The resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has left some commentators who had placed great hope in President Trump in deep dismay. It is true that he was one of the architects of the incoming administration’s new foreign policy. But who would have thought that it would be easy to regain control of a foreign policy that had been firmly entrenched for some 30 years? The incoming team’s first agenda was to reorganize the National Security Council. More concretely, it is now up to the President or the Vice-President to decide whether the presence of the Chief of the Army Staff and the Director of National Intelligence is required on the Security Council. This means, among other things, that the CIA, an independent agency that is nevertheless headed by the DRN in this circumstance, may now be bypassed by the CSN.
Of course, the control of intelligence is crucial since it is these services that set the record in this matter, whether it is false or true. And we are well aware of the deceit and lies that the American services have been propogating for the past few years, as well as the pro-Clinton bias of the CIA during the presidential campaign.
The response of the intelligence services was not long in coming, as much to defend their autonomy of decision as to thwart the policy of appeasement with Russia desired by the new administration. This means that it will be impossible to initiate a new foreign policy until the various intelligence services have regained firm control. It would be absurd to purge all services completely, otherwise they would no longer be able to function. But, as with any major change in a country’s policy, it is usually enough to control the key positions for the rest of the civil servants – stewardship to use a Gaullist term – to follow. Not all civil servants in the Nazi, Soviet, Fascist, Francoist, Vichist, etc. administrations were fully fired once these regimes fell and they continued to form the backbone of the new administrations.
This does not mean, therefore, that it is impossible. And obviously, Donald Trump and his entourage seem to want to get down to business since they would like to appoint Stephen Feinberg to audit the said intelligence services.
It is a bitter struggle for those within those services, and even outside them, who refuse to accept Trump’s foreign policy reorientation. Their line of attack will be aimed at this policy of détente. Whether on the ground, by seeking to intensify the fighting in Ukraine or Syria, or by attacking Donald Trump on his supposed links with Russia with the aim of impeaching him. The mainstream media will not be outdone in throwing oil on the fire. It is therefore not abnormal for the new presidency to exercise the utmost caution and incidentally to avoid being dragged into the fall of Michael Flynn by accepting his resignation. Hence the need, too, to gradually regain control of the U.S. federal civil servants, in order to be able to place scapegoats at lower levels.
It would be a good idea to choose the neutrality of a Glenn Greenwald and to declare, in chorus with the mainstream media, that Donald Trump appreciated whistle-blowers when he was in opposition but much less so now. This journalistic neutrality is quite honorable. But there is one difference that should not be overlooked: Snowden and Manning did so by betraying their service (NSA) and thus took the risk of having all the coercive power of these services on their backs. Those of today do so from within the protection of these services themselves.
It is in the difficulty that the character of each person is revealed. It seems to me premature to abandon any hope of a change in American foreign policy before Donald Trump has stopped barking or even trying to bite. In the end, no one but himself can say whether he is capable of doing so.
COMMENTAIRES EN GOGUETTE 