I Was on the National Security Council. Bannon Doesn't Belong There. - New York Times

The Trump White House insists that the new organizational structure does not downgrade the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the director of national intelligence. (The White House and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have both said that General Dunford will fully participate in the council’s duties.) If this is true, the administration should clarify that by making them permanent members of the principals committee. That would send a strong signal that Mr. Trump will still take seriously the military and intelligence community.

Continue reading the main story

The second much needed adjustment to Mr. Trump’s arrangement of the council is the removal of Mr. Bannon from the principals committee. Putting aside for a moment Mr. Bannon’s troubling public positions, which are worrisome enough, institutionalizing his attendance threatens to politicize national security decision making.

The security council was formed in 1947 to serve a unique role in our government. It facilitates and coordinates, providing a forum through which federal agencies discuss and debate policy and, ultimately, provide counsel to the president about how best to keep the American people safe. At N.S.C. meetings, representatives from the State Department, the Pentagon, the Treasury Department, the intelligence community and other agencies speak freely and critically about the full breadth of options available to the United States. Those discussions can get heated at times. They can certainly get territorial. But they seldom get political — nor should they.

Mr. Bush understood this, as did his successor. As has been widely reported, Mr. Bush barred Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, from council meetings. And while I remember David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s political adviser, attending meetings early in that administration, he did not vote or otherwise engage in the discussion.

Having Mr. Bannon as a voting member of the principals committee will have a negative influence on what is supposed to be candid, nonpartisan deliberation. I fear that it will have a chilling effect on deliberations and, potentially, diminish the authority and the prerogatives to which Senate-confirmed cabinet officials are entitled. They, unlike Mr. Bannon, are accountable for the advice they give and the policies they execute.

Consistent though Mr. Bannon’s presence may be with the predilections of our new president, it results in a blurring of presidential responsibilities — Republican Party leader and commander in chief — that is unhealthy for the republic.

I’m perfectly aware that political concerns color the national security decisions that any president makes. The invasion of Iraq, the surge in Afghanistan, air operations over Libya, sanctions on Russia and, of course, the decision not to strike Syria after President Bashar al-Assad crossed Mr. Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons were all informed — if not dominated — by political calculations.

But those decisions were made outside the confines of the Situation Room, where the security council meets. I cannot remember a single instance during my four-year stint as chairman of the Joint Chiefs where it was otherwise. That’s the way it should be.

Every president has the right and the responsibility to shape the security council as he sees fit. But partisan politics has no place at that table. And neither does Mr. Bannon.

Continue reading the main story