There is nothing unusual about sharing intelligence, even sensitive intelligence. The United States does regular intelligence sharing with the English-speaking countries, and the United States and UK are particularly generous in the process of sharing. The CIA shares intelligence with key NATO, and conducts semi-annual meetings to share intelligence with Israel and Egypt. But it is most unusual for the president of the United States to take the lead role in sharing intelligence.
It is extremely unlikely that the president, particularly the current occupant of the White House, would have an in-depth understanding of the sources and methods involved in a particular piece of intelligence. National security adviser H.R. McMaster even acknowledged that President Trump was never briefed on the sources and methods for the shared information or even understood the sensitivity of the report. This alone is an indictment of the president’s national security staff and particularly the National Security Council, which failed to bring the president up-to-speed regarding sensitive details. Twenty-four hours after we learned about Trump’s unusual exchange with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, McMaster had still not discussed the matter with Tom Bossert, the president’s advisor on intelligence matters that concern homeland security, who took it upon himself to warn the CIA and the NSA about the obvious breach.
Recent News and Latest Book
More Bloat For Bloated Defense Spending
The justification for additional defense spending is reminiscent of traditional Cold War justifications. The Senate’s defense authorization act even empowers the Pentagon to establish a “strategic competition initiative” for the U.S. African Command, which would lead to an expanded U.S. military presence in Africa. The United States has already trained leaders of coups in Mali and Guinea, and provided aid to repressive regimes in Uganda and Niger. The Pentagon can’t even provide an accurate inventory of the military equipment it has provided to African countries.
American Exceptionalism: Our Gun Culture at Home and Abroad
There is an insidious and unspoken connection between our gun culture at home and abroad. U.S. politicians and pundits believe that huge defense budgets provide international security for the United States, and many Americans believe that personal weapons provide safety at home. We don’t question the use of deadly weaponry in unnecessary wars overseas; Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are the most recent examples. At home, there are more guns than people — 120 guns for every 100 people. The United States is exceptional because some of the same weapons designed for war are available to teenagers fighting their personal demons.