With the resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, there have been questions about the security implications of his conversations with the Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak before he took office. But speaking to The Cipher Brief’s Leone Lakhani, Jack Keane, retired four-star general and former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, said he didn’t believe it was a security violation. Rather, he says, it was a matter of broken trust.
The Cipher Brief: Were you surprised at all by Michael Flynn’s resignation?
Jack Keane: Yes. Once I understood what had transpired, I was not, but I didn’t truly understand everything that what was taking place, like most people. I had no trouble whatsoever with Michael Flynn talking to any ambassador before he took his position. It’s something he should be doing. It’s part of his job to do that. Many foreign diplomats will go beyond congratulations. They want to talk about policies that are of a concern to them. I certainly don’t have a problem with that either.
If the so-called sanctions were discussed, which is the hysteria that the media is preoccupied with, I don’t think that’s inappropriate. I do think [Flynn] not fully disclosing that when asked, in terms of the full content of the conversation to his colleagues and other government officials, was certainly a mistake.
TCB: How serious do think the allegations were? Do you think there were real security concerns?
JK: I don’t think there’s anything legally wrong with what he did. The President’s Press Secretary said it accurately. This is a matter for the President and whether he continues to have trust in his National Security Advisor, and evidently he did not. So he asked for his resignation.
I don’t think there’s an issue of a national security violation, other than the very serious leak that took place of what was clearly a classified piece of information. One of our intelligence agencies, who routinely monitor the phone conversations of foreign diplomats, had the transcript of that conversation and provided it to the Washington Post. That is a serious national security violation.
TCB: Any new administration needs a bit of time to settle down, but by all accounts it’s been a pretty rocky start for this White House. How do you think the world would look at this? Will adversaries interpret this as a sign of weakness and try to exploit it?
JK: I don’t agree with the criticism that somehow there is something fundamentally wrong with the national security apparatus of the United States. What we have here is a mistake in judgment by a key government official, which cost him his job. It happened in the first three weeks of the administration – certainly that is unusual – but I think that’s all it is.
The President of the United States has a very strong national security team around him, and that is evident by all the support that they have received both in and outside the Congress. I think that national security team is highly respected, and I am confident that they will be able to pick a very capable alternative to LTG Flynn.
TCB: Do you know Lieutenant General Kellogg (ret.), the current acting National Security Advisor? Can you tell us anything about him?
JK: Yes, I know General Kellogg; he was one of my division commanders – he commanded the 82nd Airborne Division while I commanded 18th Airborne Corps at Ft. Bragg. I know him very well, he’s very capable, he’s smart, he’s got a sense of the world.
The White House is going to be looking at a number of individuals for national security advisor. General Kellogg will be one of them, certainly, because he’s the acting right now, but they’ll look beyond him to determine who is best for the job.
TCB: What qualities should the White House be looking for in a new National Security Advisor given that it’s been a bit of a rocky start?
I would look for somebody with stature, that many people would have confidence in just by knowing who it is. That person should be experienced and knowledgeable of strategic issues and global security challenges that the United States is facing. Someone who has been involved with other countries and governments before, and also has experience in formulating policy. That’s kind of what I would be looking for.
TCB: Do you think it’s disruptive to have a change in the National Security Advisor leadership position, and do you think that is going to affect the implementation of national security policies in general, and in terms of Russia, in particular?
JK: Certainly, it’s disruptive. The national security team that is now working in the White House as part of the National Security Council – other than the holdovers from the previous administration which are considerable, I may add – that team was put together by General Flynn. That’s his team, and now he’s gone. I would suspect when someone else comes in, they are likely to make some changes to the national security team. So it is definitely disruptive, what has taken place.
