Why Libertarians Are Wrong About Drugs

John P. Walters, director of drug control policy for President George W. Bush, is chief operating officer of the Hudson Institute. 

By JOHN P. WALTERS - June 16, 2014

Libertarians and social conservatives both resist an intrusive central government, but they differ over exactly what constitutes “intrusive” policy, especially when it comes to private behavior.

 

Nowhere is this divide more obvious than in the war on drugs.
 
Social conservatives are troubled by drug abuse, especially among the young, and believe that government regulation of certain substances is necessary to curb behavior seen not only as self-destructive but also incompatible with a strong and free community.

Libertarians, on the other hand, argue that the heavy-handedness of the nanny state, and the law-enforcement abuses likely to accompany it, present a greater threat to freedom than the prohibited behavior itself.

As Milton Friedman put it, “the present system of drug prohibition … does so much more harm than good.”

The libertarian commitment to freedom should absolutely be acknowledged and, in a time of growing state control, defended.

But, when it comes to drugs, libertarians have yet to grasp just how much drug abuse undermines individual freedom and erodes the very core of the libertarian ideal.

Many libertarians argue that the state should have no power over adult citizens and their decision to ingest addictive substances—so long as they do no harm to anyone but themselves.

Hence, there should be no laws against using drugs, and over time this self-destructive behavior will limit itself.

But this harmless world is not the real world of drug use.

There is ample experience that a drug user harms not only himself, but also many others.

The association between drug use and social and economic failure, domestic violence, pernicious parenting and criminal acts while under the influence is grounds for prohibition even if we accept no responsibility for what the drug user does to himself.

The drug user’s freedom to consume costs his community not only their safety, but also their liberty.

 

And I’m not just talking about heroin.

 

 

Over the past decade, as marijuana use has grown, the number of car accident victims testing positive for the drug has tripled, according to a recent study.

 

 

Just as troubling as the potential harm done to others are the questions: What is to replace prohibition?

 

 

And who holds the reins?

 

 

Here things get sketchy.

 

 

Everybody wants the cartels out; but who’s in?

 

 

Whatever entity controls the supply controls the population of addicts.

 

 

Management of production and distribution, some envision, could be commercial.

 

 

What could go wrong?

 

 

Think Afghan warlord with a lobbying arm and a marketing department.

 

 

Is drug use a disability?

 

 

Who pays for the escalating doses?

 

 

Big Pharma on, well, drugs, with direct-to-consumer advertising?

 

 

Others see a regulated, licensed dispensary model, perhaps with medical supervision.

 

 

But misuse of opiate pharmaceuticals already represents the second-largest illicit drug threat in America.

 

 

Would there be political corruption in the quest for those dispensary licenses?

 

 

Perhaps, as with marijuana in Colorado, the state itself will run the show.

 

 

What are the political implications of a state-regulated market for drugs?

 

 

I have witnessed one such scheme, in Amsterdam, with the state-controlled distribution of heroin.

 

 

The physician in charge presided over a clean, well-lit facility, clinical and efficient, where every morning that day’s clients entered her facility for their supervised heroin injections.

 

 

The Dutch called their scheme “daycare.”

 

 

Come evening, the clients were discharged back into the streets.

 

 

What if these drug users decided to continue their career of crime and seek illicit heroin to supplement their state-supported allotment?

 

 

“Oh, that doesn’t happen,” the doctor assured me with a chilling smile.

 

 

“If so, we simply withhold their heroin.”

 

 

This state has a nanny, indeed, and I fear that her clients are no longer free.

 

 

They are wards of the state, and they are kept on a tight leash.

 

 

Controlled addiction happens elsewhere in the world, too.

 

 

There is evidence that, in some places, suicide bombers, youth warriors, child sex slaves and even manual laborers are given drugs to keep them captive.

 

 

Criminal drug dealers have long used such leverage to “own” their clientele.

 

 

For the addicted, the price exacted to maintain their dose may be bottomless, and can entail betrayals of self and others.

 

 

The “clients” of Amsterdam are no longer active citizens, nor are they even willing actors, for they have contracted a disease that threatens their self-governance and gives whoever controls their drug of choice undue power over them.

 

 

Do we want to hand the government that leash?

 

 

To be sure, some libertarians would stop at legalizing marijuana.

 

 

But it’s hard to see how that will last.

 

 

Marijuana is addictive (responsible for three-fifths of illicit drug abuse according to a 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health), and is a gateway to other drugs.

 

 

Already, in parts of Europe and even Canada, cocaine, meth and opiates are legally used, with heroin distribution state-sponsored.

 

 

This is not a conjectural debate.

 

 

And the political risks are already evident.

 

 

All these marijuana users that are reliable supporters of pro-legalization candidates in their state campaigns—that donate their money and pledge their votes—how would we feel if they were all heroin users, compelled by their disease to support a particular political candidate?

 

 

The fact that the United States is currently experiencing a surge in heroin makes this a question worth asking.

 

 

Even President Obama, whose administration has facilitated marijuana legalization, himself asked the logical follow-up question: “[What if] we’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we OK with that?”

 

 

Are we?

 

 

How does a libertarian abide the threat that today’s congressman might become tomorrow’s party functionary in charge of dispensing or withholding the desperately needed dose?

 

 

If an essential predicate of libertarian society is the willing, rational actor, capable of weighing and understanding consequences, what’s left when this condition is absent?

 

 

Such a state is not the attainment of liberty, but rather its end.

 

 

 

 

 







 

 

 

 

Elephants and Tea Parties

By Robert Charles June 14, 2014

Robert B. Charles was Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, worked in the Reagan and GHW Bush White Houses, and taught law and oversight at the Harvard University Extension School.  He presently leads a Washington DC consulting firm. 

Life is a matter of perspective, as much as recognition of longstanding truths.

Today, the Tea Party is a force in American politics, in the same way that discovering an elephant in your living room would be a newly discovered force in your life. 

But what is the Tea Party? 

Like the six blind men who all touch an elephant and see it differently, that depends on your perspective.  

One of the blind men in the iconic poem by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) touches the side of the elephant and feels a wall. 

While few of the Tea Party’s adherents urge voter registration under that name, they are grounded in limited government, lower taxes, and the Bill of Rights.

They see the movement as a wall of wisdom, built one brick at a time, since the days of our Nation’s Founding. 

To Saxe’s second blind man, who discovers a tusk, the elephant is a spear.

Faced with an unaccountable, increasingly intrusive and incorrigibly expansive Federal Leviathan, some see the Tea Party as the tip of a popular uprising, the pointy end of what will be a resurgence of accountability, respect for individual rights, and reduced Federal footprint. 

The third blind man in the poem grasps the elephant’s trunk.

To him the elephant is a snake.

To those in opposing camps, the Tea Party -- although not a party -- seems to present a threat.

Like the curling trunk, it is a movement in motion, not defined by shape, size, reach or impact.

To some Republicans and to more Democrats, the Tea Party demands caution, distance.

It has an ability to strike unexpectedly, to bite. Recently defeated U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor must count himself in that camp.

Also in his company are those comfortable with big government, and those less trusting of the individuals, community, or State to make good decisions.  

The fourth blind man felt the elephant’s knee, sure he was a tree.

To these souls, the Founders’ words, actions, and intent, the conservative doctrine of strict construction of the U.S. Constitution, and a primacy of local decision-making are well-rooted in our past.

Our country’s exceptional past – oak timbers like tradition and a free market, trust in creativity and entrepreneurialism, individualism, and self-reliance are self-evidently how we got here, and how we will get to the next level.  

The fifth blind man felt only an ear of the elephant.

To him the ear was a fan, powerful but fragile, strong, and thin.

He misunderstood the ear’s ability to guide the larger body, yet liked what he felt.

To some -- particularly those of us who remember a Republican Party led by Reagan’s principles, good humor and openness, pride, and peace of heart, the Tea Party is an echo, a welcome echo, but still thin.

Reagan was never divisive or quick to condemn Americans who sought, with a good heart, to live by honor and tradition, even when they erred or missed the mark. 

To him, we were One Nation, blessed by Providence and courage, strong because we knew ourselves, trusted our instincts and each other.

We could bend and lend an ear without fear of losing our bearings.   

The sixth blind man found only the elephant’s tail, sure it was a rope, and in that way underestimated the whole, even as he disparaged what he knew of it. 

Perhaps that is what the media today sees in the Tea Party. 

So, today, we enter the living room of our political life and find an elephant, the Tea Party -- still a mystery.

What exactly is the Tea Party? 

Is it who we all are, want to be, or are afraid of being?

Is it a wall of comforting principle or spear of activism, a source of suspicion or of rooted solace? 

Is it the Nation’s ear, able to guide the body politic to a brighter future, or a foil for detractors, a way to divide the Republican Party? 

Maybe there is something bigger afoot, something we are missing? 

Is this elephant not new at all, but the living room itself -- the Leviathan -- what is new?

Is it possible that we see in the Tea Party what we want to see, and are all partly wrong?

Is it possible that the Tea Party is an outgrowth of our common desire to again be One Nation, hard as it is to get our arms around that idea?

Maybe this ill-defined elephant has undefined potential. 

If the Tea Party helps us reexamine who we are, as Americans, and better understand what we value most, it is by definition good.

If it becomes a distraction, another way for dividing us on ourselves, the potential force for good will be wasted.

Not very poetic, but there you have it:  There was more to Saxe’s elephant, and there may be more to the Tea Party than any of us, blind as we are, yet imagine.

ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA D. HARRIS ISSUES COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME IN CALIFORNIA

Gangs Beyond Borders

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/toc/report_2014.pdf

Kamala Harris
AG_California

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Contact: (415) 703-5837

LOS ANGELES - Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today issued the first comprehensive report analyzing the current state of transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) in California and the threats they pose to the state’s public safety and economy.

The report also sets forth recommendations to combat the increasingly complex issue of transnational organized crime in California.

“The growth of transnational criminal organizations seriously threatens California’s safety and economic well-being,” Attorney General Harris said. “State and local law enforcement officers are on the front lines of this fight every day.

Our response must include sustained funding for their work and strong coordination at all levels of government.”

This new report, Gangs Beyond Borders: California and the Fight Against Transnational Organized Crime, addresses the three emerging pillars of transnational criminal activity: the trafficking of drugs, weapons and human beings; money laundering; and high-tech crimes, such as digital piracy, hacking and fraud.

The report highlights the work of law enforcement to date in combatting transnational crime and details major strides that have already been made to stop this violent, insidious threat.

It analyzes how transnational criminal organizations are innovating, and outlines recommendations to adapt to new challenges, including stricter laws targeting TCO leaders, sustained funding for law enforcement, and strong collaboration between federal, state, local and international governments.

The report is a result of extensive research and consultation with federal, state, and local law enforcement, non-governmental organizations and academia.

The full report can be viewed here: https://oag.ca.gov/transnational-organized-crime

Highlights from Gangs Beyond Borders:

·         Mexico-based transnational criminal organizations traffic 70% of imported methamphetamine through the San Diego port of entry alone. California is the primary source of methamphetamine nationwide.

·         The Sinaloa Cartel is the most dominant Mexico-based drug trafficking organization operating in California and is responsible for trafficking most of the Mexico-produced marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine through Tijuana into California.

·         Transnational criminal organizations are using new technologies like social media to facilitate criminal activity, recruitment, intimidation and harassment.

·         Breaches of computer networks by TCOs have increased since 2009 and many originate from organizations based in China, Russia, Romania, and Nigeria, among other countries.

·         Last year, California state drug task forces disrupted 140 drug, money laundering and gang organizations, arrested nearly 3,000 individuals, rescued 41 endangered children, confiscated 1,000 weapons and seized nearly $28.5 million in anti-narcotic law enforcement actions.

The comprehensive report presents the following recommendations:

·         The California legislature should amend state law to target the leaders of transnational criminal organizations operating in California.

·         Federal, state, and local law enforcement should use California’s State Threat Assessment System as a central hub for sharing information about transnational crime.

·         Federal, state, and local authorities should establish a unified maritime task force and associated radar network to counter maritime smuggling operations along California’s coastline.

·         The Legislature and Governor should fund five additional Special Operations Units across California.

·         Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies should increase operational coordination in combatting transnational criminal organizations

·         State and local authorities should develop public-private partnerships to leverage technology against transnational crime.

·         Businesses should adopt industry best practices designed to protect against cybercrime.

·         The Legislature should amend California law to enable prosecutors to temporarily freeze the assets of transnational criminal organizations and their gang associates before the filing of an indictment.

·         The Legislature should strengthen California’s prohibition against financial transaction “structuring.”

·         California prosecutors need advanced training to combat sophisticated money laundering schemes.

·         State authorities should partner with their Mexican counterparts to share intelligence and disrupt the illicit flow of money across the border.

Next week, Attorney General Harris will lead a delegation of state attorneys general to Mexico to strengthen working relationships between the governments of both countries and enhance efforts to combat transnational crime. T

he delegation will meet with Mexican state attorneys general and federal officials to discuss the issues of drug, human and firearms trafficking, money laundering and high-tech crime.

The Attorneys General will travel to Mexico City from March 24 through the 26. The delegation includes California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and New Mexico Attorney General Gary King.

In 2012, Attorney General Harris released a report, The State of Human Trafficking in California, which outlined the growing prevalence of the crime of human trafficking in the state, the increasing involvement of sophisticated transnational gangs in perpetrating the crime and the modern technologies that traffickers use to facilitate it. (link http://www.oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking/2012 )

# # #

CHARLES: When the federal government goes too far

Washington Times - Robert "Bobby" Charles - June 13, 2014

 

 

Robert B. Charles, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush, currently leads a consulting group in Washington.

Strange how the world turns, and how, in this turning world, precepts embodied in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, again and again, turn out to be the “still point.” Strange, too, how a few key rights preserve us, reaffirm what the Founders expected of us, what we should expect of each other and what we should expect — and not expect — of the federal government.

Take the rights of free speech and free exercise of religion, cornerstones of the Bill of Rights. Today, in one way or another, both rights are under fire. The federal government encroaches more on them each day, and average Americans wonder what is next. The political right blames the political left for government overreach; meantime, the left blames the right for indifference. The left implicitly trusts government to know what is best, while the right implicitly distrusts the government, as our Founders did, in favor of individuals enlightened by their own moral compass. Wherever you fall on that continuum, these two freedoms must remain untouched, unencumbered, unencroached upon by government. Here is why.

Two historical examples, seldom discussed, make the point. The first is Henry David Thoreau. The second is religion’s role in ending slavery. Celebrated by left-leaning environmentalists, Thoreau is a figure who, in his day, led the cause of appreciation for America’s grand, incomparable wild. His seminal 1854 book, “Walden,” describes his two-year seclusion in nature, where he learned self-reliance, simplicity and conservation. This book, supplemented by others, such as “The Maine Woods,” kicked off a new awareness by Americans of nature.

OK, fair enough. Now look at the role of the First Amendment. Look at how this American thought leader, lofted to defend environmental regulation and encroachment on property rights, might have fared. Beyond appreciation of nature, Thoreau defied interference by government in his life. Today, he would probably be shocked to see the level of government encroachment on individual liberties.

Thoreau’s 1849 essay, “Resistance to Civil Government,” and his assertion of free speech to defy the government on selected taxes, would put him behind bars for years in today’s America. In 1849, it landed him there for one day. Had he faced a modern prison term for exercising his free speech, he would never have spent the next two years at Walden Pond or written the very book environmentalists now revere. In short, had his First Amendment rights been amputated, as they might be today, Thoreau’s celebration of the environment would never have been written.

Today, the individual’s right to live by a moral code defined by his free exercise of religion is being pummeled by government. Nowhere is religion, particularly Christianity, more accosted than by self-described leftists, those who seek out ways to impugn faith in the name of atheism, secularism, humanism and agnosticism. So, here is the irony. Without an open, free and unrestricted right to worship, without an ability to compel government to respect that right, the rise of anti-slavery and abolitionism, would have been impeded. This call to freedom began in America’s pulpits, and from there abolitionism took wing. That is why “men of the cloth” had to stand their ground; they were often prosecuted by government. Thus, the Rev. Jacob Gruber, of Maryland, was prosecuted for sermons on faith and freedom, and the Rev. Jarvis Bacon, of Virginia, was similarly prosecuted. In Louisiana, the linkage of faith and freedom from “the pulpit” was punishable by death.

So, there it is, the importance of unrestricted freedom to religious faith, a central force that preserves morality, freedom and equality. No wonder even congressmen rose to defend free exercise of religion. In the middle of the 19th century, Rep. Owen Lovejoy, Illinois Republican, for example, boldly condemned laws that “imprison or exile preachers of the Gospel,” noting that words from the pulpit are among “the privileges and immunities of the Constitution which guarantees to me free speech.” Unrestricted freedom to worship in accord with individual belief accelerated the society’s movement toward wider freedom.

All this would be airy and irrelevant, if not for very recent decisions by the federal government that erode, erase and encroach — yet again — on our free speech and worship. While there are well-established limits, there is absolutely no place in a society grounded in these rights for prosecution or harassment, condemnation, limitation or isolation of those who revere these two constitutional rights, to free speech and exercise of religion.

Unless we want to disavow Thoreau’s wisdom and the moral righteousness of abolitionism, we can hardly afford now to walk back these sacred rights. If we still think integrity matters and hypocrisy is to be avoided, take a breath. Let’s try to be more patient with each other, and all of us less reliant on the government to guide us. What government snuffs out for one today, it can snuff for all tomorrow. That is not our America. As the world turns, the still point remains — our Constitution. Let’s not be afraid to know its history, and to say so.

 

Out-of-sync society

The Hill - By Robert B. Charles - June 14, 2014, 12:00 pm

Charles is the former assistant secretary of State under Colin Powell in the Ge0rge W. Bush administration, former counsel to Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and a former lawyer and law clerk.  He currently leads a consulting group in Washington D.C.

Is it my imagination, or is our society resetting itself to default on “instant misunderstanding,” deciding that being “out of sync” with each other is fine? 

Are we becoming content to take the low road, thinking blame is an acceptable replacement for American traits of courage, patience and listening? 

Surely there is a better way. 

We are still Americans first, right?

Politically, not a single Democrat in the US House can understand why Benghazi matters, or why Republicans are preoccupied with oversight, or why State and community issues should, after all, be left to States and local communities. 

At the same time, not a single Republican can understand why not a single Democrat can understand these things, or why politics are part of their calculus. 

Are we all that disingenuous? 

Content to sling mud balls?

On a personal level, this disease is also spreading.  “Instant misunderstanding,” an Orwellian double-think that permits ignoring what one does not want to hear, is creeping into everyday life. 

We watch Big Politicians and Big Media slice and dice us, like soft cake. 

We watch them ice us up, divide us into feuding camps, label us members of some class, and plop us into separate boxes. 

We are then told to accept these artificial constructs, forget about upward mobility, learn to disdain, despise capitalism’s creativity, reject peace of heart, and rejoice in jaundice. 

We are told to swap time-tested American values for petty jealousy, the thrill of spinning up, and then – so they hope – vent our spleens at the polls. 

But do we have to do that? 

Ok, so 70 percent of us think we are in an undefined middle class. 

Does that mean everyone else has it better, that we should bag work and default to condemning the rest of America for what they earn? 

Is that really America? 

Do you not feel – like summer humidity – the manipulation afoot? 

Do you not see the insidious creep of a plan to divide us?

Well, humidity affects me, and so does manipulation. 

I do not like it. 

The Big Shots deny the American Dream, partition us, and tamp down our belief in, patience with, and smile for each other.

They seem to disdain the America that gives and forgives, more gets and forgets. 

They have no time for those of us willing to pause and listen, stay low key, laugh aloud at the Federal Government, enjoy differences, resist standardization, and refuse the default to “instant misunderstanding.” 

They aim to make you believe that we should live in these separate boxes, and that if your box gets bigger mine is getting smaller, and vice versa. 

But that is not how it works, or ever has – not in America. 

They all forget we know better. 

We know a different way, one in which everyone with hard work and some self-recognized talent, can do better. 

They forget we know American history. 

We will never trade this Land of Opportunity for a Sovietized culture of collective resentment, no matter how appealing they try to make it. 

We are America.

So, why do we let such turkeys rile us, discourage us? 

Why do we allow gamers to affect us? 

Why do we allow Big Government and Big Media, sitting in comfortable chairs on comfortable salaries, sipping comfortable drinks while spewing uncomfortable claptrap, define us? 

Why do we accept the need to misinterpret? 

I think it is time to say “no.” 

I think it is time to trust in ourselves and each other again. 

Say, what about that inner peace, the old American ability to shrug, smile and move on? 

Guess what, we can speak for ourselves, think for ourselves, reach our own opinions, and choose to accept and forgive each other as easily as take issue – more easily. 

We can slow the pace and listen, trust the individuals we meet, walk away from crass appeals to class, political and personal warfare. 

How about a new mantra, “Take a breath, trust yourself, smile a while, and be American.” 

What’s greatest about this amazing country is – each other. 

And if we return to what is best about our past, guess what? 

It is not Big Government or Big Media. 

It is the proud little person, little family, little town, little neighborhood, little things – that make us … Big. 

So, what do you say? 

Let’s default instead to heart and history, self-reliance and simple faith, trust in who we are, not in who we are told to be, shall we? 

Magnanimity – individual to individual – will get us back “in sync” in no time. 

We do not need another Federal mandate, Executive Order or mud ball.

Winston Churchill, that great admirer of America, noted that, “It takes courage to stand up and speak, and it takes courage to sit down and listen.” 

We need more of both, but have a reservoir. 

Let’s help each other get “back in sync,” shall we? 

The Federal Government isn’t doing a very good job. 

And we are still Americans, right? 

 

DUTY

Robert Gates
 22nd United States Secretary of Defense

Dear All,

 Like myself, I’m sure many of you have been puzzled and wondered, “how could President Barack Obama have brought himself, our nation, and the world to the terrible and dangerous condition that it is in today”.

 

As the president, he and his staff  have unfettered access to information from the CIA, DEA, NSA, FBI, ONDCP, HHS, NIDA; every federal agency of our nation.

 

You would also want to believe that the administrators for each of these agencies are the most qualified and the Best of the Best that America has to offer; to do their jobs and provide quality advice to the Commander in Chief or our nation.

 

Well, here is what Obama’s former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has to say in his book, “DUTY”……….and it pretty much explains everything [excerpt: page 290 – 291]:

 

<><><><><><><><>

“Still, I was relieved by Jones’s appointment as national security adviser because no one else in the White House at a senior level had been in the military or know much about the military.  Nor, apart from Jones’s deputy at the NSC, Tom Donilon, did the senior people at the White House have any executive branch experience in national security affairs, except perhaps as midlevel staff in the Clinton administration.  It took only a matter of weeks to see that Jim [Jim Jones, National Security Advisor to President Obama] was isolated in the White House.  Unlike so many others there, he had not been part of the campaign and was not an old friend of the president’s.   The NSC chief of staff, Mark Lippert, on the other hand, had worked for Senator Obama and was his sole foreign policy aid at the start of the presidential campaign.  Denis McDonough, the new NSC head of strategic communications, had also worked for Obama on the Hill and then became his chief foreign policy adviser during the presidential campaign.  Both McDonough and Lippert had an independent relationship and rapport with the new president that Jones could not hope to have.  Obama also gave them ready access, making Jone’s position all the more difficult.

Early on, after one of my briefings with Obama, Jones complained to me that the briefing memo the president was using for my meeting had been prepared by Lippert without Jones’s  knowledge.  On the NSC staff under Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, and Zbigniew Brzenzinski, such a breach of protocol would have been a firing offense.  I can only imagine how Jones, after a lifetime in the Marine Corps – the most hierarchical organization there is – felt about repeated violations of the chain of command.

Meanwhile Donilon had a close relationship with the vice president, and he and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had been friends for a long time.  Jones also had to deal with a number of others on the White House senior staff –Emanual, presidential counselors Valerie Jarrett, and David Axelrod, press secretary Robert Gibbs, and others – who weighed in independently with Obama on foreign policy issues.  Perhaps a dozen people, including Jones’s own subordinates, had more access to the president than he did and were invited to offer opinions on national security matters, often in his absences.  Indeed, one white House official was  quoted in the Financial Times as saying, “If you ask me who the real national security adviser is, I would say there were three or four, of whom Rahm is one, and of which General Jones is the least important.

Things boiled over during the presidents first foreign trip, for the meeting of the G-20 in London on April 2 and the NATO summit in Strasbourg and Kehl (border cities in France and Germany) on April 3 -4.  Jim told Hillary and me several days later that at both summit meetings, others in the White House – he did not name names – were advising the president on foreign policy issues that they new nothing about.  With disdain, he described how one naïve White House staffer at a NATO summit reception persuaded the president to collar the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers together to get them to work out their problems – in plain view of everyone.  Since the two countries have one of the world’s most bitter, intractable, and long-standing adversarial relationships, the effort was predictably unsuccessful and embarrassing.

Jones vented that he had told Tom Donilon to return to Washington after the G-20 meeting, but other senior White House staff told Donilon to travel with the president for the entire trip, which Jones discovered only when he saw Donilon in the hallway of their hotel at the NATO summit.  Jim said it was hard to get decisions on scheduling presidential travel and that Donilon and Lippert and others in the White House were constantly doing “End Runs” around him.

<><><><><>

After reading this information in Gates book, it is much easier to understand why our country’s foreign policy is in the sorry state we see it in today as it conjures up a mental picture of the "Keystone Cops" running the show.  And regrettably, it took me back to when former General H. Norman Schwarzkopf made his famous comment about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein,  

"As far as Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that he's a great military man-I want you to know that."-General H. Norman Schwarzkopf 1991.

 

I sincerely wish that General Schwarzkopf was alive today so we could hear what he might have said about the leadership abilities of President Barack Obama.

Ronald L. Kirkish