Trump’s claim terrorists are pouring over southern border does not stand up to scrutiny CNN.com

Peter Bergen
Analysis by Peter Bergen, CNN
4 minute read
Published 1:00 AM EDT, Sun September 8, 2024

At a Fox News town hall on Wednesday, former President Donald Trump previewed some of the themes that we will likely hear more from him on the campaign trail and during his September 10 debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.

Discussing the US southern border, Trump asserted that “more terrorists have come into the United States in the last three years. And I think probably 50 years.”

As we approach the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this seems like an odd claim to make when 19 Arab hijackers, none of whom had crossed the southern border into the US, killed almost 3,000 people, the vast majority of them in Trump’s hometown of New York City.

And if it were really the case that jihadist terrorists were pouring across America’s southern border during the past three years as Trump claimed, wouldn’t there have been, you know, some terrorist attacks in the US as a result? Or, at the very least, a lot more terrorists being arrested in the US during that same time frame?

In fact, there have been no reported terrorist attacks in the US during the past three years carried out by jihadist terrorists crossing the southern border.

Indeed, the most recent lethal terrorist attack by a jihadist terrorist happened when Trump himself was in office in 2019 when a Saudi military officer killed three American sailors at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, and he had arrived legally in the US as part of a Pentagon training program.

Meanwhile, during the past three years, 22 people have been murdered in the United States by far-right domestic terrorists in places such as Buffalo, New York, and Allen, Texas, according to data collected by New America, a research institution (where I am a vice president.)

The ordinarily voluble Trump typically doesn’t have much to say when far-right domestic terrorists perpetrate terrorism in the United States.

At the Fox town hall, Trump also claimed that there were no acts of “radical Islamic terror” while he was president. Yet, the Pensacola terrorist attack happened on Trump’s watch, as did the attack in Manhattan in 2017 by an ISIS-inspired terrorist who killed eight people using a truck as a weapon.

The ‘terrorists crossing the southern border’ trope is a 2024 remix of Trump’s call for a Muslim ban during the 2016 election campaign, which conflated Americans’ widespread concerns about immigration with their fear of terrorism, which since the 9/11 attacks has been imprinted on many American’s minds.

To be sure, there are reasonable concerns about the southern border, like the fact that, as CNN reported in June, eight Tajikistan nationals in the US who had crossed the southern border were arrested on immigration charges “following the discovery of potential ties to terrorism,” including possibly to ISIS. There was, however, no evidence these men were plotting a terrorist attack.

Also, FBI director Christopher Wray testified last year before the US Senate Judiciary Committee, “I am concerned that we are in … a heightened threat environment from foreign terrorist organizations for a whole host of reasons and obviously their ability to exploit any port of entry, including our southwest border … We have seen an increase in so-called KSTs, ‘known or suspected terrorists,’ attempting to cross over the last five years.”

It is the case that according to the US Customs and Border Protection’s most recent statistics, in 2024 so far, there were 43 “encounters” with people on the terrorism watch list on the southern border.

Also, in 2024, Customs and Border Protection Patrol had 281 encounters with people on the terrorism watchlist on the US border with Canada. Yet, Trump is not calling for draconian immigration enforcement for people crossing the Canadian border, even though so far this year around six times more people on the terrorism watch list tried to cross that border.

Also, being on the terrorism watch list doesn’t mean you are a terrorist; CBS News has reported that there are some two million people on it.

This is all a far cry from Trump’s claim on Fox that “more terrorists have come into the United States in the last three years. And I think probably 50 years” and that there was no Islamist terrorism in the US during the four years he was in office.

However, if past performance is predictive of future performance, Trump will likely make similar claims during the final weeks of the election campaign.

The Right-Wing Plan for Trump-Friendly Spies

Narrated by: Peter L. Bergen
Sep 3 2024
Length: 43 mins

Donald Trump’s relationship with the U.S. intelligence community during his time in office was often tumultuous. Now, former top Trump administration officials have put together a plan to reshape intelligence gathering should Trump return to the White House, taking aim at what they see as social engineering and a lack of loyalty to a conservative president’s agenda. Several long-time intelligence officials, including the first Director of National Intelligence, weigh the pros and cons of the right-wing plan to overhaul the intelligence apparatus.

Leader of Afghanistan’s resistance movement says he will defeat the Taliban ‘no matter the odds’ CNN.com

By Peter Bergen, CNN
14 minute read
Published 2:00 AM EDT, Sun September 1, 2024

Three years after the departure of the final US troops from Afghanistan, the situation in the country is bleak, with the Taliban tightening its grip as it introduces increasingly oppressive laws that restrict political freedoms and suppress the rights of women.

Most Afghans have had to acquiesce to the Taliban not because they embrace their misogynistic ideology but because they have all the guns. Still, there is a nascent resistance movement. I spoke to its leader, Ahmad Massoud, who said he’s engaged in “a fight for the soul and future of our nation, and we are determined to win, no matter the odds.”

He is the son of Ahmad Shah Massoud, who led the Afghan resistance to the Taliban more than two and half decades ago when the Taliban first seized power in Afghanistan in 1996.

Massoud is now 35, and he leads the National Resistance Front to the Taliban. In our interview, he asserted that his group has carried out 207 military operations around Afghanistan this year and that he has 5,000 soldiers under his control. Verifying this kind of information independently is nearly impossible as there are relatively few international journalists covering Afghanistan, while the Taliban have closed hundreds of Afghan media outlets. The UN put out a report in June that documented a surge of anti-Taliban attacks during the first six months of this year but put the number at 29 operations carried out by the National Resistance Front, while on the group’s X feed, there are claims of far more operations.

Massoud told me that “the Taliban’s true victory wasn’t on the battlefield; it was at the negotiating table,” a withdrawal agreement that was negotiated by then-President Donald Trump’s team and carried out by President Joe Biden.

Massoud lives in an undisclosed location in Central Asia directing military operations in Afghanistan from outside the country. We conducted our interview over email, and it has been edited for clarity.

BERGEN: The Taliban last week banned the sound of women’s voices outside of the home. This seems crazy, but the Taliban can do it with impunity. What does this say about their hold on power?

MASSOUD: This is a blatant display of ignorance and arrogance. The Taliban believe they can punish the people of Afghanistan, especially women, and yet they can also still gain international recognition. [Today, no government officially recognizes the Taliban, though several governments do have diplomatic relations with them.] This impunity is a direct result of the international community’s policy of appeasement of the Taliban over the past three years. If we hope to see a change in the Taliban’s behavior, we must alter our approach towards them. It’s that simple.

Within Afghanistan, our strategy for resistance is clear. The Taliban only respond to power and force. Diplomatic engagement with the Taliban has only emboldened them.

BERGEN: This is the third anniversary of the withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan. What are your feelings on this anniversary after two decades of a US military and diplomatic presence in Afghanistan? Was this a betrayal of America’s Afghan allies?

MASSOUD: The hasty US withdrawal in 2021 caused us to lose many achievements that we had gained in the last 20 years. Afghanistan had started experiencing social and political transformations that it never had before. We had rights like freedom of speech, and a new generation, both women and men, was on the rise. Yet we lost all of this when the agreement with the Taliban was signed in 2020 and when the withdrawal abruptly happened in 2021. Now we are the only country fully controlled by terrorists.

BERGEN: What kind of military operations are you carrying out in Afghanistan?

MASSOUD: The National Resistance Front’s military activities started in August 2021 when the Taliban attacked us in the Panjshir Valley [in northern Afghanistan]. Since then, we have been resisting them. We started from two provinces in the north, yet now we have networks and operations in almost 20 provinces after three years of expansion. [There are 34 provinces in Afghanistan.] Our operations at the moment are unconventional and mostly guerrilla operations. Yet, the military wing of the National Resistance Front is based inside Afghanistan, our bases, and our commando units are all in the country, and as every day passes, we are increasing our recruitment and operational capacity.

BERGEN: Can you give us a sense of the strengths of your National Resistance Front?

MASSOUD: The National Resistance Front’s military wing is solely made up of the remnants of Afghanistan’s former armed forces. These forces joined us instead of abandoning the fight for democracy on August 15, 2021 [when the Taliban captured Kabul, the capital]. Today, we have more than 5,000 permanent forces scattered in some 20 provinces. We have been able to increase their capabilities even though we aren’t receiving any external support. To give you a sense of our strength, since January 2024, we have launched 207 operations around the country.

BERGEN: Your soldiers claimed an attack at Kabul Airport last month. Can you describe what happened?

MASSOUD: Operational security prevents me from disclosing specifics, but I can assure you that this operation and many others demonstrate the significant military and intelligence capabilities we’ve developed since 2021. Despite the risks and complexities, our forces, supported by our deep intelligence network within the enemy’s ranks, executed the operation precisely.

Also, I would like to make something clear. All our targets are and will be military targets. We only target where the Taliban and other terror groups reside and avoid civilian casualties.

BERGEN: Tell us about how you became the leader of the anti-Taliban resistance, and are there other resistance groups you work with?

MASSOUD: I started my political efforts back in 2018 by consulting Afghanistan’s people. I went to the furthest villages and valleys of Afghanistan, engaging directly with my people to formulate a strategic response to the imminent US-Taliban deal and withdrawal. On September 5, 2019, I received a clear mandate from our citizens, gathered at my father’s mausoleum, to lead a solution to this coming crisis. The critical moment arrived on August 15, 2021, when my people and some of the former armed forces of Afghanistan established the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, entrusting me with its leadership. This was not a choice but a call to duty that I answered without any hesitation.

BERGEN: You attended Sandhurst, the British equivalent of West Point, and studied in the War Studies department of Kings College, London. Was that helpful training for what you are doing now?

MASSOUD: My training at Sandhurst and education at King’s College provided me with a solid foundation. However, the burden of real-world conflict has been my true academy. The lessons I’ve learned leading our resistance these past few years far surpass any classroom instruction.

BERGEN: You won’t recall this, but I met you when you were only around 4 years old when CNN was interviewing your father, Ahmad Shah Massoud, in the Panjshir Valley in Afghanistan in 1993 during the Afghan civil war. I was very impressed by your father, his extraordinary charisma and his intelligence.

It must have been very difficult for you, aged 11 when he was assassinated by al Qaeda assassins two days before 9/11. How has your father’s assassination affected what you are doing today?

MASSOUD: The video of our first encounter, when you met my father during that CNN interview in the Panjshir Valley in 1993, is indeed part of our historical record. While I wish I had been older to fully grasp the gravity of those moments and learn more directly from my father, his legacy has become the cornerstone of my mission. My father’s assassination by al Qaeda, just days before 9/11, was a moment that shaped not just my family but the course of our nation. As I’ve detailed in my memoir “In the Name of My Father,” the impact was profound. However, it also ignited an unshakeable determination within me. At that moment, I vowed to continue his vision for a free and peaceful Afghanistan. His sacrifice wasn’t in vain – it’s the foundation upon which we’re building Afghanistan’s future. [Disclosure: I wrote the foreword to Massoud’s memoir, which I do not benefit from financially in any manner.]

BERGEN: When the Americans left Afghanistan three years ago, they left behind $8.5 billion dollars worth of military equipment, according to an estimate by the UN. That’s more than the defense budget of some European nations. Does this make your task of resisting the Taliban more difficult?

MASSOUD: The $8.5 billion worth of military equipment abandoned by the Americans has of course altered the battlefield dynamics, but it hasn’t dampened our determination and commitment. Yes, the Taliban are now better armed than ever before. However, military history is full of examples where determination and strategy overcame material advantages. The Taliban may have the weapons, but we have the will of the people – and history shows that’s a far more powerful force.

What’s more concerning is the Taliban’s transformation of Afghanistan into a black market for these weapons. We know that they are not just arming themselves; they’re fueling global terror networks. This isn’t just about our resistance; it’s about preventing Afghanistan from becoming a nexus of international terrorism.

BERGEN: When your father, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was fighting the Taliban before 9/11, he controlled some territory inside Afghanistan and could be resupplied from neighboring Tajikistan. You are not in Afghanistan, and it’s hard for you to supply your forces inside Afghanistan as you control no territory in Afghanistan. You do have a political office in Tajikistan, but no other countries support you; how does this lack of support affect your ability to fight the Taliban?

MASSOUD: Our current position differs strategically from my father’s era, but our determination remains unshaken. Since 2021, we’ve not only survived but expanded our influence, despite minimal external support. It is important to emphasize that we are not just fighting the Taliban; we’re engaged in a broader conflict against a coalition of regional and global terror groups. When al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban supply fighters to the Taliban, it’s clear that our struggle is an extension of the global war on terror.

However, let me be clear: to defeat these 20 terrorist organizations in Afghanistan threatening global security, we require international backing. It’s unrealistic to expect us to single-handedly neutralize this threat without resources. Our fight isn’t just for Afghanistan; it’s for global security. Any nation that perceives terrorism as a threat must recognize the strategic necessity of supporting our cause and efforts.

BERGEN: What support do you need?

MASSOUD: We need any kind of support that will allow us to defeat this group. We believe we have capable forces who were trained for 20 years to pursue counterterrorism. For this reason, we are asking for resources instead of foreign forces to liberate our country.

BERGEN: What do you say to those who say your resistance movement doesn’t have much of a chance against the well-armed Taliban and without financial and military support from other countries?

MASSOUD: Those who underestimate our resistance fail to grasp the lessons of Afghanistan’s history. Despite our current lack of external support, we’ve consistently grown in strength and numbers. The Taliban may control territory and possess billions in arms, but they lack the most crucial asset – the support of the people of Afghanistan. Our history proves that popular legitimacy, not weaponry, determines ultimate victory. Even the communist regime [which controlled Afghanistan from 1979 to 1992], which was far stronger than today’s Taliban, fell due to lack of popular support. Our resistance is expanding because we represent and embody the will of the people.

BERGEN: Will the Taliban still be in charge in Afghanistan a decade from now? If not, why not?

MASSOUD: The Taliban’s grip on Afghanistan is already slipping. Their lack of discipline, competence, legitimacy, and internal disunity makes their long-term rule ineffective. We don’t just hope for their downfall – we’re working to ensure it.

In Vienna, Austria, this year we initiated a political process, uniting Afghanistan’s diverse political and civil groups. This isn’t only opposition – it’s the foundation of a democratic alternative for Afghanistan’s future. We’re not waiting for the Taliban to fail; we’re building the system that will replace them.

The fractures within the Taliban are widening. Their implosion is not a matter of if, but when. When that moment comes – and it will come sooner than many expect – we’ll be ready. The democratic government we’re preparing will fill the void, representing all citizens and bringing stability to our nation.

A decade from now, Afghanistan won’t just be free of Taliban rule – it will be on the path to becoming a beacon of democracy in the region. That’s not wishful thinking – it’s our objective.

BERGEN: Has the Taliban created an “inclusive” government as they promised?

MASSOUD: The Taliban’s promise of an inclusive government has proven to be nothing but propaganda. The fundamentally reject the core democratic principle that political legitimacy stems from the will of the people and free elections. Their current power structure is a sham, with various factions of their terrorist organization vying for control and systematically marginalizing each other.

The very notion that this group could create an inclusive government is absurd when they can’t even maintain unity within their own ranks. Their internal power struggles and ideological inflexibility make any form of genuine inclusivity impossible. They’ve demonstrated time and again that their only interest is in consolidating power for their extremist vision.

A Taliban fighter stands guard as a woman walks past in Kabul, Afghanistan, on December 26, 2022.
A Taliban fighter stands guard as a woman walks past in Kabul, Afghanistan, on December 26, 2022. Ebrahim Noroozi/AP
BERGEN: Flawed presidential elections produced flawed Afghan governments. How culpable were Afghanistan’s leaders like President Ashraf Ghani for what transpired in Afghanistan?

MASSOUD: The government of Afghanistan was corrupt and flawed. The flaws in Afghanistan’s previous governments were systemic and deep-rooted. I consistently opposed these administrations precisely because of their corruption and ineffectiveness.

The root of the problem lies in the political system adopted after 2004, which was fundamentally unsuited to Afghanistan’s diverse demographic reality. Afghanistan is a highly diverse country without an ethnic majority. Its constitution concentrated excessive power in Kabul, essentially creating a presidential monarchy. This centralization was a primary factor in the government’s weakness and the marginalization of numerous communities.

The situation worsened dramatically during Ashraf Ghani’s presidency. His further centralization of power, limiting decision-making to only himself and a small circle of advisors, exacerbated the alienation of large segments of our population.

Recognizing this flaw, I advocated for the decentralization of power in a 2020 New York Times article. I firmly believe that Afghanistan’s path to peace and stability lies in the distribution of power. It is a strategic requirement for building a stable, resilient nation that can withstand internal divisions and external threats.

BERGEN: In all the discussions about the mistakes made in Afghanistan, sometimes it’s easy to lose sight of what went right. In addition to the rise of independent media and the provision of education to girls and jobs for women, what else worked? Programs like the National Solidarity Programme, which offered small grants for public works to local communities in consultation with those communities?

MASSOUD: Yes, despite challenges and setbacks in Afghanistan, it’s important to acknowledge the significant progress made during the two decades after 9/11. The rise of independent media was a cornerstone of this progress, giving voice to diverse perspectives and creating a more informed population. The expansion of education for girls and employment opportunities for women were transformative. Programs like the National Solidarity Programme were particularly effective.

BERGEN: What was the effect of the Trump administration’s 2020 Doha peace agreement with the Taliban and President Joe Biden announcing in April 2021 that he was going to go through with the total US withdrawal?

MASSOUD: The Trump administration’s 2020 Doha deal with the Taliban and President Biden’s later announcement of a total US withdrawal in April 2021 had detrimental effects on Afghanistan’s stability. These decisions legitimized the Taliban on the international stage while signaling the end of substantial Western support for the government of Afghanistan at the same time.

The Doha agreement, in particular, undermined the morale of our security forces and government officials. It created a sense of certainty about the Taliban’s return to power. Biden’s withdrawal announcement made it worse. It triggered a rapid loss of confidence in the government’s ability to stand independently. These policy decisions, which sought to end America’s longest war, sacrificed the hard-won progress of two decades and betrayed the trust of millions of our people.

BERGEN: Did the Taliban win at the negotiating table with the United States, what they couldn’t win on the battlefield from them?

MASSOUD: The Taliban’s true victory wasn’t on the battlefield; it was at the negotiating table. Prior to the negotiations, their territorial control was limited. The negotiation process itself became their launch pad to power. This diplomatic engagement legitimized a terrorist group. It turned them from insurgents to political actors. Had the US simply withdrawn without these negotiations, the Taliban wouldn’t be in power today.

The consequences were devastating – it demoralized Afghanistan’s armed forces, normalized relations with terrorists, facilitated the release of thousands of extremists from our prisons, and paved the way for the fall of our government.

This colossal mistake handed the Taliban a victory they couldn’t achieve through force of arms.

BERGEN: This year, you published a book, “In the Name of My Father: Struggling For Freedom In Afghanistan.” What was the main message of the book?

MASSOUD: My book is more than a memoir – it’s a manifesto for Afghanistan’s future and a testament to our ongoing struggle. I lay out my convictions on democracy, women’s rights and the role of Islam in our society. These are the foundational principles upon which we’re building our resistance.

BERGEN: What is your vision of the future? The Taliban control more of the country than they did before 9/11. They’re better armed. They’ve been fighting for 20 years. So, what’s the end goal here for you?

MASSOUD: Let me be very clear about our vision and end goal. We are fighting for a democratic, decentralized and pluralistic Afghanistan where every citizen, regardless of gender, ethnicity or religious belief, enjoys equal rights. This is our non-negotiable objective.

Yes, the Taliban currently control more territory and are better armed than before 9/11. But control of land and possession of weapons does not mean legitimate governance or popular support.

We’re not just resisting the Taliban; we’re building the foundation for a new Afghanistan. We’re creating a system that’s resilient against extremism and responsive to the diverse needs of all our citizens.

Make no mistake – we are prepared for a long struggle. This isn’t just a fight against the Taliban; it’s a fight for the soul and future of our nation, and we are determined to win, no matter the odds.

Gen. McMaster’s blistering account of the Trump White House, CNN.com

Analysis by Peter Bergen, CNN
7 minute read
Published 11:00 AM EDT, Sun August 25, 2024

Until now, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster has held his fire about his stint in the Trump White House. McMaster served with distinction in key American conflicts of the past decades: the Gulf War, the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan, but as McMaster recounts in his new book, “At War with Ourselves: My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House,” in some ways, his most challenging tour as a soldier was his last one: serving as the national security adviser to a notoriously mercurial president.

In his blistering, insightful account of his time in the Trump White House, McMaster describes meetings in the Oval Office as “exercises in competitive sycophancy” during which Trump’s advisers would flatter the president by saying stuff like, “Your instincts are always right” or, “No one has ever been treated so badly by the press.” Meanwhile, Trump would say “outlandish” things like, “Why don’t we just bomb the drugs?” in Mexico or, “Why don’t we take out the whole North Korean Army during one of their parades?”

McMaster’s book, which focuses on Trump’s tenure as commander in chief, comes at a particularly timely moment, just as many Americans start to really consider whether Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris would make a better commander in chief.

In her acceptance speech for her nomination to the presidency at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, Harris spent some of her speech trying to demonstrate her national security credentials. She talked, for instance, about the war in Gaza, saying that as president she would stand firm on the US alliance with Israel to “ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself.” Harris also said that the Palestinians have “their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.” With this speech, Harris was trying to thread a delicate needle between Americans who strongly oppose the war — many of them in her own party — and those who back Israel wholeheartedly.

McMaster provides unique detail on Trump’s approach to foreign policy and — similarly to his successor in the national security adviser role, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, who wrote scathingly about the former president in a book published in 2020 — his account is likely to do little to reassure US allies about the prospects of a second Trump term.

In addition to being a highly decorated officer, McMaster also has a doctorate in history. His first book, “Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam,” recounted the dismal history of how the top American generals told President Lyndon Johnson only what they thought he wanted to hear about the Vietnam War, rather than giving him their best military advice about how the conflict was going and the full range of policy options that were open to their commander in chief.

‘Tell Trump what he didn’t want to hear’

McMaster wasn’t going to make the same mistake after Trump tapped him to be his national security adviser in February 2017. He writes, “I knew that to fulfill my duty, I would have to tell Trump what he didn’t want to hear.” This helps explain why McMaster lasted just over a year in the job. (Disclosure: I have known McMaster professionally since 2010, when he ran an anti-corruption task force in Afghanistan.)

One subject was particularly neuralgic for Trump: Russia. McMaster astutely observes, “I wished that Trump could separate the issue of Russian election meddling from the legitimacy of his presidency. He could have said, ‘Yes, they attacked the election. But Russia doesn’t care who wins our elections. What they want to do is pit Americans against one another… .’ McMaster writes that the “fragility” of Trump’s ego and “his deep sense of aggrievement” would never allow him to make this kind of distinction.

McMaster felt it was his “duty” to point out to Trump that Russian President Vladimir Putin “was not and would never be Trump’s friend.” McMaster warned Trump that Putin is “the best liar in the world” and would try to “play” Trump to get what he wanted and manipulate him with “ambiguous promises of a ‘better relationship.’”

The final straw that ended McMaster’s tenure in the White House seems to have been when he publicly said on February 17, 2018, at the Munich Security Forum — the annual gathering of top Western foreign policy officials — that the indictment of a group of Russian intelligence officers for their interference in the 2016 US presidential election was “inconvertible” evidence of Russian meddling in that election.

Trump soon tweeted, “General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians….” Once the commander-in-chief started publicly castigating him on Twitter, it was obvious that McMaster would not be long for the White House.

McMaster’s account of the Trump team is not pretty. Steve Bannon, Trump’s “chief strategist” early in the presidency, is portrayed as a “fawning court jester” who played “on Trump’s anxiety and sense of beleaguerment … with stories, mainly about who was out to get him and what he could do to ‘counterpunch.’”

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis were often at odds with Trump, McMaster says. Tillerson, who had previously run Exxon, is portrayed as inaccessible to top officials in Trump’s administration, while Mattis is described as an obstructionist. McMaster writes that Tillerson and Mattis viewed Trump as “dangerous” and seemed to construe their roles as if “Trump was an emergency and that anyone abetting him was an adversary.” Trump himself also contributed to the dysfunction: “He enjoyed and contributed to interpersonal drama in the White House and across the administration.”

Also, McMaster wasn’t on the same page as his boss on some key foreign policy issues. McMaster enumerates those issues as “allies, authoritarians, and Afghanistan.” Trump denigrated American allies whom he saw as “freeloaders”; he embraced authoritarian rulers who McMaster despised; and while Trump largely believed Afghanistan was a lost cause, McMaster thought there was a path forward for the country, and he pushed for a more significant US commitment there, while simultaneously blocking a cockamamie notion by Bannon to turn the conduct of the Afghan war over to American private military contractors.

McMaster credits Trump on Syria and China

McMaster does give Trump his due for some sound foreign policy decisions. Unlike President Barack Obama, who had dithered over his own “red line” when the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, Trump acted decisively when Assad used chemical weapons in early April 2017, killing dozens of civilians. Trump responded by ordering airstrikes against the Syrian airbase where the chemical weapons strike was launched from.

And on the most important foreign policy issue, China, McMaster concluded that Trump made the right decisions. McMaster oversaw Trump’s 2017 national security strategy document, which took a tougher public stance on China than previous administrations, calling the Chinese out for stealing US intellectual property every year valued at “hundreds of billions of dollars” while noting that China “is building the most capable and well-funded military in the world, after our own.” Briefed by McMaster on the new national security strategy, Trump responded, “This is fantastic,” and asked for similar language in his upcoming speeches.

The assault on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, seems to have marked a decisive break from Trump for McMaster, who, in a previous book published in 2020, “Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World,” had avoided direct criticisms of his former commander in chief.

By contrast, in his new book, McMaster writes that in the aftermath of his 2020 electoral defeat, Trump’s “ego and love of self… drove him to abandon his oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution,’ a president’s highest obligation.” McMaster adds, “The attack on the US Capitol stained our image, and it will take a long-term effort to restore what Donald Trump, his enablers, and those they encouraged took from us that day.”

So, what might this all mean for a second Trump term, if there is one? The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 outlines plans for Trump loyalists to replace numerous career foreign service officers and intelligence officials. Those loyalists would likely tell Trump precisely what he wants to hear rather than give the president their unvarnished assessments of the national security challenges facing the US, which is the proper role of American national security professionals.

Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, but the fact that CNN found at least 140 people who worked for Trump are involved in the project speaks for itself. And in a second Trump term, there would likely be no McMasters to tell Trump what he doesn’t want to hear; in fact, that’s kind of the whole point of Project 2025, which would replace as many as 50,000 workers in the federal government with Trump loyalists.

Training for Victory: U.S. Special Forces Advisory Operations from El Salvador to Afghanistan, Online, New America

[Online] Training for Victory: U.S. Special Forces Advisory Operations from El Salvador to Afghanistan
Event

One of the most difficult security challenges of the post–Cold War era has been stabilizing failing states in an era of irregular warfare. A consistent component of the strategy to address this problem has been security force assistance where outside powers train and advise the host nation’s military. Despite billions of dollars spent, the commitment of thousands of advisors, and innumerable casualties, the American efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq failed catastrophically. Nevertheless, there were pockets of success. The Iraqi Special Operations Forces held back the Islamic State in 2014 long enough to allow American and allied forces to flow back into the country, and many Afghan commando units fought to the bitter end as their country disintegrated around them. In his new book Training for Victory: U.S. Special Forces Advisory Operations from El Salvador to Afghanistan, Frank K. Sobchak examines what made those units successful while the larger missions ended disastrously. Examining cases from El Salvador, the Philippines, and Colombia to Iraq and Afghanistan, Sobchak explores factors from the partner force ratio to language training to advisor involvement in combat, with findings that at times challenge existing orthodoxy.

Join New America’s Future Security Program as they welcome Frank K. Sobchak to discuss his book Training for Victory and the effectiveness of Special Forces advisory operations. Sobchak is a retired Special Forces colonel who served in various assignments in war and peace during a twenty-six-year military career. He is Chair of Irregular Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute, U.S. Military Academy and a Senior Fellow at the Global and National Security Institute, University of South Florida, and a Fellow (contributor) for the MirYam Institute. In addition to Training for Victory, he is the coauthor of The U.S. Army in the Iraq War. The conversation will be moderated by New America Vice President and Arizona State University Professor of Practice Peter Bergen.

Join the conversation online using #TrainingforVictory and following @NewAmericaISP.

PARTICIPANTS

Dr. Frank K. Sobchak
Author, Training for Victory
Chair of Irregular Warfare Studies, Modern War Institute at West Point

MODERATOR

Peter Bergen
Vice President, New America
Co-Director, Future Security
Professor of Practice, Arizona State University

Why Anti-Democratic Populists Keep Winning Elections

Narrated by: Peter L. Bergen
Aug 20 2024
Length: 40 mins

Ben Rhodes, a former national security advisor to Barack Obama, has a theory. Based on interviews he did with journalists, activists, and dissidents facing anti-democratic movements around the world, he explains how right-wing leaders with an authoritarian bent have exploited the downsides of globalization to seize power—and he says it’s due in no small part to major blunders made by the United States.

Chicago Prepares for Protests at the DNC, Hoping To Forget 1968

Aug 13 2024
Length: 38 mins

The parallels between the 1968 Democratic National Convention and this year’s are undeniable: An incumbent president dropping out of the race. A party deeply divided over a brutal war. A nation arguing over the right to free expression vs. law and order. And it’s all happening again in Chicago, where in 1968 the streets around the Convention became a bloody battle between protesters and police. Is it going to be possible for the city this time around to accommodate peaceful protesters peacefully protesting? A protest organizer, an eyewitness to the violence of ‘68, and an expert on law enforcement weigh in on preparations for the convention and the lessons to be learned from that violent week in 1968.

GLOBAL SUMMIT ON TERRORISM AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE, NYC

GLOBAL SUMMIT ON TERRORISM AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE
SEPTEMBER 12-13 2024 – NEW YORK, NY
The inaugural Global Summit on Terrorism and Political Violence will take place from September 12-13 in New York, New York, hosted by The Soufan Center. This invitation-only event will bring together leaders from the United States government, intelligence community, international organizations, academia, media, and other key sectors to discuss emerging security challenges and enhance counterterrorism efforts. The Global Summit recognizes the urgent need to prevent the United States from regressing to a pre-September 11, 2001, state of unpreparedness in the face of a rapidly evolving terrorist threat landscape. Over two days of programming, the gathering will address the complex and evolving threat matrix, highlighting the dangers posed by domestic and international terrorism, political violence, non-state actors, technological advancements, and intense geopolitical competition and challenges.

ABOUT THE SOUFAN CENTER (TSC)
The Soufan Center (TSC) is an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit organization offering research, analysis, and strategic dialogue on foreign policy challenges with a particular focus on global security, conflict prevention and resolution, and the rule of law.
CONTACT
In-person attendance is by invitation only. The Global Summit is open to media coverage by invited members of the press. For credentials, interview requests, media inquiries, and any further information for journalists, please contact the media coordinator: Gaby.Tejeda@thesoufancenter.org.

Post Islamism: The Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies, George Washington University, DC

Post Islamism: Conceptual, Social, Political Trends & Policy Framework
The Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies (AISS) is announcing its inaugural conference on “Post-Islamism: Conceptual, Social, Political Trends & Policy Framework.” The conference will be held in partnership with the Elliott School of International Affairs, the Sigur Center for Asian Studies, and the Institute of Middle East Studies at George Washington University on September 26, 2024 (09:00 – 17:00) in Washington, D.C.

The conference will examine Post-Islamism within the broader context of global political, social, and economic trends, particularly in Muslim-majority countries and diaspora communities. The return of the Taliban, the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict, the rise of Muslim identity politics in Western nations, China’s growing influence, and the persistence of Islamist terrorism underscore the complexity of the contemporary Islamic world.

The conference seeks to foster critical dialogue, policy development, and public understanding of this critical issue by bringing together leading scholars, policymakers, activists, and practitioners. It will feature a keynote address by General H.R. McMaster, former US National Security Adviser, and panel discussions on various aspects of post-Islamism.

The conference concept note and agenda can be found on the AISS

Website

James W. Foley Legacy Foundation 2024 Bringing Americans Home Event on Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – On July 24, the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation will release the sixth annual edition of Bringing Americans Home, an independent research report that provides new information about the ongoing crisis of Americans taken hostage abroad by terrorists or wrongfully detained by nation states. In addition to data that convey the scale, scope, and recent trends of the crisis, the report highlights the lived experiences of family members of captives and of captives themselves – devastating realities that numbers alone cannot convey.

The Bringing Americans Home reports inform executive branch policymaking and congressional legislation. The research highlights where the government’s efforts are working and where changes could resolve cases more quickly, deter future hostage-taking, hold captors accountable for their crimes and support victims of a hostage-taking event.

The report will be released at an event featuring Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs Roger Carstens, Foley Foundation President and Founder Diane Foley, members of Congress, a former hostage, the husband of a detained journalist, and report author Cindy Loertscher.

DATE:  July 24

TIME:  10 AM – Noon (end time approximate); arrive by 9:30 AM to process through security

WHERE: Capitol Hill, Senate Visitors Center, Room 215

LIVESTREAM OPTION: After registering, the event may be viewed at bringingamericanshome.org

PROGRAM (subject to change):

Report Overview: author Cindy Loertscher

Panel Discussion: Experiences of Families of Americans Held Captive and Returned Captives

Jeff Woodke, formerly held hostage by JNIM in West Africa for over six years
Pavel Butorin, spouse of Alsu Kurmasheva, detained in Russia since October
Jonathan Dekel-Chen, father of Sagui Dekel Chen, held hostage by Hamas in Gaza since October
Diane Foley, President of the Foley Foundation and mother of conflict journalist James W. Foley, who was publicly killed by ISIS in August 2014
Cindy Loertscher, author of the Bringing Americans Home research series
Moderator: Peter Bergen, Vice President, Global Studies & Fellows, New America; Professor of Practice, Arizona State University

SPEHA Interview: U.S. Government Hostage Recoveries: Policy & Practice

Roger Carstens, Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, State Department
Interviewer: Peter Bergen

Closing Remarks: Members of Congress

About the Event Partners

New America

Since 1999, New America has nurtured new voices and ideas to help solve complex public problems. Today we are a diverse community of policy experts, technologists, and social entrepreneurs, combining our core expertise in research, reporting, and analysis with new areas of coding, data science, and human-centered design to develop solutions to some of today’s most pressing challenges. Prizing its intellectual and ideological independence and diversity, the organization seeks to reflect and celebrate a new America.

McCain Institute at Arizona State University

The McCain Institute is a nonpartisan organization inspired by Senator John McCain and his family’s dedication to public service. Based in Washington, D.C., its programs defend democracy, advance human rights and freedom, and empower character-driven leaders. The Institute’s unique power to convene leaders across the global political spectrum enables it to make a real impact on the world’s most pressing challenges. With the goal of action, not talk, the Institute, like Senator McCain, is fighting to create a free, safe, and just world for all.

About the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation

The Foley Foundation was established the month after the brutal murder by ISIS of conflict journalist and humanitarian James “Jim” Foley in August 2014, with the firm conviction that the United States must prioritize the freedom of Americans unjustly held captive abroad over other policy considerations. Today, the Foundation seeks to inspire the moral courage needed to secure the freedom of Americans held captive unjustly abroad, prevent future hostage-taking, and promote journalist safety. The Foley Foundation connects families of those held hostage or wrongfully detained with the resources needed to endure their loved one’s captivity, and it supports these families’ public advocacy efforts to secure their freedom.

For more information or to learn how you can make an impact, please visit jamesfoleyfoundation.org or contact Amy Coyne at amy.coyne@jamesfoleyfoundation.org or +1 (800) 803-7010.

Connect with us

Facebook X Instagram
James W. Foley Legacy Foundation | 200 Marcy Street Suite 102 | Portsmouth, NH 03801 US

Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Our Privacy Policy | Constant Contact Data Notice

Constant Contact