I am really getting tired of a lot of the so-called Washington insider know-it-alls in intelligence who can rarely see anything wise or good in what President elect Trump says on foreign policy direction. The worst recent case was the exiting of the Director of the CIA who in a very staged interview with the BBC essentially slammed the new incoming president.
He basically inferred that Trump was potentially dangerous as a loose cannon, would be at risk of further infuriating ISIS and generating more supporters of it and that Trump was ridiculous in thinking he could cut any deal with Putin that would stick. He called Putin basically a serial liar.
But what if Trump does cut a workable deal with whom others think is a man of his word if the other side sticks to their word? Maybe that is what Brennan and his like worry about. And by the way, did NATO stick to their word about staying out of Russia’s near and immediate neighbourhood? No they did not?
Let us also not forget the anti-ballistic missile treaty that was trashed by Washington and kept that way while Brennan was in the upper reaches of Washington’s national security team. That did not underscore a reliable partnership particularly when those anti-ballistic missiles were brought by NATO very close to Russia’s borders.
As far as hacking and digital stealing goes by Russia, that remains still of some speculation as to whether the Kremlin was behind Wikileaks on the releases about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton.
But then all the data mining by US national security agencies brought out by Edward Snowdon, including invasion of privacy tells us something as well as Brennan’s CIA hacks into confidential Congressional files and banking papers.
To be fair, at the very least, Brennan is no boy scout compared to Putin’s Kremlin and security services. Not even the more authoritarian Russian government perpetuated the incredible levels of data mining that Brennan’s pals committed and likely still are.
That Brennan’s self-righteousness against both President-elect Trump and the Kremlin have an extended imprint of Hillary Clinton’s excessively partisan rhetoric to prevent a rapprochement between the two major nuclear powers.
In short, Brennan has some dangerous neo-con instincts and wants to keep Russia as essentially an enemy and catalyze it to be highly reactive to provocations by Washington at many levels. He is not the worst on this front though with Paul Wolfowitz and his ilk under the Bush junior administration being supreme interventionists.
I believe those kinds of anti-Russian instincts will be pressed very hard against Trump when he tries to work wonders to bridge differences between America and Russia.
Knowing of the vast complexes within Washington,, including the lobbies, and most of the media that wishes to perpetuate a “Cool War” if not a “Cold War”, officials within and through the revolving doors and parts of Congress will do everything to sabotage that rapprochement.
To prevent that I suggest a full spring cleaning with the likes of liberal interventionists, Victoria Nuland posted outside the sphere of influence over Europe and Russia. No neo-cons should be left behind in the upper reaches of the national security apparatuses. They are too dangerous with people like John Bolton suggesting bombing those who get in America’s way.
Brennan at least with his swift and hard announcement that he would not serve the Trump administration, knew the writing was on the wall. I am sure he will not be the last of the old guard to leave without a whimper.
Given the rise of ISIS and the increase in tensions with Russia under his watch, he should not be so proud of thinking the policies he implemented and those he supported were so correct.
That being said, one has to also recognize Brennan’s hard work to try and protect America and sensible views that moderate Muslims should not feel despised but welcomed. And that care must be taken in any dealings and deals with Iran and Russia.
Finally, Brennan should take care not to undermine the international image of the incoming US president as such an approach is too helpful to US adversaries and undermines alliances. He must know this to be true which if so makes his style of exit to be overly partisan and one might even say hypocritical in his preaching about his full commitment to US security.