theintercept--2020-11-25--Progressives Look to Wield Power in a New Place: The Foreign Affairs Committee

Castro has also called for bringing the war in Afghanistan to an end , cutting off U.S. support for the Saudi-led conflict in Yemen , and having Congress end blank-check authorizations for wars in the Middle East — which would force Congress to debate and define the scope of the war on terror .
Come next Congress , Castro may have a real power to make good on those ideas .
But first , he has to win his bid to become chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee , beating two senior members in an uphill , secret-ballot election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate , whoever is elected chair in the Democratic-controlled House could end up becoming one of the most important congressional figures in shaping a post-Trump foreign policy .
The position is only open because insurgent Jamaal Bowman , a middle school principal , ousted committee chair Rep. Eliot Engel in a New York primary .
Though Castro isn ’ t particularly known as a leader in the progressive foreign policy space , among the contenders , he is by far the most sympathetic to the broader left , explaining why he has rounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s progressive foreign policy organizations .
But despite that support , it ’ s unclear how many progressive votes Castro may actually get .
Often , member-to-member races can be less ideological and have more to do with personal relationships .
Rep. Ro Khanna , D-Calif. , for example , a progressive voice on foreign policy who sponsored a number of congressional efforts to stop U.S. support to Saudi Arabia , indicated in September that he would support New York Democrat Gregory Meeks .
( In a statement , Khanna told The Intercept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Yemen resolution and that he “ shares an understanding about the harm a colonizers model of the world has caused in Asia and Africa.
” ) Over the course of two phone interviews from his home in San Antonio , one last month and another last week , Castro laid out his vision of a Foreign Affairs Committee that he said would be more diverse , would tackle a wider range of issues , and which wouldn ’ t let up on investigating Trump after he leaves office .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to make big political headlines about how you ’ re ‘ coming after ’ opponents .
But are we supposed to not hold people accountable folks for what were intentional acts ?
” Castro said in October .
“ I think there is a greater risk to doing nothing and letting everybody skate .
That ’ s the greatest risk.
” Castro , alongside his twin brother and former presidential candidate Julián Castro , are perhaps best known as vocal critics of the Trump administration ’ s immigration policy .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Joaquin grew a beard to help people tell them apart , with mixed success . )
But during his seven years in Congress , Joaquin Castro has quietly built a reputation for tough oversight , particularly in his current role as chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus .
Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva , who has endorsed Castro in the race , said that Castro developed a reputation as a hands-on leader in the CHC and that he is serious about accountability for immigration abuses .
“ I ’ ve watched him run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult years — the last two years under Trump , ” Grijalva said .
“ He experienced it .
We visited the private prisons , the for-profit prisons , visited the border , saw the separation firsthand .
He saw the Border Patrol and ICE suddenly become political arms of the Trump administration … you can ’ t just go back to the way it was there .
There has to be reforms and guardrails going forward.
” Castro ’ s stance on post-election investigations could put him at odds with a Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden administration is wary of post-inauguration Trump investigations , fearing they may appear hyperpartisan and undermine national unity .
That would be in line with the Obama White House ’ s messaging on Bush-era torture : The U.S. should “ look forward , not back.
” In his work with the committee , where he chairs the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee , Castro has been clear that he thinks unfinished investigations due to Trump ’ s stonewalling should be completed after President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated .
In August , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke remotely at the Republican National Convention while on official diplomatic travel in Jerusalem — an act that is both unprecedented and likely illegal — Castro launched an investigation into how State Department resources may have gone to supporting Pompeo ’ s political activity .
Later , when State Department officials testified in front of the committee in September , Castro warned them not to stonewall his document requests .
“ If we don ’ t wrap this investigation up … I am going to ask this committee to make sure that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ There has historically been this idea that once an administration is done , you try to move forward and you don ’ t want to look like you ’ re simply trying to go after or prosecute political opponents , ” Castro said last week .
“ We have to do what is necessary to make sure that a future administration is not inspired by the Trump administration to conduct some of the same activities as before , like separating kids from their parents , knowing that they have no way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it became clear that committee chair Eliot Engel lost his primary election , Castro announced his bid , calling for a “ new generation of foreign policy leadership.
” But in a system usually dominated by seniority , Castro , having only come to Congress in 2013 , is at a severe disadvantage .
Castro is up against California Democrat Brad Sherman and Meeks , both of whom were elected to Congress more than a decade before Castro .
Both are relatively more hawkish on Iran and U.S. support for Israel .
Sherman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal ; Meeks , although he was a target for progressives in a June primary election in Queens , has the backing of many in the powerful Congressional Black Caucus , and is seen as a heavy favorite .
In a statement , Sherman said he was running for the position because he thought he was the most qualified and would do the best job .
“ That said , I know Joaquin is capable , knowledgeable and a hard-working member of the Foreign Affairs committee .
He would do a good job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not respond to multiple requests for comment .
Because Congress ’ s Foreign Affairs Committees oversee the State Department , the race will determine who will be in charge of shepherding legislation to rebuild the department after the number of career diplomats was decimated under the Trump administration .
Castro has already outlined his plan to “ build a bigger , better State Department ” — with an emphasis on diversity .
He also worked on legislation to combat harassment and discrimination at the department and introduced legislation that would fund paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , the Foreign Affairs Committee should adopt a stronger focus on migration , asylum-seekers , and refugees , including by holding hearings on climate refugees , and that the committee should get involved in trying to reunite families who were separated under Trump ’ s immigration policies .
During his campaign , Biden promised to form a task force that aimed at unifying the 666 kids with their parents .
In interviews , several Democratic staff members who were not authorized to speak on the record said that Castro ’ s chances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that he may have a pathway to a majority if he can cultivate enough support from both progressives and younger members of the caucus .
And to that end , he has engaged heavily with outside advocacy organizations — taking what is usually a secretive , member-to-member campaigning process and turning it into a public effort to build support .
A coalition of progressive organizations published a letter endorsing Castro , including the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats .
One Democratic aide interviewed by The Intercept , who was not authorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that because Castro ’ s chances are slim , engagement with progressives and progressive groups was a savvy way to draw attention to the race .
“ Castro knows that he has a narrow path to victory that is dependent on defining himself as the champion of the new progressive foreign policy consensus , ” the aide said .
On the other hand , although Castro has cast himself as a progressive alternative in the race , he is not a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and has not been endorsed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he identifies as a progressive , he paused and said , “ I think if you look at my record , it ’ s been progressive.
” Many of the stances Castro has taken over the years are generally in line with the left wing of the party ’ s asks for a new foreign policy — in wanting to examine the expansive use-of-force resolutions that allow U.S. wars to continue indefinitely in the Middle East , for instance .
He has defended the Iran deal , and been an early supporter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saudi Arabia ’ s intervention in Yemen .
And although all three candidates have stated their opposition to Israeli annexation of the West Bank , Castro has been willing to go further in criticizing Israel ’ s human rights violations , including by signing a letter critical of the Israeli government ’ s home demolitions in Palestine .
Stephen Miles , the executive director of the progressive group Win Without War , which has endorsed Castro , told The Intercept that progressives should demand a foreign policy in line with certain principles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by progressive caucus members .
“ Folks like Congressman Castro , who are not members of the Progressive Caucus , can really pick up this mantle of a different kind of foreign policy — one more deeply rooted in the notion that those who are on the receiving end , or feeling the impacts of these decisions , should be part of the decision-making process , ” Miles said .
And one of Castro ’ s central promises of his bid is to increase the diversity of witnesses before the committee , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Congressional Hispanic Caucus .
The Foreign Affairs committees are known for calling on a relatively insular group of D.C.-based experts , and one analysis earlier this year highlighted low gender diversity among their witnesses .
“ Ultimately this a question not just about what is our foreign policy , but how we make foreign policy , ” Miles said , adding , “ We ’ ve seen the same handful of folks be witnesses , regardless , frankly of whether the chairman was a Democrat or Republican.
” Last month , Castro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee in favor a rule requiring committees to track the diversity of witnesses — gender , racial , and otherwise .
“ During my eight years now on the committee , I don ’ t recall that we ’ ve had a Palestinian come in front of us and give us their perspective on the situation in the Middle East , for example , ” Castro said .
“ I don ’ t think that should be controversial at all .
And the United States has over the years positioned itself as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And if it ’ s going to truly be a fair mediator or arbiter , and you have got to be willing to hear from all sides.
” Correction : November 25 , 2020 , 9:05 a.m. An earlier version of this article incorrectly cited an analysis claiming that the Congressional Foreign Affairs committees have the lowest gender diversity of any committee ’ s pool of witnesses .
The analysis critically cited gender diversity figures for HFAC and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee , but did not compare those to the witness @ @ @ @ @

On November 2, anticipating President Donald Trump’s impending electoral demise, Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, outlined a plan to turn the page on the administration’s treatment of migrants and asylum-seekers. Castro called on Congress to create a special body — either a human rights commission or a select committee — that would investigate family separations under Trump and refer any violations of the law to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution.
Castro has also called for bringing the war in Afghanistan to an end, cutting off U.S. support for the Saudi-led conflict in Yemen, and having Congress end blank-check authorizations for wars in the Middle East — which would force Congress to debate and define the scope of the war on terror.
Come next Congress, Castro may have a real power to make good on those ideas.
But first, he has to win his bid to become chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, beating two senior members in an uphill, secret-ballot election. If Republicans keep control of the Senate, whoever is elected chair in the Democratic-controlled House could end up becoming one of the most important congressional figures in shaping a post-Trump foreign policy.
The position is only open because insurgent Jamaal Bowman, a middle school principal, ousted committee chair Rep. Eliot Engel in a New York primary. Though Castro isn’t particularly known as a leader in the progressive foreign policy space, among the contenders, he is by far the most sympathetic to the broader left, explaining why he has rounded up near-unanimous support among the country’s progressive foreign policy organizations.
But despite that support, it’s unclear how many progressive votes Castro may actually get. Often, member-to-member races can be less ideological and have more to do with personal relationships. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., for example, a progressive voice on foreign policy who sponsored a number of congressional efforts to stop U.S. support to Saudi Arabia, indicated in September that he would support New York Democrat Gregory Meeks. (In a statement, Khanna told The Intercept that Meeks was helpful in building support for the Yemen resolution and that he “shares an understanding about the harm a colonizers model of the world has caused in Asia and Africa.”)
Photo: Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Over the course of two phone interviews from his home in San Antonio, one last month and another last week, Castro laid out his vision of a Foreign Affairs Committee that he said would be more diverse and tackle a wider range of issues, and wouldn’t let up on investigating Trump
“It’s true that the other side is going to make big political headlines about how you’re ‘coming after’ opponents. But are we supposed to not hold people accountable folks for what were intentional acts?” Castro said in October. “I think there is a greater risk to doing nothing and letting everybody skate. That’s the greatest risk.”
Castro, alongside his twin brother and former presidential candidate Julián Castro, are perhaps best known as vocal critics of the Trump administration’s immigration policy. (During his brother’s presidential campaign, Joaquin grew a beard to help people tell them apart, with mixed success.) But during his seven years in Congress, Joaquin Castro has quietly built a reputation for tough oversight, particularly in his current role as chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva, who has endorsed Castro in the race, said that Castro developed a reputation as a hands-on leader in the CHC and that he is serious about accountability for immigration abuses.
“I’ve watched him run the caucus through some very, very difficult years — the last two years under Trump,” Grijalva said. “He experienced it. We visited the private prisons, the for-profit prisons, visited the border, saw the separation firsthand. He saw the Border Patrol and ICE suddenly become political arms of the Trump administration. … You can’t just go back to the way it was there. There has to be reforms and guardrails going forward.”
Castro’s stance on post-election investigations could put him at odds with a Biden administration. Last week NBC reported that the Biden administration is wary of post-inauguration Trump investigations, fearing they may appear hyperpartisan and undermine national unity. That would be in line with the Obama White House’s messaging on Bush-era torture: The U.S. should “look forward, not back.”
In his work with the committee, where he chairs the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee, Castro has been clear that he thinks unfinished investigations due to Trump’s stonewalling should be completed after President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated.
A video of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaking from Jerusalem plays in the Rose Garden of the White House, during the Republican National Convention on Aug. 25, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Evan Vucci/AP
In August, for example, after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke remotely at the Republican National Convention while on official diplomatic travel in Jerusalem — an act that is both unprecedented and likely illegal — Castro launched an investigation into how State Department resources may have gone to supporting Pompeo’s political activity.
Later, when State Department officials testified in front of the committee in September, Castro warned them not to stonewall his document requests. “If we don’t wrap this investigation up … I am going to ask this committee to make sure that those investigations continue past November and past January.”
“There has historically been this idea that once an administration is done, you try to move forward and you don’t want to look like you’re simply trying to go after or prosecute political opponents,” Castro said last week. “We have to do what is necessary to make sure that a future administration is not inspired by the Trump administration to conduct some of the same activities as before, like separating kids from their parents, knowing that they have no way of tracking that and reuniting them.”
This summer, after it became clear that committee chair Eliot Engel lost his primary election, Castro announced his bid, calling for a “new generation of foreign policy leadership.” But in a system usually dominated by seniority, Castro, having only come to Congress in 2013, is at a severe disadvantage.
Castro is up against California Democrat Brad Sherman and Meeks, both of whom were elected to Congress more than a decade before Castro. Both are relatively more hawkish on Iran and U.S. support for Israel. Sherman opposed the Obama administration’s Iran deal; Meeks, although he was a target for progressives in a June primary election in Queens, has the backing of many in the powerful Congressional Black Caucus and is seen as a heavy favorite.
Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
In a statement, Sherman said he was running for the position because he thought he was the most qualified and would do the best job. “That said, I know Joaquin is capable, knowledgeable and a hard-working member of the Foreign Affairs committee. He would do a good job if elected.” A spokesperson for Meeks did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Because both the House and Senate foreign policy committees oversee the State Department, the race will determine who will be in charge of shepherding legislation to rebuild the department after the number of career diplomats was decimated under the Trump administration. Castro has already outlined his plan to “build a bigger, better State Department” — with an emphasis on diversity. He also worked on legislation to combat harassment and discrimination at the department and introduced legislation that would fund paid internships.
Castro also said that under Biden, the Foreign Affairs Committee should adopt a stronger focus on migration, asylum-seekers, and refugees, including by holding hearings on climate refugees, and that the committee should get involved in trying to reunite families who were separated under Trump’s immigration policies. During his campaign, Biden promised to form a task force that aimed at unifying the 666 kids with their parents.
In interviews, several Democratic staff members who were not authorized to speak on the record said that Castro’s chances to win the race outright are slim, but that he may have a pathway to a majority if he can cultivate enough support from both progressives and younger members of the caucus. And to that end, he has engaged heavily with outside advocacy organizations — taking what is usually a secretive, member-to-member campaigning process and turning it into a public effort to build support. A coalition of progressive organizations, including the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats, published a letter endorsing Castro.
One Democratic aide interviewed by The Intercept, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said that because Castro’s chances are slim, engagement with progressives and progressive groups was a savvy way to draw attention to the race. “Castro knows that he has a narrow path to victory that is dependent on defining himself as the champion of the new progressive foreign policy consensus,” the aide said.
On the other hand, although Castro has cast himself as a progressive alternative in the race, he is not a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and has not been endorsed by CPC. When I asked him whether he identifies as a progressive, he paused and said, “I think if you look at my record, it’s been progressive.”
Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, addresses the media after touring a Border Patrol facility housing children on July 1, 2019, in Clint, Texas. Photo: Christ Chavez/Getty Images
Many of the stances Castro has taken over the years are generally in line with the left wing of the party’s asks for a new foreign policy — in wanting to examine the expansive use-of-force resolutions that allow U.S. wars to continue indefinitely in the Middle East, for instance. He has defended the Iran deal and been an early supporter of efforts to curb the U.S. role in Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen. And although all three candidates have stated their opposition to Israeli annexation of the West Bank, Castro has been willing to go further in criticizing Israel’s human rights violations, including by signing a letter critical of the Israeli government’s home demolitions in Palestine.
Stephen Miles, the executive director of the progressive group Win Without War, which has endorsed Castro, told The Intercept that progressives should demand a foreign policy in line with certain principles, not necessarily one that is made solely by progressive caucus members.
“Folks like Congressman Castro, who are not members of the Progressive Caucus, can really pick up this mantle of a different kind of foreign policy — one more deeply rooted in the notion that those who are on the receiving end, or feeling the impacts of these decisions, should be part of the decision-making process,” Miles said.
And one of Castro’s central promises of his bid is to increase the diversity of witnesses before the committee, which is an issue he has championed alongside the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The foreign affairs committees are known for calling on a relatively insular group of D.C.-based experts, and one analysis earlier this year highlighted low gender diversity among their witnesses. “Ultimately this a question not just about what is our foreign policy, but how we make foreign policy,” Miles said, adding, “We’ve seen the same handful of folks be witnesses, regardless, frankly of whether the chairman was a Democrat or Republican.”
Last month, Castro testified in front of the House Rules Committee in favor a rule requiring committees to track the diversity of witnesses — gender, racial, and otherwise.
“During my eight years now on the committee, I don’t recall that we’ve had a Palestinian come in front of us and give us their perspective on the situation in the Middle East, for example,” Castro said. “I don’t think that should be controversial at all. And the United States has over the years positioned itself as a mediator and arbiter of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. And if it’s going to truly be a fair mediator or arbiter, and you have got to be willing to hear from all sides.”
Correction: November 25, 2020, 9:05 a.m.
An earlier version of this article incorrectly cited an analysis claiming that the congressional foreign affairs committees have the lowest gender diversity of any committee’s pool of witnesses. The analysis critically cited gender diversity figures for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but did not compare those to the witness pools of other committees.


theintercept--2020-11-24--Trump Supporters Want to Boycott the Georgia Runoffs. Is Their Threat Genuine?

observer of Georgia politics , I am at a point where I can no longer distinguish trolling from earnest madness .
A hashtag began trending this morning on Twitter : # WriteInTrumpForGA .
You could probably have seen it coming as soon as Lin Wood , a Trump attorney arguing to overturn the election results here , tweeted his support for a boycott of the U.S. Senate runoff elections .
But far-right protesters had been calling for it in the street even before Wood ’ s comment .
Vincent James Foxx took to the steps of the Georgia Capitol last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are not trying to overturn the election that “ we will not be willing to show up for them.
” Foxx founded Red Elephants , a media platform based in California that the Anti-Defamation League described as promoting “ conspiracy theories , anti-Semitic beliefs and white supremacist mantras.
” Nonetheless , video of his commentary went viral , though probably not the way he might have liked .
Virtually all of the engagement has been with progressive commenters wishing him well here .
If Jon Ossoff beats Sen. David Perdue and Raphael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January runoff , Democrats take control of the Senate .
So the reaction on the left both locally and nationally has been giddy , gleeful support for the proposition of a far-right boycott .
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger noted in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution last week that 24,000 Republican voters submitted absentee ballots in the June primary and refrained from voting in the general election — enough voters to have closed Biden ’ s margin in Georgia .
Typically , a runoff election in Georgia might draw as few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the general election .
More important jobs draw a higher proportion of voters , as happened in 2018 when Raffensperger himself faced a runoff contest against John Barrow , where about 40 percent of voters returned .
The last U.S. Senate runoff here in 2008 , between Republican Saxby Chambliss and his Democratic challenger Jim Martin , drew about 60 percent of general election voters .
Chambliss won the runoff handily .
But given recent election trends in Georgia , with Democrats so focused on turnout , one might hold presumptions of Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in January is around 3 million votes , a 1 percent gap would be 30,000 voters .
The question to ask is if 30,000 people who would vote for Republican candidates are open to an argument for a boycott .
Are people like Wood and Foxx sincere ?
To the degree that one can measure the sincerity of such people … probably .
Sure .
I ’ m guessing that Wood is trying to set up former Georgia congressman Doug Collins for a right-flank challenge to Loeffler or Warnock in two years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Brian Kemp .
Foxx ’ s deeper motivations might be a bit more nuanced .
Set aside his stated reasons ( his fallacious belief in a stolen election and a demand for Republicans to spend their political capital fighting it ) .
And ignore for a moment their general contempt for “ democracy ” as a political value .
Biden ’ s win means some Republicans will recalculate their electoral math , asking if courting white nationalists loses them more elections than they will win .
The far right has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unite the Right ” rally in Charlottesville , Virginia , provoked a massive , world-changing backlash .
White supremacist groups have been falling apart from lawsuits , the rolling identification of their leaders , social media deplatforming , and infighting .
People like Foxx have had some access to power over the last four years .
A call to boycott is a loyalty test , and loyalty tests are deliberately painful : Do this distasteful thing — disregard the law and voters — to prove you still listen to us , or we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you .
Trump himself reiterated support for Loeffler and Perdue the week after the election .
Yesterday , Donald Trump Jr. described calls to boycott as “ nonsense ” and asked people to ignore them .
Neither Loeffler nor Perdue have addressed the idea directly .
Nonetheless , social media chatter about a boycott is continuing to grow .
On the social media network Parler , the hashtag # boycottgeorgiarunoffs doubled its traffic overnight .
But most of the accounts pushing it are brand new and utterly anonymous .
Parler ’ s conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative to Facebook , but as a practical matter , it is completely susceptible to manipulation by political provocateurs .
Despite its supposed noninterference policy , Parler began striking the # WriteInTrumpForGA hashtag today .
Perhaps that ’ s because under Georgia election rules , you can ’ t actually write in a candidate in a runoff .
Even if you could , a write-in candidate has to be qualified by the secretary of state ’ s office for the votes to count .
And Donald Trump is a legal resident of Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The idea is absurd .
But that ’ s where we are now .

Photo: Ben Gray/AP
As a longtime observer of Georgia politics, I am at a point where I can no longer distinguish trolling from earnest madness.
A hashtag began trending this morning on Twitter: #WriteInTrumpForGA. You could probably have seen it coming as soon as Lin Wood, a Trump attorney arguing to overturn the election results here, tweeted his support for a boycott of the U.S. Senate runoff elections.
Let’s speak truth about @SenLoeffler & @sendavidperdue. Why are they doing little or nothing to support efforts by GA citizens to address unlawful election & need for @BrianKempGA to order special session of legislature? If not fixed, I will NOT vote in GA runoff. Will you? — Lin Wood (@LLinWood) November 21, 2020
But far-right protesters had been calling for it in the street even before Wood’s comment. Vincent James Foxx took to the steps of the Georgia Capitol last week to tell “Republican traitors” who are not trying to overturn the election that “we will not be willing to show up for them.”
Foxx founded Red Elephants, a media platform based in California that the Anti-Defamation League described as promoting “conspiracy theories, anti-Semitic beliefs and white supremacist mantras.”
Trump supporters in Georgia vow to destroy the Republican Party if Trump doesn't win pic.twitter.com/04dPRQFfC0 — Fifty Shades of Whey (@davenewworld_2) November 21, 2020
Nonetheless, video of his commentary went viral, though probably not the way he might have liked. Virtually all of the engagement has been with progressive commenters wishing him well here.
If Jon Ossoff beats Sen. David Perdue and Raphael Warnock beats Sen. Kelly Loeffler in the January runoff, Democrats take control of the Senate. So the reaction on the left both locally and nationally has been giddy, gleeful support for the proposition of a far-right boycott.
Alex Jones, host of Infowars, an extreme right-wing program that often trafficks in conspiracy theories, speaks at a “Stop the Steal” rally against the results of the U.S. presidential election inside the state capitol on Nov. 18, 2020 in Atlanta. Photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger noted in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution last week that 24,000 Republican voters submitted absentee ballots in the June primary and refrained from voting in the general election — enough voters to have closed Biden’s margin in Georgia.
Typically, a runoff election in Georgia might draw as few as 20 percent of the voters from the general election. More important jobs draw a higher proportion of voters, as happened in 2018 when Raffensperger himself faced a runoff contest against John Barrow, where about 40 percent of voters returned. The last U.S. Senate runoff here in 2008, between Republican Saxby Chambliss and his Democratic challenger Jim Martin, drew about 60 percent of general election voters.
The question to ask is if 30,000 people who would vote for Republican candidates are open to an argument for a boycott.
Chambliss won the runoff handily. But given recent election trends in Georgia, with Democrats so focused on turnout, one might hold presumptions of Republican victory less strongly. If total turnout in January is around 3 million votes, a 1 percent gap would be 30,000 voters. The question to ask is if 30,000 people who would vote for Republican candidates are open to an argument for a boycott.
Are people like Wood and Foxx sincere? To the degree that one can measure the sincerity of such people … probably. Sure. I’m guessing that Wood is trying to set up former Georgia congressman Doug Collins for a right-flank challenge to Loeffler or Warnock in two years, or perhaps against Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp.
Foxx’s deeper motivations might be a bit more nuanced. Set aside his stated reasons (his fallacious belief in a stolen election and a demand for Republicans to spend their political capital fighting it). And ignore for a moment their general contempt for “democracy” as a political value. Biden’s win means some Republicans will recalculate their electoral math, asking if courting white nationalists loses them more elections than they will win.
The far right has been in a crisis ever since the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, provoked a massive, world-changing backlash. White supremacist groups have been falling apart from lawsuits, the rolling identification of their leaders, social media deplatforming, and infighting. People like Foxx have had some access to power over the last four years. A call to boycott is a loyalty test, and loyalty tests are deliberately painful: Do this distasteful thing — disregard the law and voters — to prove you still listen to us, or we will show you what that will cost you.
Trump himself reiterated support for Loeffler and Perdue the week after the election. Yesterday, Donald Trump Jr. described calls to boycott as “nonsense” and asked people to ignore them. Neither Loeffler nor Perdue have addressed the idea directly.
Nonetheless, social media chatter about a boycott is continuing to grow. On the social media network Parler, the hashtag #boycottgeorgiarunoffs doubled its traffic overnight. But most of the accounts pushing it are brand new and utterly anonymous. Parler’s conservative supporters tout its unmoderated forum as an alternative to Facebook, but as a practical matter, it is completely susceptible to manipulation by political provocateurs.
Despite its supposed noninterference policy, Parler began striking the #WriteInTrumpForGA hashtag today. Perhaps that’s because under Georgia election rules, you can’t actually write in a candidate in a runoff. Even if you could, a write-in candidate has to be qualified by the secretary of state’s office for the votes to count. And Donald Trump is a legal resident of Florida, and would not be eligible regardless.
The idea is absurd. But that’s where we are now.


theintercept--2020-11-24--Generation Forever War: Biden’s National Security Picks Herald Return to Hawkish Normalcy

of Trumpian national security policy that was , by turns , assailed as “ rudderless , ” “ schizophrenic , ” “ incoherent , ” and “ riven with contradictions , ” the conventional wisdom says that the incoming Biden administration will pursue conventional American statecraft akin to the Obama White House .
President-elect Joe Biden ’ s first picks for senior national security posts — Antony Blinken as secretary of state , Jake Sullivan as national security adviser , and Avril Haines as director of national intelligence — served in the Obama administration and are now being hailed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs after the chaotic Trump administration .
But that ’ s not the good news it seems to be .
The Biden plan , outlined on his presidential transition website , suggests a “ normal ” version of national security that includes the deep flaws of the centrist-liberal approach .
There is a call for continued mammoth Pentagon budgets ( “ the investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of the next century ” ) with an emphasis on emerging battlespaces ( “ cyberwarfare … new challenges in space ” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security partnerships ( “ keeping NATO ’ s military capabilities sharp ” ) , and veiled references to confronting China ( “ strengthen our alliances with Japan , South Korea , Australia and other Asian democracies ” ) , as well as business as usual in the Middle East ( “ ironclad commitment to Israel ’ s security ” ) .
The costs of normalcy have been grave .
“ It ’ s worth keeping in mind that the global war on terror has killed more than 7,000 U.S. servicemembers — more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 9/11 attacks — and more than 800,000 lives worldwide , ” said Daphne Eviatar , Amnesty International USA ’ s director of Security With Human Rights .
“ It ’ s also cost the U.S. more than $ 6.4 trillion .
It ’ s hard to see why a Biden administration would want to continue on this trajectory.
” Flournoy ’ s pedigree is Blobby in the extreme , beginning with studies at Harvard University ( like many past defense secretaries ) before she crossed the Atlantic to take a master ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the Pentagon in the 1990s , she served as principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and threat reduction , and deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy .
In 2002 , she rotated out of government and into the mainstream ( that is , hawkish ) Center for Strategic and International Studies , a think tank largely dependent on Pentagon largesse and funding from the weapons industry .
In 2007 , she co-founded her own Beltway think tank , the Center for a New American Security , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but now ranks second only to the RAND Corporation in funding from the U.S. government and its defense contractors , including the arms-merchant heavyweights Northrop Grumman and Boeing .
From CNAS , Flournoy went on to co-lead President Barack Obama ’ s transition team at the Defense Department before serving as undersecretary of defense for policy from February 2009 to February 2012 .
She then spun back through the revolving door to the Boston Consulting Group , whose military contracts jumped from $ 1.6 million to $ 32 million after she became a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-founded WestExec Advisors , which boasts of being “ a diverse group of senior national security professionals with the most recent experience at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
” Another of its co-founders was none other than Antony Blinken , the secretary of state-designate .
And one of WestExec ’ s consultants was Avril Haines , the Biden nominee for director of national intelligence who is a member of the CNAS board of directors and whose affiliation with the controversial data mining firm Palantir disappeared from her biography when she joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , WestExec functions as “ a smart insurance policy for our clients , giving them higher confidence in their business decisions and in their ability to anticipate and prepare for the future.
” In an analysis for the Project on Government Oversight , Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey defined WestExec ’ s business another way : “ helping defense corporations market their products to the Pentagon and other agencies.
” In 2018 , Flournoy even joined the board of directors of Booz Allen Hamilton , a top 20 defense contractor .
Flournoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the President ’ s Intelligence Advisory Board , the CIA Director ’ s External Advisory Board , and the Defense Policy Board .
She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group , as well as a senior fellow at Harvard ’ s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs .
“ We ’ re all familiar with her , ” said Mackenzie Eaglen , a former congressional adviser now with the American Enterprise Institute , a right-wing Washington think tank , who described Flournoy as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense circles .
Last month , at a typically chummy get-together for leading lights from the Pentagon and its contractors , the Potomac Officers Club ’ s Artificial Intelligence for Maneuver Virtual Event , Flournoy had a virtual “ fireside chat ” with Greg Wenzel , an executive vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton .
When asked how the next administration should conduct national security strategy and how it will change , Flournoy said , “ There is a fair amount of consensus on the diagnosis of the problem , which is China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his way to squandering a unique opportunity to demonstrate that it won ’ t be business-as-usual at his Pentagon .
If Biden wants to buck the trend , as a first step he could agree to the recent request from Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Mark Pocan to “ commit to appointing Secretaries of Defense with with no previous ties to defense contractors.
” A pledge to alter the cast of characters making defense policy would be prudent move , according to William D. Hartung , the director of the Arms and Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I ’ m not necessarily for an all-out ban on all people with those backgrounds serving in a new administration , but they should be balanced with appointees who are independent of those kinds of ties , ” he told The Intercept .
“ Anyone with defense industry ties should be thoroughly questioned on those connections in confirmation hearings , and pledge to recuse themselves from issues relating to former employers or clients.
” Altering the expected national security brain trust could be followed by a few quick wins on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative director for militarism and human rights for the Friends Committee on National Legislation , a Quaker group , is hopeful that language in the 2020 Democratic Party platform advocating the repeal and replacement of “ decades-old authorizations for the use of military force ” might provide a starting point for broader and bolder initiatives .
The place to start would be the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force , or AUMF , which authorized the war against Saddam Hussein ’ s regime in Iraq and was cited earlier this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani .
“ I am quite optimistic that , even possibly as a first 100 days achievement , we could see the repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF , ” she told The Intercept .
“ I ’ m hopeful that the Biden administration will see it as an outdated , unnecessary authorization that remains open to future abuse .
It could be a first step to ending forever wars.
” A number of experts told The Intercept that if President-elect Biden makes good on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen , ” it would also be an important early effort that demonstrates a willingness to break with allies who violate international law and ends a policy that has fostered a humanitarian disaster .
“ There ’ s a significant possibility with Yemen , ” said Phyllis Bennis , who directs the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies .
“ There ’ s some room for a real shift that changes a very dangerous and damaging aspect of U.S. foreign policy.
” In practical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three key policy changes : making permanent the suspension of U.S. refueling of Saudi aircraft and prohibiting any direct participation in wars waged by allies ; ending the sharing of intelligence that Saudi Arabia uses for targeting purposes ; and , since it ’ s nearly impossible to hold nations to the “ end use ” agreements in terms of weapons systems , halting military sales to Saudi Arabia .
There has already been significant bipartisan consensus around withdrawing U.S. support to the Saudi coalition for strategic and humanitarian reasons .
“ Ending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only prevents further civilian harm , but it also makes clear to our partners around the world that we take issues regarding the effects of our security assistance seriously , ” said Ursala Knudsen-Latta , the legislative representative for peacebuilding at the Friends Committee on National Legislation .
Many experts similarly believe that the tremendous U.S. Covid-19 death toll — more than 250,000 and climbing — has underscored the fact that many national security threats can not be confronted militarily .
Even Flournoy has been forthright on this .
“ We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with pandemics and safeguarding the health of the American population from a threat like [ Covid-19 ] should be part of our national security thinking and rubric , ” she said earlier this year .
“ Maybe this pandemic will change that .
But we have got to think about public health preparedness as part of our national security going forward.
” But experts warn that to effectively shift the national security narrative , the standard Beltway foreign policy paradigm has to be reengineered by attacking the defense budget .
Andrew J. Bacevich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Responsible Statecraft , a Washington , D.C.-based think tank , sees ending the global war on terror — and replacing the military counterterrorism rubric with a law enforcement model — as part of an ambitious three-pronged plan to fundamentally remake a national security policy , which he sees as currently structured around armed overseas interventions , staggering levels of military spending , a vast network of foreign bases , and an overly influential arms industry .
In addition to halting the forever wars in the greater Middle East and Africa , Bacevich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons modernization plan announced by Obama and then taken up and expanded by President Donald Trump .
“ In a time of so many fiscal demands , that would be a strong statement — that we ’ re not going to spend a trillion-plus dollars building new bombers , missiles , and nuclear submarines , ” he told The Intercept .
“ That would be a sign of real change.
” The third leg of Bacevich ’ s national security sanity triad makes him an outlier in traditional foreign policy circles : an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s time for the United States to insist that Europe take responsibility for its own security , ” he explained .
“ That means beginning a gradual move toward a NATO that doesn ’ t include the United States .
I think it ’ s a way of showing that we don ’ t have to have a military presence everywhere.
” In addition to a fundamental reorientation of U.S. policy , the triple transformation advocated by Bacevich would make it easier for the Biden administration to finance its ambitious domestic agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major policy shifts would allow a “ significant opportunity to rethink the military budget and free-up resources so that Biden can implement his healthcare , infrastructure , and ‘ Build Back Better ’ program.
” Bennis , of the Institute for Policy Studies , advocates reductions in the defense budget on the order 50 percent .
“ We can cut $ 350 billion and still be safe , ” she said .
She ’ s far from alone in advocating meaningful cuts .
In July , for instance , Reps. Mark Pocan and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocated parallel measures in the House and Senate to reduce Pentagon spending by 10 percent , a savings of more than $ 70 billion .
The Center for International Policy ’ s Sustainable Defense Task Force , a group of former White House , Pentagon , and congressional budget analysts , retired military officers and other experts from across the political spectrum , put together an even more ambitious plan to cut $ 1.25 trillion in proposed Pentagon spending over the next decade .
Bennis advocated immediately cutting the long-troubled Lockheed F-35 Joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wall construction , the Overseas Contingency Operations funding which keeps the forever wars going , as well as closing down overseas military bases .
Bennis believes that making significant cuts to the Pentagon budget is the lynchpin of any effort to provide the social programs that have galvanized the Democratic base .
“ Movements are now talking about military budgets beyond the anti-war and anti-militarism crowd , ” she explained .
“ People are recognizing that as long as you ’ re spending 53 cents of every discretionary federal dollar on the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be money to pay for a Green New Deal and Medicare for All and free college education and a jobs program .
If you ’ re looking for the money to pay for all these things , then you need to start with the military.
” Flournoy recently acknowledged that cost-cutting may be coming to the Pentagon , noting that the Covid-19 pandemic and “ competing priorities ” will put “ downward pressure on the defense budget.
” But she also suggested the opposite in a policy paper she co-authored earlier this summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must take a series of much bigger and bolder steps to keep its military-technological edge over great power competitors such as China.
” The paper conveniently lays out exactly what the next secretary of defense should prioritize as the department ’ s “ top investment priority ” and where the U.S. should place its “ big bets.
” Her recommendations center on big-ticket efforts clustered around the so-called network of networks , which means the combination of artificial intelligence , cyberwarfare , as well as manned , unmanned , and autonomous weapons systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about exactly which “ big bets ” should be placed , but not if they should .
“ Whether or not these are the right big bets can and should be debated , ” Flournoy and her co-author wrote .
“ The important thing is for the department leadership to decide and coalesce around a set of big bets , and then to pursue them relentlessly and urgently in service programs and budgets.
” At first glance , Biden ’ s national security blueprint might look like a departure , even a repudiation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insistence on fighting the “ right war ” in Afghanistan .
“ Biden will end the forever wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East , which have cost us untold blood and treasure , ” reads the plan for “ Leading the Democratic World ” at JoeBiden.com .
“ Staying entrenched in unwinnable conflicts only drains our capacity to lead on other issues that require our attention , and it prevents us from rebuilding the other instruments of American power.
” But Biden ’ s plan isn ’ t actually what it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden will bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan and narrowly focus our mission on Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
” So , on second glance — even after inheriting Trump ’ s negotiated settlement with the Taliban and the outgoing president ’ s sizable troop reduction — Biden ’ s pledge to “ end the forever wars ” appears to be less about an “ end ” and more about “ forever.
” Earlier this year , Flournoy co-wrote an op-ed calling the U.S. deal with the Taliban “ the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation a life of war.
” But it was also larded up with the type of national security axioms that ensure forever wars .
“ If the United States just pulls out , Afghanistan would in short order descend into chaos and become once again a haven for terrorists , a source of regional instability and a threat to the United States , ” reads the piece , which ends with a call to “ bring our troops home with honor.
” “ Peace with honor ” and fears of a bloodbath have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to , and unnecessarily prolonging , failed wars they have made their own through escalation .
Afghanistan is far from the only failed war baggage toted by Flournoy , Blinken , Haines , and others who served in the Obama administration .
The bulk of Obama ’ s national security policy was , in fact , typified by headline-grabbing victories that amounted to little strategically , like the killing of Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden ; seemed mostly illusory , like the “ pivot to Asia ” ; or was deep-sixed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal .
Embracing and expanding key features of President George W. Bush ’ s war on terror , especially the use of drones and special operations forces in quasi-wars from Somalia to Yemen , succeeded in producing little more than stalemates and civilian casualties .
And then there was the 2011 U.S.-led NATO air campaign that helped overthrow Col. Muammar Gaddafi , the longtime Libyan dictator .
Blinken broke with Biden , his boss , to champion the U.S. intervention that Obama quickly hailed as a success .
Later , the president would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day after ” the overthrow of Gaddafi was the “ worst mistake ” of his presidency .
( Blinken offered only a half-hearted mea culpa .
“ I have to acknowledge that we obviously did not succeed in the Obama-Biden administration in getting that right , ” he said this summer . )
That failure has left Libya as a near-failed state in near-constant crisis and destabilized the African Sahel , prompting a humanitarian disaster in Mali , Niger , and Burkina Faso that is , almost a decade later , mushrooming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s military misadventures and their fallout — from the forever war in Afghanistan to support for the Saudi war in Yemen , from a decade of chaos in Libya to the expanding crisis in the Sahel — offer the most compelling reason to forge a new national security policy .
It would require the United States to acknowledge that its military can not solve the problem of terrorism , and cease the extrajudicial killings of suspected terrorists , according to Amnesty International ’ s USA ’ s Daphne Eviatar .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job of protecting civilians when the U.S. is engaged in actual armed conflict , by clarifying and limiting who can be lethally targeted , and ending the use of explosive weapons in civilians areas , and of course the use of cluster bombs.
” Beyond the savings for infrastructure , health care , education , and the Green New Deal , said Bennis , is a simple reason that ’ s often ignored in discussions of policy priorities and Pentagon budgets : the human toll .
Eschewing a return to national security normalcy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we don ’ t kill as many people around the world , ” said Bennis .
“ And that ’ s a good thing just by itself .
Period .
Full stop .
”

After four years of Trumpian national security policy that was, by turns, assailed as “rudderless,” “schizophrenic,” “incoherent,” and “riven with contradictions,” the conventional wisdom says that the incoming Biden administration will pursue conventional American statecraft akin to the Obama White House.
President-elect Joe Biden’s first picks for senior national security posts — Antony Blinken as secretary of state, Jake Sullivan as national security adviser, and Avril Haines as director of national intelligence — served in the Obama administration and are now being hailed as the sort of steady hands that America needs after the chaotic Trump administration. But that’s not the good news it seems to be. The Biden plan, outlined on his presidential transition website, suggests a “normal” version of national security that includes the deep flaws of the centrist-liberal approach. There is a call for continued mammoth Pentagon budgets (“the investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of the next century”) with an emphasis on emerging battlespaces (“cyberwarfare … new challenges in space”), the endorsement of ossified Cold War-era security partnerships (“keeping NATO’s military capabilities sharp”), and veiled references to confronting China (“strengthen our alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia and other Asian democracies”), as well as business as usual in the Middle East (“ironclad commitment to Israel’s security”).
The costs of normalcy have been grave. “It’s worth keeping in mind that the global war on terror has killed more than 7,000 U.S. servicemembers — more than twice the number of people killed by the 9/11 attacks — and more than 800,000 lives worldwide,” said Daphne Eviatar, Amnesty International USA’s director of Security With Human Rights. “It’s also cost the U.S. more than $6.4 trillion. It’s hard to see why a Biden administration would want to continue on this trajectory.”
Biden’s presidential team of national security advisers is loaded with leading members of the Beltway foreign policy establishment unaffectionately known as “the Blob.” It’s a well-worn group of advisers who backed or waged the disastrous wars of the last two decades, and the group is notable for keeping the military-industrial complex’s revolving door greased and spinning. His transitional advisors include, for instance, retired Gen. Lloyd Austin (of Raytheon), former principal deputy under secretary of defense for policy Kathleen H. Hicks (of Aerospace Corporation), and the former No. 2 civilian at the Pentagon, Robert Work (of Raytheon and Govini), among many others in the incoming administration’s orbit. The most emblematic and illustrative of Biden’s military-industrial warriors is the current frontrunner to be his defense secretary: Michèle Flournoy.
Defense Undersecretary Michèle Flournoy, left, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chair Gen. James Cartwright are photographed through a television camera viewfinder on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 1, 2009. Photo: Harry Hamburg/AP
Flournoy’s pedigree is Blobby in the extreme, beginning with studies at Harvard University (like many past defense secretaries) before she crossed the Atlantic to take a master’s degree in international relations at Oxford. At the Pentagon in the 1990s, she served as principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and threat reduction, and deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy. In 2002, she rotated out of government and into the mainstream (that is, hawkish) Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank largely dependent on Pentagon largesse and funding from the weapons industry. In 2007, she co-founded her own Beltway think tank, the Center for a New American Security, which is not only highly influential in policy circles but now ranks second only to the RAND Corporation in funding from the U.S. government and its defense contractors, including the arms-merchant heavyweights Northrop Grumman and Boeing.
From CNAS, Flournoy went on to co-lead President Barack Obama’s transition team at the Defense Department before serving as undersecretary of defense for policy from February 2009 to February 2012. She then spun back through the revolving door to the Boston Consulting Group, whose military contracts jumped from $1.6 million to $32 million after she became a senior advisor.
In 2017, Flournoy co-founded WestExec Advisors, which boasts of being “a diverse group of senior national security professionals with the most recent experience at the highest levels of the U.S. government.” Another of its co-founders was none other than Antony Blinken, the secretary of state-designate. And one of WestExec’s consultants was Avril Haines, the Biden nominee for director of national intelligence who is a member of the CNAS board of directors and whose affiliation with the controversial data mining firm Palantir disappeared from her biography when she joined the Biden campaign. As Flournoy describes it, WestExec functions as “a smart insurance policy for our clients, giving them higher confidence in their business decisions and in their ability to anticipate and prepare for the future.” In an analysis for the Project on Government Oversight, Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey defined WestExec’s business another way: “helping defense corporations market their products to the Pentagon and other agencies.”
In 2018, Flournoy even joined the board of directors of Booz Allen Hamilton, a top 20 defense contractor.
Flournoy has rubbed elbows in the right places: the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the CIA Director’s External Advisory Board, and the Defense Policy Board. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group, as well as a senior fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. “We’re all familiar with her,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a former congressional adviser now with the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing Washington think tank, who described Flournoy as a “known entity” in Beltway defense circles. Last month, at a typically chummy get-together for leading lights from the Pentagon and its contractors, the Potomac Officers Club’s Artificial Intelligence for Maneuver Virtual Event, Flournoy had a virtual “fireside chat” with Greg Wenzel, an executive vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton. When asked how the next administration should conduct national security strategy and how it will change, Flournoy said, “There is a fair amount of consensus on the diagnosis of the problem, which is China and Russia.”
Squandering an Opportunity
Biden appears well on his way to squandering a unique opportunity to demonstrate that it won’t be business-as-usual at his Pentagon. If Biden wants to buck the trend, as a first step he could agree to the recent request from Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Mark Pocan to “commit to appointing Secretaries of Defense with with no previous ties to defense contractors.” A pledge to alter the cast of characters making defense policy would be prudent move, according to William D. Hartung, the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. “I’m not necessarily for an all-out ban on all people with those backgrounds serving in a new administration, but they should be balanced with appointees who are independent of those kinds of ties,” he told The Intercept. “Anyone with defense industry ties should be thoroughly questioned on those connections in confirmation hearings, and pledge to recuse themselves from issues relating to former employers or clients.”
Altering the expected national security brain trust could be followed by a few quick wins on the policy front. Heather Brandon-Smith, the legislative director for militarism and human rights for the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker group, is hopeful that language in the 2020 Democratic Party platform advocating the repeal and replacement of “decades-old authorizations for the use of military force” might provide a starting point for broader and bolder initiatives. The place to start would be the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, which authorized the war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq and was cited earlier this year in the Trump administration’s justification of the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani. “I am quite optimistic that, even possibly as a first 100 days achievement, we could see the repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF,” she told The Intercept. “I’m hopeful that the Biden administration will see it as an outdated, unnecessary authorization that remains open to future abuse. It could be a first step to ending forever wars.”
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., left, and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., talk about their introduction of a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban during a news conference on May 25, 2017, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
A number of experts told The Intercept that if President-elect Biden makes good on his stated pledge to “end our support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen,” it would also be an important early effort that demonstrates a willingness to break with allies who violate international law and ends a policy that has fostered a humanitarian disaster. “There’s a significant possibility with Yemen,” said Phyllis Bennis, who directs the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. “There’s some room for a real shift that changes a very dangerous and damaging aspect of U.S. foreign policy.” In practical terms, Bennis said ending support meant three key policy changes: making permanent the suspension of U.S. refueling of Saudi aircraft and prohibiting any direct participation in wars waged by allies; ending the sharing of intelligence that Saudi Arabia uses for targeting purposes; and, since it’s nearly impossible to hold nations to the “end use” agreements in terms of weapons systems, halting military sales to Saudi Arabia.
There has already been significant bipartisan consensus around withdrawing U.S. support to the Saudi coalition for strategic and humanitarian reasons. “Ending our engagement in the conflict in Yemen not only prevents further civilian harm, but it also makes clear to our partners around the world that we take issues regarding the effects of our security assistance seriously,” said Ursala Knudsen-Latta, the legislative representative for peacebuilding at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Many experts similarly believe that the tremendous U.S. Covid-19 death toll — more than 250,000 and climbing — has underscored the fact that many national security threats cannot be confronted militarily. Even Flournoy has been forthright on this. “We are defining national security too narrowly. Dealing with pandemics and safeguarding the health of the American population from a threat like [Covid-19] should be part of our national security thinking and rubric,” she said earlier this year. “Maybe this pandemic will change that. But we have got to think about public health preparedness as part of our national security going forward.”
But experts warn that to effectively shift the national security narrative, the standard Beltway foreign policy paradigm has to be reengineered by attacking the defense budget.
A sign text reading in Arabic, “as the lighter burned the followers of America in Yemen, the lighter will burn America in Iraq,” is seen during a demonstration. Supporters of the Iran-backed Hashed al-Shaabi demand the departure of remaining U.S. forces from Iraq, outside the entrance of Baghdad’s highly fortified Green Zone on Nov. 7, 2020. Photo: Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty Images
Cutting the Military Budget
Andrew J. Bacevich, the president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, sees ending the global war on terror — and replacing the military counterterrorism rubric with a law enforcement model — as part of an ambitious three-pronged plan to fundamentally remake a national security policy, which he sees as currently structured around armed overseas interventions, staggering levels of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases, and an overly influential arms industry.
In addition to halting the forever wars in the greater Middle East and Africa, Bacevich advocates an end to the trillion-dollar nuclear weapons modernization plan announced by Obama and then taken up and expanded by President Donald Trump. “In a time of so many fiscal demands, that would be a strong statement — that we’re not going to spend a trillion-plus dollars building new bombers, missiles, and nuclear submarines,” he told The Intercept. “That would be a sign of real change.”
The third leg of Bacevich’s national security sanity triad makes him an outlier in traditional foreign policy circles: an American withdrawal from NATO. “It’s time for the United States to insist that Europe take responsibility for its own security,” he explained. “That means beginning a gradual move toward a NATO that doesn’t include the United States. I think it’s a way of showing that we don’t have to have a military presence everywhere.”
In addition to a fundamental reorientation of U.S. policy, the triple transformation advocated by Bacevich would make it easier for the Biden administration to finance its ambitious domestic agenda. Bacevich argued that these types of major policy shifts would allow a “significant opportunity to rethink the military budget and free-up resources so that Biden can implement his healthcare, infrastructure, and ‘Build Back Better’ program.”
Bennis, of the Institute for Policy Studies, advocates reductions in the defense budget on the order 50 percent. “We can cut $350 billion and still be safe,” she said. She’s far from alone in advocating meaningful cuts. In July, for instance, Reps. Mark Pocan and Barbara Lee, and Sen. Bernie Sanders advocated parallel measures in the House and Senate to reduce Pentagon spending by 10 percent, a savings of more than $70 billion. The Center for International Policy’s Sustainable Defense Task Force, a group of former White House, Pentagon, and congressional budget analysts, retired military officers and other experts from across the political spectrum, put together an even more ambitious plan to cut $1.25 trillion in proposed Pentagon spending over the next decade. Bennis advocated immediately cutting the long-troubled Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the Pentagon-funded border wall construction, the Overseas Contingency Operations funding which keeps the forever wars going, as well as closing down overseas military bases.
Bennis believes that making significant cuts to the Pentagon budget is the lynchpin of any effort to provide the social programs that have galvanized the Democratic base. “Movements are now talking about military budgets beyond the anti-war and anti-militarism crowd,” she explained. “People are recognizing that as long as you’re spending 53 cents of every discretionary federal dollar on the military, there’s not going to be money to pay for a Green New Deal and Medicare for All and free college education and a jobs program. If you’re looking for the money to pay for all these things, then you need to start with the military.”
Flournoy recently acknowledged that cost-cutting may be coming to the Pentagon, noting that the Covid-19 pandemic and “competing priorities” will put “downward pressure on the defense budget.” But she also suggested the opposite in a policy paper she co-authored earlier this summer, insisting that the U.S. military “must take a series of much bigger and bolder steps to keep its military-technological edge over great power competitors such as China.” The paper conveniently lays out exactly what the next secretary of defense should prioritize as the department’s “top investment priority” and where the U.S. should place its “big bets.” Her recommendations center on big-ticket efforts clustered around the so-called network of networks, which means the combination of artificial intelligence, cyberwarfare, as well as manned, unmanned, and autonomous weapons systems. The report leaves room for debate about exactly which “big bets” should be placed, but not if they should. “Whether or not these are the right big bets can and should be debated,” Flournoy and her co-author wrote. “The important thing is for the department leadership to decide and coalesce around a set of big bets, and then to pursue them relentlessly and urgently in service programs and budgets.”
Ending the Forever Wars
At first glance, Biden’s national security blueprint might look like a departure, even a repudiation, of the Obama template and his insistence on fighting the “right war” in Afghanistan. “Biden will end the forever wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East, which have cost us untold blood and treasure,” reads the plan for “Leading the Democratic World” at JoeBiden.com. “Staying entrenched in unwinnable conflicts only drains our capacity to lead on other issues that require our attention, and it prevents us from rebuilding the other instruments of American power.” But Biden’s plan isn’t actually what it seems. The fine print reads: “Biden will bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan and narrowly focus our mission on Al-Qaeda and ISIS.” So, on second glance — even after inheriting Trump’s negotiated settlement with the Taliban and the outgoing president’s sizable troop reduction — Biden’s pledge to “end the forever wars” appears to be less about an “end” and more about “forever.”
Earlier this year, Flournoy co-wrote an op-ed calling the U.S. deal with the Taliban “the best chance we have to spare another Afghan generation a life of war.” But it was also larded up with the type of national security axioms that ensure forever wars. “If the United States just pulls out, Afghanistan would in short order descend into chaos and become once again a haven for terrorists, a source of regional instability and a threat to the United States,” reads the piece, which ends with a call to “bring our troops home with honor.” “Peace with honor” and fears of a bloodbath have long been trotted out by those clinging to, and unnecessarily prolonging, failed wars they have made their own through escalation.
Afghanistan is far from the only failed war baggage toted by Flournoy, Blinken, Haines, and others who served in the Obama administration. The bulk of Obama’s national security policy was, in fact, typified by headline-grabbing victories that amounted to little strategically, like the killing of Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden; seemed mostly illusory, like the “pivot to Asia”; or was deep-sixed by his successor, especially the Iran nuclear deal. Embracing and expanding key features of President George W. Bush’s war on terror, especially the use of drones and special operations forces in quasi-wars from Somalia to Yemen, succeeded in producing little more than stalemates and civilian casualties. And then there was the 2011 U.S.-led NATO air campaign that helped overthrow Col. Muammar Gaddafi, the longtime Libyan dictator.
Blinken broke with Biden, his boss, to champion the U.S. intervention that Obama quickly hailed as a success. Later, the president would admit that “failing to plan for the day after” the overthrow of Gaddafi was the “worst mistake” of his presidency. (Blinken offered only a half-hearted mea culpa. “I have to acknowledge that we obviously did not succeed in the Obama-Biden administration in getting that right,” he said this summer.) That failure has left Libya as a near-failed state in near-constant crisis and destabilized the African Sahel, prompting a humanitarian disaster in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso that is, almost a decade later, mushrooming as Biden prepares to take office.
America’s military misadventures and their fallout — from the forever war in Afghanistan to support for the Saudi war in Yemen, from a decade of chaos in Libya to the expanding crisis in the Sahel — offer the most compelling reason to forge a new national security policy. It would require the United States to acknowledge that its military cannot solve the problem of terrorism, and cease the extrajudicial killings of suspected terrorists, according to Amnesty International’s USA’s Daphne Eviatar. “It also means doing a far better job of protecting civilians when the U.S. is engaged in actual armed conflict, by clarifying and limiting who can be lethally targeted, and ending the use of explosive weapons in civilians areas, and of course the use of cluster bombs.”
Beyond the savings for infrastructure, health care, education, and the Green New Deal, said Bennis, is a simple reason that’s often ignored in discussions of policy priorities and Pentagon budgets: the human toll. Eschewing a return to national security normalcy means saving lives. “It means that we don’t kill as many people around the world,” said Bennis. “And that’s a good thing just by itself. Period. Full stop.”


theintercept--2020-11-26--CIA Contractor Dies in Secret U.S. War in Somalia

The CIA declined to comment .
Goodboe ’ s family did not respond to requests for comment .
The New York Times first reported the death but did not identify the CIA officer who was killed .
The attack that killed Goodboe was presumed to have been conducted by al-Shabab , an Al Qaeda affiliated group engaged in a decadelong insurgency , though the details remain unclear .
One of the people familiar with the attack said Goodboe was flown to Germany , where the U.S. has a military hospital , and later died of his injuries .
Michael Goodboe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked for the CIA ’ s paramilitary unit , died after succumbing to injuries from an improvised explosive device , according to the two sources .
The two sources requested anonymity because of the sensitivity around the attack and because they were not authorized to disclose Goodboe ’ s death .
An American working for the CIA died this week of injuries from a terrorist attack in Mogadishu , Somalia , according to two people with knowledge of the attack .
He is the first American known to be killed as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disastrous 1993 Black Hawk Down battle .
Goodboe , who was known as “ Goody ” to his colleagues and teammates , was formerly a member of the Navy ’ s elite SEAL Team 6 , according to military records obtained by The Intercept and the two sources .
Goodboe left the SEALs several years ago and joined the CIA ’ s paramilitary unit as a contractor , according to one of the sources who knew him .
Goodboe ’ s death comes as President Donald Trump has announced his intention to remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personnel from Somalia before leaving office in January .
The U.S. has conducted covert and clandestine operations in Somalia for nearly two decades , and Trump ’ s expected order would not affect the CIA ’ s presence in the country .
The attack in Mogadishu occurred as al-Shabab has increased attacks against Somali counterterrorism forces who were trained by the U.S. , including an attack this week that killed as many as six Somalis , according to local press reports .
The group was formed after the 9/11 attacks with the intention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Africa .
U.S. Africa Command reported an increase in car bomb attacks by al-Shabab during the quarter ending on September 30 , including in Mogadishu .
In July , al-Shabab attempted to assassinate the chief of Somalia ’ s military using a car bomb in Mogadishu .
In August , a car bomb attack by al-Shabab at Lido Beach in Mogadishu resulted in 25 casualties .
On September 7 , al-Shabab used a car bomb to attack U.S and Somali troops operating in the south of the country , killing three Somali personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last September , al-Shabab carried out an assault on a U.S. outpost , Baledogle Military Airfield , about 62 miles northwest of Mogadishu , injuring one American .
On January 5 , members of the group attacked a longtime American outpost at Manda Bay , Kenya , killing two American military contractors and a U.S. soldier .
In September , AFRICOM ’ s director of intelligence , Rear Adm. Heidi Berg , said there had been a “ a definitive shift ” in al-Shabab ’ s focus on attacking U.S. interests in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a press release that same month , al-Shabab vowed to “ concentrate their military operations on the American crusaders in order to defend their religion , land and people.
” In 2017 , Senior Chief Petty Officer Kyle Milliken , a SEAL Team 6 operator , was killed by enemy fire about 40 miles west of Mogadishu .
The next year , 26-year-old Staff Sgt .
Alex Conrad of the Army ’ s Special Forces , was killed in a firefight about 200 miles southwest of the capital .
Under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skyrocketed , and there has been an increase in civilian deaths .
From 2007 to 2017 , the U.S. military is known to have carried out 42 attacks .
Under Trump , the U.S. military conducted 38 strikes in 2017 , 48 in 2018 , and 63 in 2019 .
This year alone , AFRICOM has acknowledged 49 airstrikes in Somalia , more than under the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama combined .
The number of CIA strikes is unknown .
According to the U.K.-based monitoring group Airwars , evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been killed in U.S. attacks since 2007 , though AFRICOM has admitted to killing only five civilians over the last 13 years .
Despite the increase in U.S. strikes , operations , and personnel , the conflict between al-Shabab and U.S. forces working with a central Somali government has been mostly a stalemate .

An American working for the CIA died this week of injuries from a terrorist attack in Mogadishu, Somalia, according to two people with knowledge of the attack. He is the first American known to be killed as a result of violence in the capital since the disastrous 1993 Black Hawk Down battle.
Michael Goodboe, a 54-year-old former Navy SEAL who worked for the CIA’s paramilitary unit, died after succumbing to injuries from an improvised explosive device, according to the two sources. The two sources requested anonymity because of the sensitivity around the attack and because they were not authorized to disclose Goodboe’s death.
The attack that killed Goodboe was presumed to have been conducted by al-Shabab, an Al Qaeda-affiliated group engaged in a decadelong insurgency, though the details remain unclear. One of the people familiar with the attack said Goodboe was flown to Germany, where the U.S. has a military hospital, and later died of his injuries.
The CIA declined to comment. Goodboe’s family did not respond to requests for comment. The New York Times first reported the death but did not identify the CIA officer who was killed.
Goodboe, who was known as “Goody” to his colleagues and teammates, was formerly a member of the Navy’s elite SEAL Team 6, according to military records obtained by The Intercept and the two sources. Goodboe left the SEALs several years ago and joined the CIA’s paramilitary unit as a contractor, according to one of the sources who knew him.
Goodboe’s death comes as President Donald Trump has announced his intention to remove all of the roughly 700 U.S. military personnel from Somalia before leaving office in January. The U.S. has conducted covert and clandestine operations in Somalia for nearly two decades, and Trump’s expected order would not affect the CIA’s presence in the country.
The attack in Mogadishu occurred as al-Shabab has increased attacks against Somali counterterrorism forces who were trained by the U.S., including an attack this week that killed as many as six Somalis, according to local press reports. The group was formed after the 9/11 attacks with the intention of going after U.S. interests in East Africa.
U.S. Africa Command reported an increase in car bomb attacks by al-Shabab during the quarter ending on September 30, including in Mogadishu. In July, al-Shabab attempted to assassinate the chief of Somalia’s military using a car bomb in Mogadishu. In August, a car bomb attack by al-Shabab at Lido Beach in Mogadishu resulted in 25 casualties. On September 7, al-Shabab used a car bomb to attack U.S and Somali troops operating in the south of the country, killing three Somali personnel and wounding one U.S. military service member.
Last September, al-Shabab carried out an assault on a U.S. outpost, Baledogle Military Airfield, about 62 miles northwest of Mogadishu, injuring one American. On January 5, members of the group attacked a longtime American outpost at Manda Bay, Kenya, killing two American military contractors and a U.S. soldier.
In September, AFRICOM’s director of intelligence, Rear Adm. Heidi Berg, said there had been “a definitive shift” in al-Shabab’s focus on attacking U.S. interests in the region over the last couple months. In a press release that same month, al-Shabab vowed to “concentrate their military operations on the American crusaders in order to defend their religion, land and people.”
In 2017, Senior Chief Petty Officer Kyle Milliken, a SEAL Team 6 operator, was killed by enemy fire about 40 miles west of Mogadishu. The next year, 26-year-old Staff Sgt. Alex Conrad of the Army’s Special Forces, was killed in a firefight about 200 miles southwest of the capital.
Under the Trump administration, airstrikes in Somalia have skyrocketed, and there has been an increase in civilian deaths. From 2007 to 2017, the U.S. military is known to have carried out 42 attacks. Under Trump, the U.S. military conducted 38 strikes in 2017, 48 in 2018, and 63 in 2019. This year alone, AFRICOM has acknowledged 49 airstrikes in Somalia, more than under the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama combined. The number of CIA strikes is unknown.
According to the U.K.-based monitoring group Airwars, evidence suggests that as many as 142 civilians have been killed in U.S. attacks since 2007, though AFRICOM has admitted to killing only five civilians over the last 13 years.
Despite the increase in U.S. strikes, operations, and personnel, the conflict between al-Shabab and U.S. forces working with a central Somali government has been mostly a stalemate.