This never made sense to me from the get-go, but I guess sometimes you try something different just to see if it would be better, and you find out before long that it's not. The explanation when they first did it was that Joint Chiefs would be included on an as-needed basis, but that based on the nature of the NSC's day-to-day work, they didn't need to be there all the time. Bannon did, I guess, because the politics of security decisions needed to be consistent with the substance.
Oh well . . .
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster was given responsibility for setting the agenda for meetings of the NSC
President Donald Trump reorganized his National Security Council on Wednesday, removing his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, and downgrading the role of his Homeland Security Adviser, Tom Bossert, according to a person familiar with the decision and a regulatory filing.
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster was given responsibility for setting the agenda for meetings of the NSC or the Homeland Security Council, and was authorized to delegate that authority to Bossert, at his discretion, according to the filing.
Under the move, the national intelligence director, Dan Coats, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, are again "regular attendees" of the NSC’s principals committee.
Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, was elevated to the National Security Council’s principals committee at the beginning of Trump’s presidency. The move drew criticism from some members of Congress and Washington’s foreign policy establishment.
You can bet your bottom dollar this will be portrayed as evidence of chaos at the White House
You can bet your bottom dollar this will be portrayed as evidence of chaos at the White House. It doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds like it was clear that the unconventional approach wasn't yielding the desired results and they decided to go back to what had worked in the past.
Not every change of direction means chaos. Sometimes it simply means the decision-maker recognized an adjustment was necessary to get better results, and wasn't afraid to make the necessary change.
A lot of the focus is on Bannon but the more interesting change to me is Tom Bossert being downgraded, although someone probably needs to explain the distinction between the National Security Adviser and the Homeland Security Adviser. My presumption is that one focuses more on global threats to national security while the other focuses exclusively on threats to the geographic United States. If that's the case, it probably makes sense that McMaster sets the agenda rather than Bossert.
Support Canada Free Press
Bloomberg speculates that Bannon was only there in the first place to keep an eye on Mike Flynn
Bloomberg speculates that Bannon was only there in the first place to keep an eye on Mike Flynn, and that because of Flynn's quick departure, Bannon never even attended a meeting. I have no idea if that's true and I wouldn't assume it is just because an anonymous Bloomberg source says it is.
Bannon's inclusion didn't bother me as much as it bothered a lot of people for the simple reason that Trump should be able to send whoever he trusts to be his eyes and ears in any gathering. It would be one thing if Bannon was setting the agenda and making the decisions while more seasoned national security pros were forced to follow his lead. But just having him there isn't a problem. I guess Trump decided there wasn't much of a positive point to it either, which is why the experiment is over.
This is the type of adjustment that effective organizations make, although that's surely not the way you're going to hear it reported.
