No Intelligence For You

Tomorrow's newspaper column, today:

Lost in the afterglow of what Ann Coulter called the lamest State of the Union Speech of all time was an actually significant utterance from Trump. Using words not written for him to read, haltingly, off a teleprompter, he arbitrarily dismissed the Congressional testimony of the heads of each of our intelligence agencies; all, to a man and woman, contradicting pretty much everything he says about threats our nation faces. That’s far more consequential than evanescent calls for the high-minded politics of which he’s incapable.  

Trump claims ISIS is defeated; they said it’s reconstituted, engaging new tactics. Trump says North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat; they said Kim has no intention of relinquishing his nuclear ambitions, and is hiding his activities. The Iran deal is failing, swears Trump. They’re following its conditions, say our intelligence agencies. There’s no threat from climate change, insists Donald. The opposite, squared, is what the intelligence community understands. Nor did they confirm a security “crisis” at our southern border.  

Claiming they’re “naïve,” Trump spurned those leaders, all of whom he appointed. Virtually alone among his appointees in having expertise in the positions for which they were chosen, they’re even more unique in their willingness to tell it like it is, rather than offering him only what he wants to hear. 

Merely a week past my frolic amongst happy amphiscians, it’s jarring to consider the implications of a “president” who absents himself from daily intelligence briefings, already pared down to a third-grade comprehension level, and who, when he can’t avoid hearing it, disregards the information those agencies provide. Who, according to reports, gets angry when shown material that belies his preferred beliefs, causing people to avoid giving it to him. The implications should be obvious, even to Trumpists, so consider it we must. In a world where hyper-partisanship didn’t require otherwise thoughtful people to excuse the inexcusable, no one would defend such dereliction.  

The mission of our intelligence-gathering agencies is to provide a president with the best possible data about potential threats, foreign and domestic; to ground critical decision-making, affecting war and peace, in facts as one is best able to know them. They, and no one else, have the resources: surveillance satellites, spyware and spies, analysts, informants, communication networks with similar foreign agencies. If a president, or, in this case, a “president,” decides he can make life and death decisions without their input, on what or whom, then, will that person rely?  

Ample is the “president’s” gut, and he’s said it’s the source of his best thoughts. His brain, he reminds us with misspelled words, is like none other’s: no one knows more than him about anything. Likely, he even believes it; yet he regularly shows lack of comprehension about almost everything of which he speaks. (Documentation provided on request.) So, if not our intelligence agencies, and if not only his gut, whence comes the information that convinces him of the naivety of the intelligence community? John Bolton? What unique sources does he have? Vladimir Putin? He has plenty. 

We’ve learned Trump’s announced withdrawal from Syria was not discussed with the Joint Chiefs. Happening immediately after a chat with Turkey’s Erdogan, it received instantaneous approval from Putin. Does this reveal who’s pulling Trump’s strings? Which would be worse, a “president” who takes orders from foreign leaders (or Fox “news” screamers), or one who considers himself infallible? In either option there’s little comfort. The only other is that he studiously evaluates gathered intelligence, but he’s eliminated that possibility.  

Everyone should find this scary as hell. Example: by ending Reagan’s INF treaty, against expert advice, Trump rewards his donors with fat military contracts, Putin realizes his dream of nukes on his European border, and the world becomes more dangerous. And we’re to believe an information-averse, pathologically-lying “president,” who just lied his way through El Paso, when he tells us otherwise.  

Beyond learning how to operate, the most critical part of my surgical training was having drilled into me – under penalty of expulsion – what I didn’t know. Even more than technical skill, such boundaries define a safe doctor. No one would risk their life with surgeons who considered their teachers naïve, refused to learn new approaches, didn’t read surgical journals, attend professional enrichment courses; didn’t seek advice when needed, considered germ theory a hoax. 

So, what justifies doing the equivalent with Trump? The wall? Imaginary tax refunds? Is life that cheap? 

Also: if you're okay with Trump's "emergency," you don't get to say you love America anymore.

[Image source]