided complex but profoundly important information back to Washington? In these not-implausible scenarios, the Trump administration would have to make critical decisions very quickly and without all the information they might otherwise have. Brennan's ability to offer analysis or advice in such a scenario would be very important. But without a security clearance that would have allowed him to stay up-to-date with the issue in question, Brennan's ability to provide the best possible advice would be inherently limited.
However, there's more at stake here than the national security concerns in the moment. Principle is also at stake. Announcing Brennan's suspended clearance on Wednesday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders also noted that the president is considering suspending the clearances of other officials. One name she mentioned: retired four star Air Force officer and former CIA and NSA director Mike Hayden, who was appointed by George W. Bush and led the NSA/CIA efforts to gut al Qaeda. While Hayden has criticized Trump, he has done so relatively mildly. Regardless, if Hayden can lose his clearance, then anyone can.
That's a deliberate message.
It shows that Trump is using his power to silence political criticism from the intelligence community. And while he has the lawful right to do it, it is an immoral subordination of the exigent national interest to his ego.
- Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner
My take; Let's reiterate this: "to his ego"
You have to cringe when thinking of the many minions that submit to this guy.
No comments :
Post a Comment