Month: December 2019

Authored by Otmar Issing via Project Syndicate,

As an alarming new United Nations report shows, climate change is probably the biggest challenge of our time. But should central banks also be worrying about the issue? If so, what should they be doing about it?

Central-bank representatives who do decide to make public speeches about climate change cannot deny the scale and scope of the problem; to do so would be to risk their own credibility. But the same is true when central bankers feel obliged to discuss the distribution of income and wealth, rising crime rates, or any other newsworthy topic. The more that central banks’ communications strategy focuses on trying to make themselves “popular” in the public’s eyes, the greater the temptation to address topics outside their primary remit.

Beyond communicating with the public, the question, of course, is whether central banks should try to account for environmental considerations when shaping monetary policy. Obviously, climate change and corresponding government policies in response to it can have powerful effects on economic development. These consequences are reflected in all kinds of variables – growth, inflation, employment levels – that will in turn affect central-bank forecasts and influence monetary-policy decisions.

Likewise, natural disasters and other environmental events – actual or potential – can pose implicit risks to entire classes of financial assets. Regulators and supervisors charged with assessing risk and associated capital needs must take this environmental dimension into account. At a minimum, the high uncertainty stemming from these risks implies a huge challenge for assessing the stability of the financial system and corresponding macroprudential measures. And these risk factors are also increasingly relevant for monetary-policy decisions, such as when central banks should buy bonds or (in some cases) equities.

But the growing public demand that central banks contribute more actively to the fight against climate change leads to a different dimension. In theory, central banks could introduce preferential interest rates for “green” activities – thus driving up the prices of “green bonds” – while adopting a more negative attitude toward noxious assets, such as those tied to fossil fuels. And yet, assessing whether and to what extent an asset is environmentally harmful or helpful would be extremely difficult.

Putting aside these more technical issues, the broader question remains: Should central banks assume responsibility for implementing policies to combat climate change? A number of prominent central bankers have already argued that they should. And current proposals for extending central banks’ mandate have come on top of growing concerns about income distribution and other issues tangentially related to monetary policy.

One is reminded of an ironic comment by the great Chicago School economist Jacob Viner.

“If you were to ask me what are the professed goals of most central bankers,” Viner wrote in 1964, “I would say on the basis of what I have heard them say that if they were appearing before a commission … they would either include a wide range of goals, including virtue and motherhood and also everything they could think of which is nice and good, or insist on the lack of power of central banks to serve effectively any specific important goal.”

After having played a decisive role in preventing the world from falling into another 1930s-style depression, central banks after the 2008 financial crisis have been held up as saviors of the world. The title of “maestro,” once accorded just to former US Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan, has now been extended to the entire field. With central bankers at the height of their reputation, it is not surprising that many would now want them to make a substantive contribution to the fight against climate change.

But central bankers should never forget what they are appointed for: namely, to preserve price stability and, in some cases, to support high levels of employment. Central bankers are not omnipotent, and they should not be made to feel as if they were. Confronting climate change is above all the responsibility of governments and legislatures that are exposed to the risk of losing elections. Climate policies that will affect social and economic arrangements across all of society belong in the hands of those who are directly answerable to voters.

Central bankers who would assume responsibility for tackling climate change are acting out of pretention, and could well undermine the very independence upon which their institutions rely. Central banks were not made independent so that they could extend their own mandates. And where environmental issues are among their secondary objectives, central banks should warn against exaggerated expectations regarding their contribution. Making themselves publicly accountable beyond their limited capability in this field must lead to disappointment and undermine their reputation.

There can be no such thing as a “green” monetary policy. A policy domain far outside of central banks’ proper mandate cannot be brought within it, and attempts to do so will inevitably end more or less badly.

As the president departs Washington Monday to attend events marking the seventieth anniversary of the NATO alliance hosted in London, European allies are said to be “bracing for Trump”. Past NATO venues have seen Trump openly chastise allies related to his familiar theme of the Europeans shouldering more of the defense spending burden, making the Dec.3-4 summit ripe for a “bull in a China shop” moment. 

But the milestone commemorative summit, despite shorter meetings on the schedule interspersed among anniversary-related events, could actually see multiple “bulls” clash and set off fireworks if the hoped-for collective cool is not kept, also given the presence of Turkey’s Erdogan — who has lately sought to essentially blackmail the EU and NATO if he doesn’t get his way in northern Syria — as well as tensions related to France’s Macron asserting NATO’s “brain death” in controversial statements.

Not skipping a beat, Erdogan just days ago seized on the opportunity to ask if it was the French president that was actually “brain dead” — sparking an ongoing row between the two leaders and France summoning the Turkish ambassador. 

But this is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the number of potential fault lines which uneasy allies will attempt to navigate when leaders meet just outside London starting Tuesday. Axios somewhat comically points out: “Best-case scenario, for Europeans: Trump sticks to the script.” 

But Bloomberg summarizes it better, as multiple parties will in fact need to stick to the script, not to mention the explosive domestic political situation the host country finds itself in: “With three significant member states bringing conflicting agendas to the table at a gathering that takes place in the closing stretch of a charged U.K. election campaign, the event risks fanning concern about NATO’s future, rather than celebrating what alliance officials and leaders routinely call the most successful military grouping in history,” Bloomberg observes. 

Here are ten areas where things could go sideways, awkward, or even get explosive among allies.

Or alternately we could described them as reasons why Putin will be kicking back to grab the popcorn this week…

1) The US administration has just reduced its aid paid to NATO as part of Trump’s controversial push for fairer defense spending distribution (though NATO has thrown the US a bone, it remains to be seen if Trump pressures further).

The U.S. has contributed about 22% of NATO’s roughly $2.5 billion in annual common fund costs. Defense officials told CNN the Trump administration sought to reduce its contribution to roughly 16%, a roughly $150 million difference.

“Under the new formula, cost shares attributed to most European Allies and Canada will go up while the U.S. share will come down,” the NATO official said. “This is an important demonstration of Allies’ commitment to the Alliance and to fairer burden-sharing.” — USA Today

2) The prior Trump-Macron ‘bromance’ has soured as the two reportedly snipe each other behind the scenes. 

Three senior administration officials told me Trump has been deeply annoyed by French President Emmanuel Macron, who recently told The Economist that “what we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO” and that the United States under Trump’s leadership appears to be “turning its back on us.” — Axios

3) Trump’s unpredictability & European leaders’ anxiety based on prior meetings.

“All I’m hearing is great anxiety about what Trump might do or say,” said Ivo Daalder, who served as U.S. ambassador to NATO from 2009 to 2013.

“The last two NATO meetings didn’t go well,” Daalder told me. “In 2017, [Trump] refused to reaffirm Article 5, and in 2018, he threatened to walk away from NATO if Europeans didn’t spend more on defense.” — Axios

4) Macron’s “brain death” comments and abiding awkwardness of and disagreement over ‘an alliance in search of a mission’.

Officials from the U..S. and Britain were at pains last week to highlight NATO’s successes, including a renewed sense of purpose since Russia’s 2014 aggression in Ukraine. Defense spending is on the rise and NATO is expanding into counter-terrorism, cyber security, and now even space.

…Such accomplishments however are being drowned out by the increasingly public dispute over what NATO should focus on, and what it should stand for. In an apparent attempt to contain the debate, Germany has proposed forming an expert group to report on the future political shape of the alliance. — Bloomberg

5) Europe braces for Trump Erdogan — that increasingly bigger thorn in Europe’s side, as we recently commented:

Turkey – which has become a critical splinter within NATO and according to some is doing Putin’s bidding – is refusing to back a NATO defense plan for the Baltics and Poland unless it gets more political support for its fight against Kurdish YPG militia in northern Syria. Turkey also criticized Macron for agreeing to talks with a Syrian Kurd politician whom Ankara considers an extremist.

6) UK’s crucial and highly charged upcoming ‘Brexit election’ and fears over what Trump might say (or Tweet).

As a presidential candidate in 2016 and then as president since early 2017, Trump has shown no restraint in showing support for Britain’s exit from the European Union and critiquing the politicians involved in the country’s long-running Brexit debate.

But with Johnson leading polls as he faces Dec. 12 elections, the prime minister who is hosting the London NATO summit wants Trump to mind the guard-rails, putting Trump in the unusual position of trying to avoid his normal impulse to comment on whatever he wishes. — Reuters

I will be representing our Country in London at NATO, while the Democrats are holding the most ridiculous Impeachment hearings in history. Read the Transcripts, NOTHING was done or said wrong! The Radical Left is undercutting our Country. Hearings scheduled on same dates as NATO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 30, 2019

7) Ongoing US impeachment theater and what is sure to be multiple attempts of journalists to bait Trump on a world stage.

Johnson’s pressure prompted the White House to stress, as a senior administration official said, that Trump “is absolutely cognizant of not, again, wading into other country’s elections.”

That strategy could be put to the test as Trump faces reporters a number of times on the trip, including at what is expected to be a news conference on Wednesday. — Reuters

8) NATO fragility and havoc of UK election.

Were Johnson to lose to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, that would give NATO yet another individual to worry about at its next summit, due in 2021.

Over his career the socialist firebrand has called NATO “a danger to world peace and a danger to world security,” among other things. — Bloomberg

9) European criticisms that Trump has played into Russia’s hands with his divisive rhetoric on NATO.

Trump has often misrepresented how the NATO alliance functions and is funded, misleadingly saying that other nations pay the US to defend it. Critics of the president feel his approach to the NATO alliance, among other foreign-policy decisions, have served to the advantage of Russia as it fuels the war in Ukraine and mounts aggressive activities elsewhere. — Business Insider

10) Also, the question of China and conflicting NATO priorities. 

There’s also increasing division in NATO over China, over whether to allow Huawei to operate 5G networks and over a growing alignment between Beijing and central and eastern European countries, Daalder said.

It’s “dividing east and west Europe economically, politically and, increasingly, strategically as China’s power and influence in Europe is on the rise.” — Axios

Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the November 29 jihadi attack at London Bridge, where a Pakistani Islamist stabbed two people to death and injured three others. The suspect, 28-year-old Usman Khan, a convicted terrorist, was subsequently shot dead by police.

Khan, from Stoke-on-Trent, was convicted in February 2012 of plotting — on behalf of al-Qaeda — jihadi attacks against the London Stock Exchange and pubs in Stoke, in addition to setting up a jihadi training camp in Pakistan. He was sentenced to an “indeterminate sentence,” meaning that he could have been kept in prison beyond his original minimum term of eight years due to the danger he posed to national security.

In April 2013, however, the Court of Appeal revised that sentence with a fixed term of eight years. Khan, a student of the Islamist extremist Anjem Choudary, who co-founded the now banned Al-Muhajiroun group, was released from prison in December 2018, before the end of his sentence, after agreeing to wear an electronic tag.

Khan’s early release and subsequent attack prompted a row between the Conservatives and Labour over the practice of reducing prison terms for violent offenders. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that people convicted of terrorism offenses should not be allowed out of prison early:

“I think that the practice of automatic, early release where you cut a sentence in half and let really serious, violent offenders out early simply isn’t working, and you’ve some very good evidence of how that isn’t working, I am afraid, with this case.”

Meanwhile, German authorities have arrested three suspected members of the Islamic State who were allegedly planning an attack with explosives and firearms in the Frankfurt Rhine-Main area. Prosecutors said that the men had wanted to kill as many “infidels” as possible.

This plot — and others like it that have been foiled in recent months — comes as the Turkish government has started repatriating European jihadis who fought with Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq.

Observers warn that while the Islamic State may have been “defeated” in the Middle East, it remains a potent danger to Europe.

On November 12, more than 150 German police officers raided three apartments in Offenbach and arrested a 24-year-old Macedonian-German and two Turkish citizens aged 21 and 22. Frankfurt Prosecutor Nadja Niesen said that the 24-year-old was the main suspect:

“The men are accused of plotting to commit a religiously-motivated crime in the Rhine-Main area by means of explosives or firearms to kill as many so-called infidels as possible.

“We have evidence that the 24-year-old has already procured chemicals to make explosives and that he continued to try over the internet to obtain firearms. We have secured various materials and equipment for making explosives.”

A week later, on November 19, German police arrested a 26-year-old Syrian jihadi at his apartment in the Schöneberg district of Berlin. The man, who had been in Germany since 2014, was employed at a Berlin primary school as a cleaner. He had been under surveillance for at least three months after German authorities received a tipoff from a “friendly foreign intelligence service.” Police said that the man had acquired chemicals to produce explosives to “kill as many people as possible.”

The plots in Frankfurt and Berlin are, respectively, the eighth and ninth jihadi attacks that German police have foiled in the country since a rejected asylum seeker from Tunisia murdered 12 people by ramming a truck into a Berlin Christmas market in December 2016.

Germany’s security challenge is about to increase yet further. On November 4, Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu announced that Turkey would begin repatriating captured Islamic State fighters back to their countries of origin — even if their European citizenship has been revoked:

“We will send back those in our hands, but the world has come up with a new method now: revoking their citizenships. They are saying they should be tried where they have been caught. This is a new form of international law, I guess. It is not possible to accept this. We will send back Daesh (Islamic State) members in our hands to their own countries whether their citizenships are revoked or not.”

At least 1,200 Islamic State fighters, including many from Western countries, are being held in Turkish prisons. Another 287 jihadis from at least 20 different countries have been captured by Turkish forces since the start of an offensive that began on October 9 against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in northeastern Syria.

Approximately 100 German Islamic State supporters are believed to be in custody in Turkey, according to the German news agency, Deutsche Presse-Agentur. The German Interior Ministry said that although the identity of the jihadis being held by Turkey was not known, they could not be denied entry to Germany if they indeed were German citizens.

A German government spokesman, Armin Schuster, insisted that the German returnees were not “serious cases” and warned against “media-fueled hysteria.” He explained: “They did not take part in the fighting. They won’t be sent to prison, but they must be kept under surveillance.”

On November 11, Turkey officially began repatriating Islamic State detainees to the West by deporting a German, an American and a Dane.

On November 14, Turkey repatriated another eight Islamic State fighters: seven Germans and one Briton. One man, a German-Iraqi father of a family of seven named Kanan B., was accused by Turkey of being a member of the Islamic State. German authorities allowed the man and his family to return to their home in Lower Saxony. They said that although he is a member of the Islamist Salafist movement, they do not believe that he ever joined the Islamic State.

On November 15, two female jihadis arrived in Frankfurt on a flight from Istanbul. German authorities arrested a 21-year-old Nasim A., whose origins are Somali. She moved from Germany to Syria as a minor in 2014 and, according to German investigators, married a jihadi fighter in late 2015. German authorities reportedly want to charge her with the offense of supporting the Islamic State. The other woman, 27-year-old Heida R. from Lower Hesse, had her fingerprints taken, but was released because she reportedly attended a deradicalization program.

Meanwhile, on November 7, Germany’s Higher Administrative Court (OVG) in Berlin-Brandenburg ruled that Germany must repatriate three children and their Islamic State-affiliated mother. The German Foreign Ministry had said that it was prepared to repatriate the children, but, citing risks to national security, it refused to bring back the mother. The woman entered an Islamic State-controlled part of Syria in 2014 with the two older children; the third child was born there. In its ruling, the OVG said the children — now aged 8, 7 and 2 — were traumatized and would need their mother after being repatriated from the Kurdish-run Al-Hawl detention camp in northern Syria.

German opposition parties have been critical of the government’s failure to face the problem of jihadi repatriations sooner. The deputy leader of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), Stephan Thomae, said that Berlin had little choice but to accept German citizens deported by another country:

“The government kept its head in the sand for a long time and didn’t want to have anything to do with these cases. That is coming back to bite them now. It would have been better if the government had contacted Turkey much earlier to discuss such processes.”

The Secretary General of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), Jürgen Stock, warned that Europe faces a new wave of Islamic terrorism as radicalized individuals return to the continent:

“We could soon be facing a second wave of other Islamic State linked or radicalized individuals that you might call Isis 2.0.

“A lot of these are suspected terrorists or those who are linked to terrorist groups as supporters who are facing maybe two to five years in jail. Because they were not convicted of a concrete terrorist attack but only support for terrorist activities, their sentences are perhaps not so heavy.

“In many parts of the world, in Europe but also Asia, this generation of early supporters will be released in the next couple of years, and they may again be part of a terrorist group or those supporting terrorist activities.”

Austria

Approximately 320 people from Austria are known to have traveled to the war zones of Syria and Iraq, according to the Austrian Interior Ministry. Of those, 93 have returned to Austria; 58 were most likely killed. More than 100 so-called foreign fighters from Austria are believed still to be in the Middle East.

On October 18, a court in Graz sentenced four Turkish jihadis to prison terms ranging from five months to seven years for recruiting for the Islamic State. The men were all members of a mosque in Linz. Prosecutors explained how mosques across Austria are working together in their support for the Islamic State. “We must stop with false tolerance,” said the Graz prosecutor. “Islamism supplants the rule of law if we are not careful. Do not be afraid to impose severe punishments.”

Denmark

Danish authorities estimate that at least 158 people from Denmark have joined jihadi groups in Syria or Iraq; about 27 remain in the conflict zone. On October 14, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen announced fast-tracking legislation that would strip Danish nationality from people with dual citizenship who have gone abroad to fight for jihadi groups such as the Islamic State:

“These are people who have turned their backs on Denmark and fought with violence against our democracy and freedom. They pose a threat to our security. They are unwanted in Denmark.”

On November 17, Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod said that Denmark would withhold consular assistance to citizens who travelled abroad to fight for extremist groups:

“We owe absolutely nothing to foreign fighters who went to Syria and Iraq to fight for the Islamic State. This is why we are now taking measures against foreign fighters accessing consular assistance by the foreign ministry and Danish representations abroad.”

France

France has approximately 200 adult nationals and 300 children currently in Kurdish-controlled camps and prisons in northern Syria. The French government has said that Islamic State fighters should be judged as close as possible to where they committed their crimes. Only a handful of them, mostly orphans, have been repatriated.

On October 17, Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian travelled to Iraq to convince the government in Baghdad to prosecute French jihadis after their transfer from Syria. The Iraqi government rejected that request.

On October 19, a French anti-terrorism judge, David De Pas, urged the French government to repatriate French jihadis or “risk creating an infernal cycle.” In an interview with the AFP, he explained:

“The geopolitical instability of the region and the porosity of what is left of the Kurdish camps leave two problems: on the one hand, the uncontrolled migration of jihadis towards Europe with the risk of attacks by highly ideologized people; and on the other hand, the reconstitution of particularly seasoned and determined combatant terrorist groups in the region.

“From my point of view, it is better to know that these people are prosecuted in France rather than leaving them in the wilderness. How can we protect ourselves if we do not have them in custody? The best method is to judge and control them.

“If in 15, 20, 30 years, these people still pose a threat when leaving prison, they will remain under the control of the intelligence and justice services. If they are tried in Iraq, we will not be able to monitor them when they leave prison. I would feel responsible for not saying it.”

Other recent Islamist-related cases in France include:

• October 3. Mickaël Harpon, a 45-year-old convert to Islam and IT specialist at Paris police headquarters, killed four of his colleagues during a 30-minute stabbing spree before he was shot dead by another officer. Interior Minister Christophe Castaner said that Harpon, who held a top-level security clearance, had “never shown any warning sign.” It was later revealed that Harpon had caused alarm among his colleagues as far back as 2015, when he defended the jihadi attack on the newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Anti-terror prosecutor Jean-Francois Ricard subsequently revealed that Harpon adhered to “a radical vision of Islam” and that he had been in contact with adherents of Salafism, an ultra-conservative branch of Sunni Islam.

• October 10. French journalist Clément Weill-Raynal was threatened with disciplinary action by his superiors at France Télévisions for “prematurely reporting” that the October 3 jihadi attack at Paris police headquarters could have been “an act motivated by radical Islam.” Weill-Raynal, one of the first journalists to arrive at the scene of the search of the killer’s home in Gonesse, was the first to reveal on air that the killer had “converted to Islam.” His managers criticized his “lack of control” and threatened punish him. Weill-Raynal said: “I mentioned a hypothesis and today I am told about professional misconduct. It is Kafkaesque.”

• October 14. Five members of an all-female Islamic State jihadi cell were sentenced to between five and 30 years in prison over a failed attempt to detonate a car bomb outside the Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris in November 2016.

• October 17. Interior Minister Christophe Castaner revealed that French intelligence services had arrested a man for planning a jihadi attack inspired by airplane attacks on the World Trade Center in New York in September 2001. He added that there had been 60 attempted jihadi attacks in France since 2013.

• October 28. In Paris, a man shouted “Allahu Akbar!” (“Allah is the greatest!”) at the Grand Re, the largest movie theater in Europe, during a screening of the American film “Joker.” A witness said that the man “put his hands on his chest and began shouting ‘Allahu Akbar!'” The witness continued: “Some people panicked and ran to the exits, but the doors were blocked. Some were crying. A mother was looking for her daughter.” Another witness said, “The guy, who was sitting in the 10th row, started screaming and muttering in Arabic. Someone said that he had a weapon. There was total panic. These are images that I will not forget. People climbed over their seats. There were women on the floor and others were stepping over them.”

• October 30. Paris Police Prefect Didier Lallement revealed that seven police officers suspected of Islamic radicalization have had their weapons confiscated since the October 3 jihadi attack at Paris police headquarters. He said that a total of 33 police officers were being investigated for Islamic radicalization.

Italy

Approximately 140 Italian citizens or residents have travelled to fight in war zones in the Middle East, according to official estimates, and 26 have returned to Italy. Although the numbers are low in comparison to France and other European countries, Italy’s geographic location makes it vulnerable to jihadis who cross the Mediterranean Sea and enter Europe posing as refugees.

In April 2019, the Italian Interior Ministry issued a directive aimed at dealing with jihadis arriving from Libya. The measures included increased border controls. The move came after Libyan Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Maiteeq warned that 400 Islamic State fighters held in Tripoli and Misrata were poised to flee to Italy.

In September, Interpol revealed that during a six-week operation, it had detected more than a dozen suspected “foreign terrorist fighters” crossing the Mediterranean Sea.

Other recent Islamist-related cases in Italy include:

• November 20. The Genoa Assize Court of Appeal confirmed a reduced prison sentence for Nabil Benamir, a 31-year-old Moroccan would-be Islamic State suicide bomber. Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of eight years and eight months; the appeals court confirmed a reduced sentence of five years and ten months handed down in November 2018. Benamir, a so-called lone wolf living in Italy illegally, was arrested in Genoa in December 2017 on charges of terrorism after he was heard, on an intercepted cellphone call, vowing to carry out a suicide attack. He is being held at a the high-security prison on the Italian island of Sardinia.

• November 7. An 11-year-old boy who was taken to Syria by his jihadi mother when he was six was returned to Italy after being found at the Al-Hawl detention camp in northern Syria. In December 2014, the mother, an Albanian, left behind her husband and her two other children at the family home in Barzago to join the Islamic State. She is believed to have died in Syria.

• August 21. Salma Bencharki, the wife of Abderrahim Moutaharrik, a Moroccan professional kickboxer who was jailed in 2017 over alleged links to the Islamic State, was deported from Italy to Morocco. An Italian court had sentenced the man and his wife to six and five years in prison, respectively. They were arrested in April 2016 for planning to leave for Syria with their children to join the Islamic State. The court suspended the couple’s custody of their two children. Moutaharrik, who was heard in wiretapped conversations that he would attack the Vatican, had his Italian citizenship revoked.

• June 28. Samir Bougana, a 25-year-old Italian jihadi with Moroccan roots was brought back to Italy after being arrested in Syria. He allegedly first fought with militias close to al-Qaeda and then with the Islamic State. Bougana, who was born near Brescia and lived in Italy until he was 16 before moving to Germany with his family, surrendered to Kurdish-Syrian forces in August 2018.

Netherlands

At least 55 Islamic State jihadis from the Netherlands and another 90 children with Dutch parents are in northern Syria, according to the Dutch intelligence agency AVID.

In 2017, the Netherlands enacted a law that allowed the state to revoke Dutch citizenship for people who joined the Islamic State. Since then, the Netherlands has revoked the Dutch nationality of 11 jihadis and is considering the same for 100 others, according to the Reuters news agency.

Application of the Dutch law has been inconsistent. On September 23, for instance, the Council of State (Raad van State) restored Dutch nationality to five Moroccan jihadis who had lost it after joining the Islamic State.

On September 16, however, a court in The Hague upheld the revocation of Dutch nationality of a Moroccan man who was convicted of committing terrorist crimes in Syria. He was prohibited from re-entering the Netherlands for ten years.

• October 25. Dutch police arrested a 29-year-old Syrian alleged former commander of the Ahrar al-Sham jihadi group on suspicion of having committed war crimes. The unnamed man was arrested in a center for asylum seekers in Ter Apel, a village in the northern Netherlands. He had registered as an asylum seeker in Germany in late 2015 but was thought to have returned to Syria. He is said to have recorded videos of himself armed with a machine gun and posing with and kicking the dead bodies of enemy fighters. Some of those videos were posted to YouTube. The Ahrar al-Sham, a former al-Qaeda affiliate, has fought both with and against the Islamic State.

• November 11. A court in The Hague ruled that the Netherlands must actively help repatriate the young children of women who joined Islamic State in Syria. The mothers themselves, however, do not need to be accepted back in the Netherlands, the court said. Lawyers for 23 women from the Netherlands who joined the Islamic State had asked a judge to order the state to repatriate them and their 56 children from camps in Syria.

  Judge Hans Vetter said that while the women were not required to be repatriated, the state must make “all possible efforts” to return the children, who have Dutch nationality and are under 12 years old. “The children cannot be held responsible for the actions of their parents,” the court said in a statement. “The children are victims of the actions of their parents.”

Norway

About 100 Norwegian citizens or residents are believed to have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join extremist Islamist groups, according to the Norwegian Interior Ministry. Approximately 20 are still in the Middle East.

In May 2019, the Norwegian Justice Ministry issued a directive preventing foreign nationals with Norwegian residency and who are associated with the Islamic State from returning to Norway. “These are people who pose a serious security threat to our lives and our values,” Justice Minister Jøran Kallmyr said. “They will not return with Norwegian help.”

Kallmyr said that while orphaned Norwegian children of Islamic State fighters would be allowed to return, the government will withdraw the residence permits of those who have traveled from Norway to join the Islamic State.

On September 13, Kallmyr said that 15 Islamic State jihadis with Norwegian residency permits have been permanently expelled from Norway:

“These are mainly Islamic State fighters and mothers who have traveled out of our country to participate in the Islamic State. They have been abroad for more than two years after leaving Norway. There is an opening in the asylum rules so that the residence permit can be withdrawn. If they enter the Schengen area, they will be arrested for violating the Immigration Act.”

Spain

Of the approximately 235 Spanish jihadis who traveled to Syria, around 50 have returned, according to Spain’s leading terrorism analyst, Fernando Reinares. At least 57 are imprisoned in Syria, according to Iraqi security forces quoted by El Confidencial.

Recent Islamist-related cases in Spain include:

• November 26. Police in Tenerife arrested a 26-year-old jihadi from Mauritania who was attempting to acquire homemade explosives, including TATP, an explosive known as the “Mother of Satan.”

• November 22. A Spanish-Moroccan businessman named Nourdine Ch. was arrested in Majorca for supporting the Islamic State.

• November 6. A 71-year-old Iraqi was arrested in Madrid for channeling “large amounts of money” to the Islamic State.

• October 5. A 23-year-old Spanish-born Moroccan was arrested in Madrid for publishing Spanish-language jihadi videos and also for procuring chemicals to build explosives devices.

• September 21. A 51-year-old Moroccan man was arrested in Algeciras for allegedly belonging to the Islamic State.

• August 30. A 25-year-old Moroccan man was arrested in Alicante for allegedly belonging to the Islamic State.

• August 2. A 35-year-old Spanish convert to Islam was arrested in Gran Canaria for allegedly photographing the headquarters of an LGTBI association on the island. The detainee had maintained contact with other converts who were arrested in Colombia and Argentina in 2018 based on information provided by Spanish police.

• June 18. Ten jihadis were arrested in Madrid for allegedly financing the Islamic State.

• April 17. Zouhair el Bouhdidi, a 23-year-old student at the University of Seville, was arrested in Morocco on charges of plotting a massacre in Seville on behalf of the Islamic State. The man, who was found to possess a large amount of explosives, was allegedly planning to attack Holy Week festivities in Seville.

Switzerland

At least 93 jihadis have travelled from Switzerland to conflict zones, according to the Swiss Federal Intelligence Service. Of these, 31 have a Swiss passport and 18 are dual nationals.

Recent Islamist-related cases in Switzerland include:

• September 11. The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) revoked the Swiss citizenship from a dual national who had been sentenced to several years in prison for recruiting fighters for the Islamic State. Swiss authorities did not release the other nationality of the man. SEM said that this was the first time that it has stripped the nationality of a Swiss jihadi.

• October 29. More than 100 police officers in the cantons of Bern, Schaffhausen and Zurich raided the homes of 11 jihadis suspected of being members of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Six of the individuals were adults, including one returning jihadi already been tried for ties to the Islamic State, according to the Office of the Attorney General. The other five are youths.

• October 21. The Federal Criminal Court extended the pre-trial detention of a man accused of attempted murder and supporting the Islamic State. The man, a citizen of the Canton of Vaud, was arrested in June 2017 police, who raided his home in Lausanne, found a handbook for urban guerrilla warfare, a knife, a bottle containing petrol and a Koran. While in detention, the defendant attacked a prison employee and shouted “Allahu Akbar” while threatening to kill him.

United Kingdom

An estimated 850 British jihadis have travelled to Iraq and Syria to fight for the Islamic State, according to an estimate by the International Center for the Study of Radicalization (ICSR) at King’s College London. Approximately 400 British jihadis have returned to Britain, and around 250 to 300 are still in Syria. The others are presumed to have died on the battlefields.

The British government has resisted the repatriation of its jihadis. It said that they should face justice in the countries where their crimes were committed, not be returned home to face trial in the UK. In a written statement, a spokesperson for the British Foreign Office said:

“Our priority is the safety and security of the UK and the people who live here.

“Those who have fought for or supported Daesh [Islamic State] should wherever possible face justice for their crimes in the most appropriate jurisdiction, which will often be in the region where their offences have been committed.

“We are working closely with international partners to address issues associated with foreign terrorist fighters, including the pursuit of justice against participants in terrorism overseas.”

Several jihadis have been stripped of their British citizenship, including Jack Letts, who was raised in Oxfordshire by British and Canadian parents. He left home to join the Islamic State five years ago but has been held a prisoner in Syria since 2017. Canada, where Letts qualifies for a passport through his father, accused the British government of “offloading its responsibilities.”

International law forbids people from being rendered stateless, but British law allows the UK to strip terror suspects abroad of their citizenship if they are a dual national or able to obtain citizenship of another country.

Other recent Islamist-related cases in Britain include:

• November 17. Mamun Rashid, a 26-year-old man from East London, was arrested after arriving in London on a flight from Turkey. He was charged with preparation of terrorist acts and will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Turkish authorities said that Rashid was a member of the Islamic State.

• October 22. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick revealed that police in London have foiled 16 jihadi plots during the past two years.

• October 16. Safiyya Amira Shaikh, a 36-year-old female jihadi from Hayes, Middlesex, was charged with terrorism offenses for attempting to bomb a London hotel as well as St. Paul’s Cathedral. She was arrested on October 10 after reconnoitering the hotel and church and preparing the words of a pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State.

• October 1. Aseel Muthana, a 22-year-old who worked as an ice cream seller in Cardiff before he joined the Islamic State, said that he wants to return to the UK. ITV television found Muthana, who was presumed dead, at a secret prison in northern Syria. “Back then when I first came to ISIS, you have to understand I came way before the caliphate was pronounced,” he said. “Before all of these beheading videos, before all of the burnings happened, before any of that stuff. We came when ISIS propaganda and ISIS media was all about helping the poor, helping the Syrian people.” Muthana’s mother urged the British government to allow him back into the UK: “My little boy went seduced and brainwashed with ideas that were not his. Have compassion for our situation.”

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via CaitlinJohnstone.com,

If you’re skeptical of western power structures and you’ve ever engaged in online political debate for any length of time, the following has definitely happened to you.

You find yourself going back and forth with one of those high-confidence, low-information establishment types who’s promulgating a dubious mainstream narrative, whether that be about politics, war, Julian Assange, or whatever. At some point they make an assertion which you know to be false–publicly available information invalidates the claim they’re making.

“I’ve got them now!” you think to yourself, if you’re new to this sort of thing. Then you share a link to an article or video which makes a well-sourced, independently verifiable case for the point you are trying to make.

Then, the inevitable happens.

“LMAO! That outlet!” they scoff in response.

“That outlet is propaganda/fake news/conspiracy theory trash!”

Or something to that effect. You’ll encounter this tactic over and over and over again if you continually engage in online political discourse with people who don’t agree with you. It doesn’t matter if you’re literally just linking to an interview featuring some public figure saying a thing you’d claimed they said. It doesn’t matter if you’re linking to a WikiLeaks publication of a verified authentic document. Unless you’re linking to CNN/Fox News (whichever fits the preferred ideology of the establishment loyalist you’re debating), they’ll bleat “fake news!” or “propaganda!” or “Russia!” as though that in and of itself magically invalidates the point you’re trying to make.

And of course it doesn’t. What they are doing is called attacking the source, also known as an ad hominem, and it’s a very basic logical fallacy.

Most people are familiar with the term “ad hominem”, but they usually think about it in terms of merely hurling verbal insults at people. What it actually means is attacking the source of the argument rather than attacking the argument itself in a way that avoids dealing with the question of whether or not the argument itself is true. It’s a logical fallacy because it’s used to deliberately obfuscate the goal of a logical conclusion to the debate.

“An ad hominem is more than just an insult,” explains David Ferrer for The Quad.

“It’s an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion. Verbally attacking people proves nothing about the truth or falsity of their claims.”

This can take the form of saying “Claim X is false because the person making it is an idiot.” But it can also take the form of “Claim X is false because the person making it is a propagandist,” or “Claim X is false because the person making it is a conspiracy theorist.”

I don’t think @bellingcat knows what’s about to hit them now that @caitoz is on their case. Settle in for a few fun months as their entire bullshit narrative on #Syria chemical weapons comes tumbling down. Here’s her opening jab: https://t.co/jvYfIBkDM2

— Sharmine Narwani (@snarwani) November 27, 2019

Someone being an idiot, a propagandist or a conspiracy theorist is irrelevant to the question of whether or not what they’re saying is true. In my last article debunking a spin job on the OPCW scandal by the narrative management firm Bellingcat, I pointed out that Bellingcat is funded by imperialist regime change operations like the National Endowment for Democracy, which was worth highlighting because it shows the readers where that organization is coming from. But if I’d left my argument there it would still be an ad hominem attack, because it wouldn’t address whether or not what Bellingcat wrote about the OPCW scandal is true. It would be a logical fallacy; proving that they are propagandists doesn’t prove that what they are saying in this particular instance is false.

What I had to do in order to actually refute Bellingcat’s spin job was show that they were making a bad argument using bad logic, which I did by highlighting the way they used pedantic wordplay to make it seem as though the explosive leaks which have been emerging from the OPCW’s investigation of an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria were insignificant. I had to show how Bellingcat actually never came anywhere close to addressing the actual concerns about a leaked internal OPCW email, such as extremely low chlorinated organic chemical levels on the scene and patients’ symptoms not matching up with chlorine gas poisoning, as well as the fact that the OPCW investigators plainly don’t feel as though their concerns were met since they’re blowing the whistle on the organisation now.

And, for the record, Bellingcat’s lead trainer/researcher guy responded to my arguments by saying I’m a conspiracy theorist. I personally count that as a win.

The correct response to someone who attacks the outlet or individual you’re citing instead of attacking the actual argument being made is, “You’re attacking the source instead of the argument. That’s a logical fallacy, and it’s only ever employed by people who can’t attack the argument.”

The demand that you only ever use mainstream establishment media when arguing against establishment narratives is itself an inherently contradictory position, because establishment media by their very nature do not report facts against the establishment. It’s saying “You’re only allowed to criticise establishment power using outlets which never criticize establishment power.”

2/2 No principle is worth nuclear war. This honest reporter, @caitoz, beholden to no ideology or special interest, calls it as it is, not as the #MSM wants to see — https://t.co/miDXqmZAG7

— Oliver Stone (@TheOliverStone) November 26, 2019

Good luck finding a compilation of Trump’s dangerous escalations against Moscow like the one I wrote the other day anywhere in the mainstream media, for example. Neither mainstream liberals nor mainstream conservatives are interested in promoting that narrative, so it simply doesn’t exist in the mainstream information bubble. Every item I listed in that article is independently verifiable and sourced from separate mainstream media reports, yet if you share that article in a debate with an establishment loyalist and they know who I am, nine times out of ten they’ll say something like “LOL Caitlin Johnstone?? She’s nuts!” With “nuts” of course meaning “Says things my TV doesn’t say”.

It’s possible to just click on all the hyperlinks in my article and share them separately to make your point, but you can also simply point out that they are committing a logical fallacy, and that they are doing so because they can’t actually attack the argument.

This will make them very upset, because for the last few years establishment loyalists have been told that it is perfectly normal and acceptable to attack the source instead of the argument. The mass hysteria about “fake news” and “Russian propaganda” has left consumers of mainstream media with the unquestioned assumption that if they ever so much as glance at an RT article their faces will begin to melt like that scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. They’ve been trained to believe that it’s perfectly logical and acceptable to simply shriek “propaganda!” at a rational argument or well-sourced article which invalidates their position, or even to proactively go around calling people Russian agents who dissent from mainstream western power-serving narratives.

But it isn’t logical, and it isn’t acceptable. The best way to oppose their favorite logically fallacious tactic is to call it like it is, and let them deal with the cognitive dissonance that that brings up for them.

Me: This link proves my claim.
Empire loyalist: Eww, THAT outlet? They publish criticisms of western imperialism!
Me: Yeah. That’s why I’m linking to them.
Empire loyalist: No. You can only criticize western imperialism linking to outlets that never criticize western imperialism.

— Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) November 27, 2019

Of course some nuance is needed here. Remember that alternative media is just like anything else: there’s good and bad, even within the same outlet, so make sure what you’re sharing is solid and not just some schmuck making a baseless claim. You can’t just post a link to some Youtuber making an unsubstantiated assertion and then accuse the person you’re debating of attacking the source when they dismiss it. That which has been presented without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, and if the link you’re citing consists of nothing other than unproven assertions by someone they’ve got no reason to take at their word, they can rightly dismiss it.

If however the claims in the link you’re citing are logically coherent arguments or well-documented facts presented in a way that people can independently fact-check, it doesn’t matter if you’re citing CNN or Sputnik. The only advantage to using CNN when possible would be that it allows you to skip the part where they perform the online equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and humming.

Don’t allow those who are still sleeping bully those who are not into silence. Insist on facts, evidence, and intellectually honest arguments, and if they refuse to provide them call it what it is: an admission that they have lost the debate.

*  *  *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

To us, there doesn’t seem to be many better reasons to fire someone than if they lose your firm $19 million in one day.

But the Paris court of appeals apparently disagrees. They awarded a former trader at BNP Paribas about 1.3 million Euros ($1.4 million USD) in an unfair dismissal lawsuit over an incident where the trader did just that, according to Bloomberg. 

The court ruled that Lionel Crassier, who was formerly the bank’s head of equities was “unduly punished twice” by BNP. Judges ruled that he was unfairly fired after the bank had already sanctioned him for the incident by recalling him from New York. 

In the most recent case, the trader reportedly had built up a position of 65,000 mini futures that exceeded his 100 million Euro overnight limit and generated the loss at market close. 

Crassier didn’t react on the day the BNP contacted him, “surprised by the volume” he was trading. Crassier only explained the incident after his boss reached out to him. 

BNP said to Crassier in a letter: “You acknowledged having focused on volume, rather than the total value of your positions and without monitoring your P&L in real time, which is proof of your poor analysis and a flagrant lack of vigilance. Your behavior is unacceptable.”

The Paris court of appeals had already overturned a 2017 ruling from lower judges that had dismissed Crassier’s claims and ordered him to pay 500,000 Euros to cover BNP’s legal fees.

The appellate judges awarded him severance pay, unpaid bonuses and damages of 1.3 million Euros after Crassier returned to court and sought 3.5 million Euros for “career harm”, claiming his firing from BNP made it a “impossibility for him to work in a field he was passionate about”. 

BNP lost a similar case last year in Paris after it demoted its former global head of foreign exchange arbitrage over a 2.7 million Euro that he incurred during his first month on the job. 

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Two Paths Forward with China – The Good and The Bad

Since a few things became clear to me last year, I’ve consistently forecasted a significant worsening in U.S.-China relations and remained adamant that all the happy talk of trade deals and breakthroughs is just a lot of hot air.

What first appeared to be a unique quirk of Donald Trump has morphed into bipartisan consensus in Congress, and clear signs have emerged that the general public has likewise become alarmed at China’s growing global clout.

Due to this, as well as a litany of other factors outlined in prior posts, it’s highly unlikely the current trajectory will reverse course and result in a return to what had been business as usual. Instead, we’re probably headed toward a serious and historically meaningful escalation of tensions between the U.S. and China, with what we’ve seen thus far simply a prelude to the main drama. If I’m correct and the ship has already sailed, we should focus our attention on how we respond to what could quickly become a very dicey scenario filled with heightened emotions and nefarious agendas. There’s a good way to respond and a bad way.

In our individual lives we face various daily challenges, but every now and again something really big hits us, a personal crisis of sorts, and how we respond to these major events determines much of our future. The same thing happens to nation-states, particularly in the current world where virtually all human governance is structured in a highly centralized and statist manner. When such an event hits nation-states the public tends to be easily manipulated into a state of terror and coerced into granting more centralized power to the state, an unfortunate state of affairs that accurately summarizes the reality of 21st century America. With each crisis, the empire has grown stronger, the public weaker, and two decades later we find ourselves in a neo-feudal oligarchy where one half of the public is at the other half’s throat for no good reason. This is what happens when you respond poorly.

Three major crisis events have rocked the U.S. this century, and much of the public has embraced, or at least accepted, the worst possible response in all cases.

• The first was the attacks of 9/11, which officially ushered in the modern national security surveillance state and all but obliterated the 4th amendment.

• The second was the financial crisis, where the response from Bush/Obama was to bail-out the criminals, destroy any semblance of the rule of law by jailing zero Wall Street executives, and to ensure the Federal Reserve (and mega-banking institutions in general) became stronger and more powerful than ever.

• Finally, there was the shock election of Donald Trump. Rather than take his ascendance as a warning about centralized power, the faux “resistance” has been obsessed with removing him, celebrating intelligence agencies/military aggression, bemoaning free speech, and rehabilitating George W. Bush.

Three crises, three horribly destructive responses. This entire century has been an unmitigated march in the direction of stupidity.

What needs to be done is the exact opposite of this. We need to admit a country of 330 million people cannot, and should not, be governed like a gigantic uniform blob.
We need more decentralization/localism and less centralized state power/empire. https://t.co/7UV6Wcl2oA

— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) December 2, 2019

I’ve become convinced the next major event that will be used to further centralize power and escalate domestic authoritarianism will center around U.S.-China tensions. We haven’t witnessed this “event” yet, but there’s a good chance it’ll occur within the next year or two. Currently, the front runner appears to be a major aggressive move by China into Hong Kong, but it could be anything really. Taiwan, the South China Sea, currency, economic or cyber warfare; the flash points are numerous and growing by the day. Something is going to snap and when it does we better be prepared to not act like mindless imbeciles for the fourth time this century.

When that day arrives, and it’s likely not too far off, certain factions will try to sell you on the monstrous idea that we must become more like China to defeat China. We’ll be told we need more centralization, more authoritarianism, and less freedom and civil liberties or China will win. Such talk is total nonsense and the wise way to respond is to reject the worst aspects of the Chinese system and head the other way.

If you’re horrified by China’s human rights abuses, then push for an end to murderous U.S. wars abroad based on lies. If the Chinese surveillance panopticon concerns you, we should move in the exact opposite direction with less corporate and state surveillance, not more. If China launches a state-sanctioned digital currency system designed to monitor, and if desired, restrict transactions, we should reject this approach and embrace open, decentralized and permissionless systems like Bitcoin. We should fight lack of freedom with more freedom.

We’ve become a country of people obsessed with bossing around other people and telling them how to live by using the force of the state. We need to take a step back, chill out and let different internal cultures be different. Localism is strength, empire is weakness.

— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) December 2, 2019

Given our track record this century, I’m skeptical Americans will respond in a positive and productive way to increased tensions with China, although perhaps I’ll be pleasantly surprised. I hope we can finally face a challenge without cowering in fear and surrendering more freedom in order to feel safe and powerful. I hope we can recognize that empire is not an asset, but a liability. That empire strengthens the state and weakens the public. I hope we can be wise enough not to embrace further authoritarianism to defeat authoritarianism. For once this century, I hope we can respond in a thoughtful and intelligent manner.

*  *  *

Liberty Blitzkrieg is an ad-free website. If you enjoyed this post and my work in general, visit the Support Page where you can donate and contribute to my efforts.

The recent market melt-up is coming to a quick end.

At least that’s the opinion of one investor who spent millions to hedge a multi-billion position against a 5% drop in the next 6 weeks.

A mystery trader bought 16,000 January 2,980 S&P puts, spending $32 million to protect against a 4.5% drop in the index at 9:44am on Monday morning, just before the Markit manufacturing PMI printed, and about 15 minutes before the latest dismal Manufacturing ISM sent stocks tumbling.

The appears to be hedging roughly $4.8 billion in assets, according to Henry Schwartz, president of Trade Alert in New York.

The price of the put rose by $8.30 or 47% from Friday, closing at $25.80.

This means that while the market is nowhere near the 2,980 Jan 17 strike, the mystery trader has already made just under $10 million in just under 7 hours on Monday. Of course, if this is indeed a hedge, it is just as likely that his $4.8 billion basket suffered similar if not greater losses over the same time period.

Not surprisingly, in this incredibly illiquid market which has seen both dealer delta and gamma rise sharply in recent weeks…

… it was not immediately clear if the trade was put in response to the early morning market selloff which culminated in 0.9% drop in the S&P – its biggest one-day drop since October – or actually caused it.

Speaking to Bloomberg, Matthew Brill, head of derivatives trading at Tourmaline Partners, said that an options trade of that magnitude “quickly pressured stocks” when it crossed, in the process accelerating the stock selloff.

“The index quickly shed almost 0.5% as it needed to absorb almost $1 billion of stock for sale,” Brill said, adding that the move reflects a recent trend of traders buying 5% out-of-the-money puts for one- to three-month durations on broader market indexes rather than individual securities.

The trade comes just a few days after a different (or perhaps the same) investor bought deep out of the money calls for $1.75 million in a bet that gold would soar to $4,000 by June 2021.

Authored by William Smith via TheAmericanConservative.com,

What American constitutional government most urgently needs at present is for our Madisonian institutions – the presidency, the Congress, and the courts – to wrest back control of national security policy from an unelected and increasingly rogue national security establishment. 

That ominous challenge to constitutionalism was on full display with the recent op-ed piece in the New York Times by retired Admiral William McRaven, in which he brashly warned that unless Trump jumped aboard the Forever War bandwagon, he must be removed, and “the sooner the better.” The U.S. must have a policy, McRaven said, that protects “the Kurds, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Syrians, the Rohingyas, the South Sudanese and the millions of people under the boot of tyranny.” 

How did we get to the point where a former senior military officer calls for the removal of a duly elected president because he doesn’t stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Rohingyas? McRaven’s op-ed represents something new in American politics: the assertion that an elected president is illegitimate unless he works to spread our “ideals of universal freedom and equality” through military action and alliances. McRaven also argued that it is “the American military…the intelligence and law enforcement community, the State Department and the press,” all unelected institutions, that now embody the true American civic religion and protect its “ideals.” 

Even though President Trump’s promises to end wars and question expensive alliances were quite popular with the electorate, in the view of many in the national security establishment, elections do not bestow constitutional legitimacy. They assume instead that their “ideals” and belligerent foreign policy represent the true animating principles and governing force of the nation. To question them is tantamount to an “attack” on America “from within.” 

While the rank-and-file military are among the most patriotic of Americans and show unwavering support for the Constitution, there is a huge class of elite national security bureaucrats who, whatever they may say on ceremonial occasions, believe they are above the Constitution. 

Wait a minute, you say, this is hyperbole. The Constitution provides for civilian control of the military and other national security institutions. The problem is that in practice the Constitution does no such thing. As Samuel Huntington pointed out, the constitutional oversight of the military establishment by elected civilians is fractured, non-linear, and tenuous. The president is commander-in-chief, a title more than a function, and Congress controls the purse strings, the power to declare war, and the confirmation of senior national security nominees. The National Guard reports to presidents and governors. Anyone watching a general, admiral, or CIA director testify before Congress is aware that the national security establishment has more than one boss. Who in the civilian government is ultimately in control? Everyone and no one.

Huntington points out that, when the Constitution was framed, there was no real concern about controlling the military, and the intelligence community did not even exist. The military arts were not highly specialized and militia officers were typically members of the political establishment who were elected or appointed by local legislatures. Military leaders like George Washington were part and parcel of the political culture of the ruling class. There simply wasn’t a danger of a rogue national security establishment in 1789, and for all their sagacity, the Framers of the Constitution did not foresee the emergence of one.

In the mid-19th century, all this changed. Militaries became highly specialized and officers became professional soldiers. A martial culture was developed that was distinct from politics. Military “academies” were founded to inculcate this new culture and to teach the new specialties within the military arts. As a result, Huntington argued, presidents needed more “objective” control of national security institutions. When Generals McClellan and McArthur famously questioned the national security decisions of their presidents, Lincoln and Truman fired them respectively. But the tradition that the national security establishment must take orders from the president is a political, not a constitutional, precedent, and it is breaking down. 

Tufts law professor Michael Glennon points out in a recent essay in Humanitas that the Cold War brought something new and ominous in military-civilian relations. The national security bureaucracy became so large and omnipotent that the Madisonian branches of government became something like the British House of Lords, symbolically important but in reality without much power. The executive, legislature, and judiciary became a kind of Potemkin village, with real national security power lodged in, as Glennon describes it, “a largely concealed managerial directorate, consisting of the several hundred leaders of the military, law enforcement and intelligence departments.” As this bureaucracy grew, Glennon argues, “those managers…operated at an increasing remove from constitutional limits and restraints, moving the nation slowly toward autocracy.”

Glennon also points out that, prior to Trump, there was an unwritten pact between the bureaucracy and the Madisonian government: never publicly disagree. While national security policies have long been crafted and maintained by deep state bureaucracies, everyone played along and told the public these were the result of “intense deliberations.” Yet a few people noticed that, whether under Republican or Democrat administrations, national security policies never really changed, intelligence operations were never disrupted, and even peacenik-seeming presidential candidates became warlike presidents. For decades, neither elected officials nor bureaucratic leaders publicly acknowledged that American national security policy was being run by what Glennon describes as a “double government,” with elected officials largely impotent. 

However, with the staggering intelligence failure that was 9/11 and two protracted and losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, some have begun to question whether the “grown-ups” in the national security bureaucracy are even competent. Trump gave voice to those concerns in the 2016 campaign, and the result has been a breakdown in the Cold War truce between the two components of the double government. Leaders of the national security establishment, who know they have real power, took precautions in the unlikely event of a Trump victory and then proceeded to try to overturn Trump’s election. When they failed, they partnered with Congress to have Trump removed through impeachment, taking full advantage of the fractured nature of civilian control of national security institutions. Impeachment witnesses, such as Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, have been unanimous in their implicit belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be managed by a professional class of bureaucrats, not by the elected president.

The American constitutional order is thus in great peril. Those obsessed with getting rid of the president should consider that, were Trump to be removed, it could be the constitutional equivalent of Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon.

Call Donald Trump cartoonish and erratic, but he also happens to be the duly elected president of the United States. And while we must admire the selfless service of so many in the national security establishment, as citizens, we also have the right to ask people like William McRaven: who elected you?