The bombastic, bleak tone from his Inaugural Address was gone. In his address to Congress Tuesday night, President Donald Trump was more optimistic, talking about “a new chapter of American greatness.” He spoke about issues he’s discussed before – jobs, healthcare, tax cuts, immigration, a renewed military, America first – but presented them without the harsh rhetoric and cutting jabs that have been his mainstay so far. However, there were few specifics on how the President intends to accomplish his signature programs.
The Cipher Brief turned to some of its network members for their views on the national security issues that were touched in the President’s speech. Managing Editor Pam Benson and Executive Producer Leone Lakhani spoke with former Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin, retired four-star General Jack Keane, and former Ambassador James Jeffrey to get their thoughts.
The Cipher Brief: How do you view the tone of the President’s speech when you consider the pretty bleak picture he painted during his Inaugural Address less than six weeks ago, where he used phrases like “American carnage,” the “depletion of our military,” and “the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon?”
John McLaughlin: This was Teleprompter Trump as opposed to Twitter
Trump or Rally Trump. So the tone was the most traditional we've seen from him. If you knew nothing of what preceded it – the campaign name calling, the attacks on the judiciary, the Intelligence Community and the media, the executive order fumbles of the first month – you would see this as a pretty normal presidential address from a conservative incumbent. But if you know of those things, you are entitled to wonder whether a corner has really been turned.
Beyond tone, the substance was essentially what we've heard from him in the past – basically promises to repair all that ails America with little specificity about how. The emphasis was highly nationalistic, with his stress on how the rest of the world takes advantage of us, but will no more because of his America First policy. So bottom line: the tone was not as bleak as the Inaugural Address but nor was it convincingly uplifting.
Jim Jeffrey: This was the speech he should have given on inaugural day. He hit many of the same points – they are what he ran and won on – but this time in a far more upbeat almost optimistic tone, with much emphasis on unifying the country and, at numerous references, working with both Democrats and Republicans.
Jack Keane: I thought the tone was very presidential. It was inspiring and uplifting. It had a genuine depth of vision to it.
TCB: In his address, President Trump called for a large increase in the defense budget. Ahead of the speech, the White House indicated the increase would be offset by cuts in other departments, including the State Department. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have said diplomacy is cheaper and can curtail the need for sending in military forces. Is now the time to be looking for cuts at the State Department, and what is the cost to national security in doing so?
JM: It's a mistake to cut into what is already a strained State Department budget. The Defense Department budget at about $600 billion already dwarfs the State budget of around $50 billion (a large part of which is foreign assistance, leaving State with even less for worldwide diplomatic operations). Using the military is our tool of last resort when all else has failed. Using skillful diplomacy to solve problems is one of the things that helps you avoid that last resort, use of military force. In my experience, this is well understood by our military professionals, and I would expect them to be among those recommending against the proposed cuts to State.
JJ: Any agency can cut back on programs and State is no exception. But we need money to staff and secure our embassies – and much of our State Department assistance monies go to fund weapons systems for our Middle Eastern allies—Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan—against terror and Iran. State, thus, cannot bear the burden of an increase of over $50 billion annually when that is more than the entire State budget. By acknowledging the importance of our allies around the world, including specifically NATO and the Muslim partners, he basically made the case for diplomacy. But he has to pay for it.
JK: First of all, the White House’s proposal of a $54 billion increase in the defense budget is insufficient for fiscal year 2018, given the severity of the cuts that the Department of Defense has undergone in the last number of years. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), presented a White Paper to Congress [in January], which calls for a minimum increase of approximately $91 billion for fiscal year 2018. That is considerably more than what President Trump is proposing.
If there are reductions in other departments and, therefore, in the size of the federal bureaucracy, I would absolutely applaud it. I don’t believe President Trump is reducing the diplomatic function, even if some of the money can be reduced. He has spent the first 30 days in office, using his cabinet officials to reassure our allies. For instance, he sent Secretary Mattis to the Far East to reassure the South Koreans and the Japanese. The Japanese Prime Minister had a very successful visit to the United States. The President dispatched to Europe his Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Homeland Security. All of it was with the singular purpose of reassuring our European allies that the United States believes in a transatlantic alliance and is a very strong supporter of NATO.
President Trump has used the diplomatic function to reassure our allies that American leadership is back on the global stage again. And by rebuilding the military as he intends to do, it, by definition, strengthens the diplomatic function. When you have incredible deterrence, it allows our diplomats to have leverage over the initiatives that they’re taking with our allies and our adversaries.
TCB: The President talked about the need for improved vetting procedures to protect the nation. His first executive order, which banned immigrants from particular countries, is being revised after court challenges. Critics of the measure claimed it compromised relations with those countries and endangered our troops on the ground. How should the new order be revised?
JM: A new executive order than continues to focus on banning people based on country of origin will not aid our counterterrorism efforts. It will feed anti-U.S. propaganda by extremist groups and aid their recruiting. And any ban that explicitly favors one religion over another violates the Constitution. The status quo ante already featured intensive individualized vetting to determine whether a particular person posed a threat. This has been effective, although there are probably ways it can be improved. Hence, the more a new order depends on individualized vetting and less on group bans based on religion or national origin, the more it will serve its intended purpose.
JJ: Iraq, a courageous ally whom we do not want to lose to Iran, must come off the list. Ditto Green Card holders, and certainly the implementation period must be long enough not to impact those in the air to the U.S., when it enters into force. Vetting for all these countries' nationals is obviously already "extreme." Some tweaking is possible, but it will not markedly change the very low threat we are currently under.
JK: It’s been a learning experience for the so-called travel restrictions that were imposed on the seven countries.
The reason those countries were selected is not because terrorists have emanated from those countries or conducted terrorist attacks inside the United States, because they have not. We’ve actually had terror attacks conducted inside the United States from countries that were not on the list, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
There’s been a significant misunderstanding. You have to remember why the travel restrictions were imposed. It’s because these countries do not have a government that we can effectively work with to vet people and see if they are, who they say they are. That can be done in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia, and in the 46 other Muslim countries. But it cannot be done in these seven countries.
Most of the countries are failed states, including Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya. The one country that is not a failed state is Iraq, but Iraq is fighting a major war and the government is distracted. As such, Iraqis also recognize that they do not have the opportunity to vet those who are coming to the United States, in the way that they have in the past.
TCB: Trump’s new National Security Advisor reportedly tried to encourage the President not to use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” in his speech, but he did so anyway. What benefit is gained by calling it radical Islamic terror, and what is the cost?
JM: Using that phrase allows the speaker to feel tough – and the President really leaned hard on it in the speech – but I don't think it contributes to solving the problem. It actually gives too much credit to the murdering lunatics who carry out their criminal acts invoking Islam. They are not true Islamists. They are distorting the religion and hijacking it to justify what is nothing more than homicide. That's the more important point to make, rather than hanging a label on them that is offensive to the large majority of Muslims and to Muslim countries that choose to work with us in combating terrorism. It allows the extremists in their recruiting campaigns to claim that we are anti-Islam. This is not a gift we should give them.
JJ: This issue has been overblown. Chancellor Angela Merkel from the mother of all politically correct countries, Germany, used a similar term last month at the Munich security conference without making waves. Far more import is to acknowledge, as Trump is now doing, that Muslims are both the primary victims of such terror and our irreplaceable allies in the fight against it.
JK: It certainly is a controversial issue. My own view is that it’s appropriate to identify the movement as a “radical Islamic terrorist” movement. The radical Islamists are a geopolitical movement, which is grounded in religious ideology. It is their major recruiting tool. By identifying them as radical Islamists, you’re differentiating them. It’s a very small minority group. I do believe it’s important to delineate them as radicals because you’re differentiating them from the overwhelming majority of Muslims, who do not hold to the tenets of that religious ideology.
