The Washington Independent » john brennan

White House to Hold Last-Minute Af-Pak Meeting Tonight

Spencer Ackerman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:08:43 +0000

Chances are President Obama will announce a readjusted Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy shortly after the Thanksgiving holiday. It’s very likely that strategy announcement will come paired with an announcement of a troop escalation. Before that happens, however, Obama will host one last all-hands-on-deck meeting with his national security team. Just added to the White House calendar is this parley, scheduled for 8 p.m. tonight, with the following attendees:

Vice President Biden

Secretary of State Clinton

Secretary of Defense Gates

Ambassador Susan Rice, Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations

Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General James E. Cartwright, USMC, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

General David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command

General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Anne Patterson, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan (via videoconference)

General James Jones, National Security Advisor

Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor

John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security

Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, Special Assistant to the President for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Earlier in the day, Obama will meet separately and privately with Biden and Clinton. Interesting omission in light of questions about how much the increase will cost: Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The Pentagon’s Own Fort Hood Probe

Spencer Ackerman — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:18:05 +0000

The major investigation of the Fort Hood shooting is a joint law-enforcement effort led by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division and supported by the FBI. That investigation will contribute to Nidal Malik Hasan’s ultimate prosecution in military court. There’s also an intelligence investigation that’s being kicked up to John Brennan at the White House. Now, reports The Wall Street Journal’s Yochi Dreazen, there’s going to be an internal Pentagon inquiry as well:

[A] military official said [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates wanted the review to extend beyond the Fort Hood case and also look at broader questions about how the military identifies, tracks and potentially moves against troops who may have violent tendencies or radical beliefs.

The official said Mr. Gates wanted a shorter, initial report within the next few weeks, followed by a longer-term systemic report sometime early next year.

And of course, right now the Senate government-affairs committee is holding its own hearing into what happened at Fort Hood.

John Brennan to Lead White House Investigation of What U.S. Intelligence Knew About Fort Hood Suspect

Spencer Ackerman — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:55:42 +0000

Just released by the White House press office, a memorandum from President Obama. His top intelligence/counterterrorism/homeland security adviser at the White House, former CIA official John Brennan, will direct an investigation that will wrap up at the end of the month to determine what U.S. intelligence knew about “warning signs” from alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan.

On November 6, 2009, I directed that an immediate inventory be conducted of all intelligence in U.S. Government files that existed prior to November 6, 2009, relevant to the tragic shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, especially anything having to do with the alleged shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, U.S. Army. In addition, I directed an immediate review be initiated to determine how any such intelligence was handled, shared, and acted upon within individual departments and agencies and what intelligence was shared with others. This inventory and review shall be conducted in a manner that does not interfere with the ongoing criminal investigations of the Fort Hood shooting.

The results of this inventory and review, as well as any recommendations for improvements to procedures and practices, shall be provided to John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, who will serve as the principal point of contact on this matter for the White House. Preliminary results of this review shall be provided by November 30, 2009.

Whether these were warning signs or false positives will be Brennan’s apparent purview. It certainly seems like an antidote to the drip-drip of press accounts about alleged mishandling of Hasan’s case.

Obama Meets the Chiefs on Afghanistan

Spencer Ackerman — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:44:16 +0000

President Obama will host this morning what’s expected to be his final meeting with his national security team on Afghanistan strategy ahead of a revision of/re-commitment to what the strategy will be and how to resource it. Attendees will include the chairmen of the military services, which means that this meeting will focus on how the military can sustain an escalation of troops. From the White House’s announced list, here’s who’ll be there:

Vice President Biden

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

General James Jones, National Security Advisor

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General James E. Cartwright, USMC, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

General George W. Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army

General James T. Conway, Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations

General Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force

Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor

John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security

Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, Special Assistant to the President for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Hagel, Boren Join Historically Unimportant Intelligence Board

Spencer Ackerman — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:06:11 +0000

The White House just announced the leadership of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board: former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a big Obama supporter, and former Sen. David Boren (D-Okla.), a former intelligence committee chair and mentor of disastrous ex-CIA Director George Tenet. Their reactions, as per a White House release:

“I appreciate the privilege and opportunity that President Obama has given me to co-chair the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board,” said Senator Hagel. “I look forward to working on behalf of our country to help build a more secure America. I am particularly grateful to participate in this effort with former Oklahoma Senator and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman David Boren. His distinguished record of accomplishment and experience will provide strong and enlightened leadership for the Board. Working with Senator Boren and the other impressive members of the board we will make every effort to provide thoughtful, informed and independent advice to the President and his team.”

“I am honored by the president’s appointment to co-chair the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board,” said Senator Boren. “I appreciate the opportunity the president has given me to help in the effort to strengthen our national security. I’m especially pleased that former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, for whom I have great respect, will serve as the other co-chair. It is my hope that together, with the other members of the board, we can give candid, thoughtful, and nonpartisan advice, which will be helpful to the country. This part time advisory role, which is uncompensated, will in no way alter my plans to remain as president of the University of Oklahoma. I see this appointment as a chance to perform my duty as a citizen to serve our country.”

Real talk: this board typically does nothing. George W. Bush appointed Brent Scowcroft, a confidante of his father’s, to the position, which offers advice about the quality and usage of intelligence, and then ignored him. It’s an ignorable job! The most important intelligence adviser in the White House, where these guys won’t even typically be — Boren, as he says, will remain focused on beating the University of Texas in football — will doubtlessly remain John Brennan. But we’ll see what President Obama does with it, since these things rise and fall on the strength of their connections to the president, and Hagel certainly has Obama’s trust.

Now the Nobel Laureate Will Debate One of the Two Wars He Inherited

Spencer Ackerman — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:44:25 +0000

Here’s the guest list for today’s White House meeting to discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy. New additions to the discussion: Amb. Susan Rice, a close Obama adviser turned ambassador to the U.N.; and Lt. Gen. Doug Lute, the “war czar” who will oversee interagency policy coordination. Wait, isn’t that Richard Holbrooke’s job…?

Vice President Biden

Secretary of State Clinton

Secretary of Defense Gates

Ambassador Susan Rice, Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations (via videoconference)

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command

General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence

CIA Director Leon Panetta

Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Anne Patterson, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan (via videoconference)

General James Jones, National Security Advisor

Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor

John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security

Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, Special Assistant to the President for Afghanistan and Pakistan

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Politico Could Not Have Gotten This ‘Jihadist’ Explanation More Wrong

Spencer Ackerman — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:47:33 +0000

So it seems that Robert Gibbs today inelegantly tried to distinguish between al-Qaeda and the Taliban — sigh, that shouldn’t have been too difficult — and in the process of that explanation, used the word “jihadist,” a term that the Obama administration strenuously avoids. Carol E. Lee at Politico tries to explain:

Jihadist is seen as a derogatory term for mujahid, which is Arabic for freedom fighter. A search through transcripts going back to January shows the word or any version of it had not previously been uttered from the Obama White House podium.

Close! And by “close,” I mean “the exact opposite of the actual explanation”! Far from being a derogation, “jihadist” is an honorific to many Muslims, and that’s precisely why the Obama administration doesn’t use the word.

How do I know that? Because John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, explained it that way in a big August speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. From the text of Brennan’s August 6 remarks:

Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against “jihadists.” Describing terrorists in this way—using a legitimate term, “jihad,” meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal—risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself. And this is why President Obama has confronted this perception directly and forcefully in his speeches to Muslim audiences, declaring that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.

Poke fun at the press secretary, I guess (”It’s an interesting word choice…”), but at least, for the joke’s sake, try to get the premise right!

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

The Next Afghan Strategy Looks Like It’ll Focus on the Counterterrorism Question

Spencer Ackerman — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:45:20 +0000

If it’s true, as reported, that the question of the CIA’s drone strikes against al-Qaeda in Pakistan is bolstering support for the so-called counterterrorism option in the Obama administration’s Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy, then tomorrow’s meeting at the White House looks, from the attendance sheet, like it’ll debate precisely that issue. Here’s the just-released list of scheduled participants:

Vice President Biden

Secretary of State Clinton

Secretary of Defense Gates

Ambassador Susan Rice, Permanent US Representative to the United Nations

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command

General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence

CIA Director Leon Panetta

Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Anne Patterson, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan (via videoconference)

General James Jones, National Security Advisor

Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor

John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security

Brennan, one of Obama’s most important advisers, wasn’t in last week’s meeting; neither was Donilon or Rice.

If the ‘War on Terror’ Is Over, So Is the Right to Preventive Detention

Daphne Eviatar — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:58:57 +0000

Writing about the role Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan played in the Bush counterterror surveillance program, Marcy Wheeler, blogging for Glenn Greenwald at Salon today, argues that as NSA adviser, rather than CIA director (a position Brennan was nominated for, but Glenn helped torpedo the nomination by highlighting his previous role in the Bush administration), Brennan is pushing Obama toward an ineffective and abusive surveillance strategy that ignores civil liberties.

That may be true, but there’s an aspect of one of Brennan’s recent speeches that, if actually implemented, would have the opposite effect.

As Spencer Ackerman reported here earlier, Brennan, in his speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, declared an end to the “war on terror.”

“This is not a ‘war on terror,’” Brennan said. “We cannot let the terror prism guide how we’re going to interact and be involved in different parts of the world.”

Well, if that’s the case, then how is the Obama administration going to justify “preventive detention” of terror suspects under the laws of war?

That power to detain supposedly “dangerous” people who can’t be proven guilty in any sort of court is a power the Bush administration relied on heavily and the Obama administration continues to claim. It’s at the core of President Obama’s claim that there’s a class of people who cannot be tried in criminal court or even by military commission, yet still must be held in prison because they’re “dangerous.” That’s all been justified legally by saying that we’re at “war,” and terror suspects are warriors in the “war on terror.”

Now that the Brennan has declared an end to that war, is the Obama administration willing to relinquish its right to detain terror suspects picked up anywhere in the world?

So far, Obama has not made clear how he intends to use this “preventive detention” authority he claims that he has, though it’s as broad a detention authority as Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey claimed over a year ago. But if Brennan really has the sway over the administration that Wheeler suggests he does, then maybe Obama will soon have to concede that the “war on terror” is over — and so is his corresponding power to seize and imprison its supposed “warriors” anywhere in the world.

What Brennan Knew (Sort of) About Domestic Surveillance

Spencer Ackerman — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:59:29 +0000

Marc Ambinder follows up on my question to John Brennan, President Obama’s chief counterterrorism aide, about what role Brennan played in domestic surveillance during the Bush administration. From 2003 to 2005, recall, Brennan ran two organizations — the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and then the National Counterterrorism Center — whose analysts prepared threat assessments that supplied at least a pretextual basis for the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance programs. It’s unclear from a recent inspectors general report whether Brennan himself knew of those assessments, as he said he was “not going to go into sort of what my role was in that instance because a lot of those activities are still considered classified” when I asked yesterday. But it’s highly unusual, to say the least, for an agency head not to know about an activity run by his subordinates that the president considers a top priority.

Unsurprisingly, then, Ambinder’s sources tell him that Brennan indeed knew:

[S]enior intelligence officials with direct knowledge of Brennan’s role confirm that, indeed, as head of the National Counterterrorism Center (and of its earlier incarnation, called TTIC), he was privy to both the NSA’s “take” — the raw product — and the mechanisms used to collect it. The NCTC cross-checked NSA information with everything else collected by the intelligence community and prepared threat assessments.

Ambinder correctly notes that NCTC didn’t play an operational role in the surveillance programs. But he writes that that an aspect of its job was to “determine the significance of the information gleaned from those sessions.” And that’s what’s fishy. The inspectors general found that the information gleaned from those sessions was rather insignificant, mainly a matter of running down certain leads, but not actual utility in combating terrorism. So why did the programs receive their reauthorizations every 45 days? Was no one inclined at NCTC and TTIC to assess that the programs weren’t particularly useful in repelling a continuing terrorist threat?