After the ouster of Michael Flynn last week, President Donald Trump on Monday chose another highly decorated general as his National Security Adviser: Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster. The appointment was met with widespread approval; McMaster is as respected for his battlefield strategy as he is for his intellectual rigor.

McMaster was not Trump’s first choice to replace Flynn, however. Robert Harward, also a general, declined the post last week. Flynn resigned after reports surfaced that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about the content of his phone calls with the Russian ambassador during the transition period.

At a press conference on Monday, Trump called McMaster, 54, a “man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience.” He added that McMaster “is highly respected by everyone in the military, and we’re very honored to have him.” Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), a vocal critic of Trump over the past few weeks, said the president made an “outstanding choice,” and called McMaster a “man of genuine intellect, character, and ability.”

Congratulations to our new National Security Advisor, General H.R. McMaster. Video: https://t.co/BKn9r225Kk pic.twitter.com/VBXcJ1b6Pv

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2017

But despite his qualifications and reputation, McMaster is set to lead a national security apparatus that is largely dismayed by Trump’s first month in office, and is trying to navigate the outsize influence of Trump’s Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. Unlike Flynn, and others in Trump’s orbit, McMaster does not see the West as being in a “clash of civilizations” with Islam. In fact, while serving in the Iraq War, he allied his forces with Islamic militants who had killed Americans in order to defeat al-Qaeda. Instead of vilifying all of Islam, he sought to turn Muslims against the more radical, jihadist strains. He also forbid his troops from using derogatory terms for Muslims.

Time will tell if McMaster, known for being an independent-minded leader who is unafraid to stand up to his superiors, will advise the president on national security issues, as his post is meant to, or if he will be forced to yield to the vision of Bannon and Trump. For his part, McMaster said he is “grateful” for the opportunity. Sitting with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach on Monday, McMaster said he will do “everything I can to advance and protect the interests of the American people.”

Though he is lauded for his battlefield exploits–he earned a Silver Star during the Persian Gulf war in 1991–his 1997 book “Dereliction of Duty” was widely acclaimed, and serves as a sort of blueprint for his views. The book was an in-depth critique of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for failing to stand up to President Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War.

“The war in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on the front pages of the New York Times or the college campuses,” he wrote. “It was lost in Washington, D.C.” McMaster will now be plunging deep into the place and the system he has previously critiqued, at a time when its leader, Trump, has not shown much deference to his appointees, no matter their experience or expertise.

But for now, McMaster is a welcome maven of stability for an administration that has been anything but. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the highest ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted his approval of McMaster on Monday: “McMaster is solid choice, bright & strategic. Wrote the book on importance of standing up to POTUS. May need to show same independence here.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet the New National Security Adviser: H.R. McMaster appeared first on Law Street.

Obama commutes sentence of Chelsea Manning. How many people died because of manning’ leak? https://t.co/WrijBtp4fo

— Judith Miller (@JMfreespeech) January 17, 2017

Miller, now a Fox News contributor, is the former New York Times reporter who wrote a series of stories on the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq using unnamed sources who gave Miller information that we now know to be completely false. After they were published, Bush administration officials used Miller’s stories as verified evidence of the presence of WMDs in Iraq, which helped to bolster support for the Iraq War–a more than $2 trillion military endeavor that resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 U.S. troops and millions of Iraqi civilians, as well as thousands of U.S soldiers who have been wounded both physically and mentally.

In 2015, Miller published her memoir, “The Story: A Reporter’s Journey,” in which she tried to rationalize her reporting and divert blame to her sources who, as she told Jon Stewart, “had never been wrong before.” Twitter wasted no time pointing out the hypocrisy of Miller’s Manning tweet, unleashing a flood of backlash.

@JMfreespeech pic.twitter.com/tt7xpnZuNZ

— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech pic.twitter.com/GG40QGenQj

— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech pic.twitter.com/rm1eG6Pdt8

— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech I dunno, Judith. How many died because you peddled lies about Saddam’s WMD?

— Mark Colvin (@Colvinius) January 17, 2017

.@JMfreespeech Good question. The answer is: None. Zero.
How many people died because of the Iraq War you helped enable with fake news?

— Peter Kofod (@peterkofod) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech Do you realize you’re THAT Judith Miller?

— Meredith Haggerty (@manymanywords) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech you literally caused the iraq war to happen under false pretenses, bye.

— Myles Tanzer (@mylestanzer) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech Your lies contributed to the deaths of more than 170,000 people. You are a weapon of mass destruction.

— Pete Forester (@pete_forester) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech Talk about the pot telling the kettle lies in order to start the iraqi war

— Sir Jeffington IV (@JeffCerulli) January 17, 2017

Judith Miller should probably sit this one out.

— Jane Coaston (@cjane87) January 17, 2017

In an attempt to quell the online hate, Miller took time out to respond to one of her critics–and plug her book.

@HarleyPeyton not lies or propaganda, but Intel estimates that proved wrong.Big https://t.co/t0K4ba5ucQ “The Story, a Reporter’s Journey”

— Judith Miller (@JMfreespeech) January 17, 2017

However, that response quickly backfired as well.

@JMfreespeech @HarleyPeyton From the NYT: “This sad and flawed book won’t help her be found.”

— Greg McMullen (@gmcmullen) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech @HarleyPeyton “To PROVE I’m not a lying sociopath, read my book: I’m Not a Lying Sociopath” By Judith Miller.
uh… ‘Kay. pic.twitter.com/QJPDsXjmsp

— Tony (@jaxtonypiper) January 18, 2017

@JMfreespeech @HarleyPeyton Sorry, Judy, but the author of that book has been thoroughly discredited by real journalists.

— (((TonyD))) (@Dogger55) January 17, 2017

@JMfreespeech @HarleyPeyton Girl….

— Charlie (@notcharchar) January 17, 2017

Regardless of where one stands on the Chelsea Manning commutation, one issue we can all agree on is that Judith Miller should not be the moral arbiter for anything.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Twitter Unleashes Its Wrath on Judith Miller After Chelsea Manning Tweet appeared first on Law Street.

John Kelly, a retired Marine General and 45-year military veteran, will head the Department of Homeland Security under President-elect Trump, CBS News reported on Wednesday. An official announcement is expected in the next few days. Kelly, 66, most recently served in the Obama Administration as the head of the U.S. Southern Command, a unit that focuses on operations in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Kelly did not endorse Trump during the campaign. But he is a widely respected veteran with a deep resume, including experience with many countries the U.S. has had conflicts with over the past four decades, including Iraq and Afghanistan. He has also served as the special assistant to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s supreme allied commander for Europe, and served as an aide to former defense secretaries Leon Panetta and Robert Gates.

Kelly, known for his blunt demeanor, called domestic politics a “cesspool” in an interview with Foreign Policy magazine last summer. Though he said he would be willing to serve either Trump or Hillary Clinton, he said neither was “serious yet about the issues,” and expressed his dislike of campaign rhetoric. Kelly is the third general chosen for Trump’s cabinet, following Michael Flynn as national security advisor and James Mattis as defense secretary. A fourth general, David Petraeus, is a candidate for the secretary of state position.

As the head of DHS, a body that was enacted to combat terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Kelly will be charged with carrying out Trump’s vision in regard to illegal immigration. Like Trump, Kelly has said that the U.S.-Mexico border is porous, and is a vulnerable channel for drugs and weapons to pass through. Kelly has not supported Trump’s hardline stance on Muslims, however, saying U.S. troops “respect and even fight for the right of your neighbor to venerate any God he or she damn well pleases.”

He also has a fierce respect for the military, and has personal experience with the sacrifices service members make: Kelly’s oldest son Robert was killed while fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2010. Days after his son’s death, Kelly delivered an impassioned speech in St. Louis. “Their struggle is your struggle,” he said, referring to U.S. soldiers. “If anyone thinks you can somehow thank them for their service, and not support the cause for which they fight—our country—these people are lying to themselves.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who is John Kelly? appeared first on Law Street.

During the Cincinnati stop of President-elect Donald Trump’s “thank you tour” on Thursday, he made the unofficial announcement that he will be selecting General James Mattis, a widely respected 40-year veteran of the Marines, to serve as his secretary of defense. An official announcement is expected to come Monday. Mattis, if confirmed by the Senate, would be the first general to serve as defense secretary since George Marshall in 1950.

The blunt 66-year-old, nicknamed “Mad Dog” and “Warrior Monk,” most recently served as the head of the U.S. Central Command under President Barack Obama. He retired from that post in 2013, about five months before his service was through, which some speculated was the result of his disagreements with Obama on the president’s policy in the Middle East, specifically his nuclear pact with Iran. Mattis has spoken frequently about Iran and the danger it poses. He once said Iran is “the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East.”

Mattis’ most recent rebuke of Obama’s “policy of disengagement in the Middle East” came at a Congressional hearing in 2015, when he told lawmakers the U.S. must “come out from our reactive crouch and take a firm, strategic stance in defense of our values.” And though he has expressed his disapproval of the Iran deal, he is not in favor of withdrawing from the commitment, and thinks the best path forward is cooperating with American allies.

Mattis is a widely respected general who was courted by both the Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigns to speak at their respective political conventions. He declined both offers. Mattis is perhaps best known for his work in the Middle East following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He led the first forces into Afghanistan, and established the first U.S. base in the country.

“I don’t lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word.”
General James #MadDog Mattis pic.twitter.com/W2QklT5F1N

— Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) December 2, 2016

Mattis also led the sacking of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003 and the retaking of Fallujah in 2004. In a statement, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Mattis is “without a doubt one of the finest military officers of his generation and an extraordinary leader who inspires a rare and special admiration of his troops.”

As a former general, Mattis does face obstacles in getting confirmed. Former members of the military must spend at least seven years out of service before being allowed to serve as defense secretary, according to federal law. Congress must pass a waiver allowing him to skirt that stipulation. And though the former general is widely regarded in Congress, at least one lawmaker opposes his confirmation.

In a statement on Thursday, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said she would oppose a waiver. “Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy,” she said, while adding she deeply respects Mattis’ service.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who Is James Mattis? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories on Law Street included a collection of the best tweets from the trending hashtag #MoreTurstedThanHillary, a rundown of everything you need to know about the recent Dallas police shooting, and a report critiquing former U.K. Prime Minster Tony Blair’s decision to join the invasion of Iraq. ICYMI–Check out these top stories below.

1. #MoreTrustedThanHillary Trend Takes Twitter by Storm

In the wake of the FBI announcement recommending that Hillary Clinton not be charged for her use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of state, people are outraged. To express their frustration, many have taken to twitter, tweeting nasty messages about Clinton and her race to the White House. The biggest trend right now is a hashtag that has people asking what untrustworthy things are more trustworthy than the presumptive democratic nominee. From cartoon conch shells to burns of political figures, the jokes on twitter will have you either cringing at their crude nature or crying tears of laughter. Without further ado, here are the top tweets following the trend of asking what really is #moretrustedthanhillary? Read the full article here.

2. Nightmare in Dallas: What You Need to Know

It has been a long, bloody week in America. Following the killing of two black men by police in Louisiana and Minnesota earlier this week, protests sprung up across the country. In Dallas on Thursday night, a peaceful protest turned violent when shots rang out at about 8:45 pm. As a fuller picture of what happened develops over the coming days, read on for details on what we know, what we don’t know, and how Thursday’s tragic episode fits into a larger historical perspective. Read the full article here.

3. Report Blasts Tony Blair, UK Government’s Handling of Iraq War

A report conducted by a five-member panel concluded that while the U.K.’s policy on the Iraq War was erroneous and costly, it was not illegal. The Iraq Inquiry, a seven year undertaking, was launched in 2009 by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The 6,000 page report sought to determine if the Iraq invasion was “right and necessary” and “whether the U.K. could–and should–have been better prepared for what followed,” according to a statement by Sir John Chilcot, the retired civil servant who spearheaded the effort. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

A report conducted by a five-member panel concluded that while the U.K.’s policy on the Iraq War was erroneous and costly, it was not illegal.

The Iraq Inquiry, a seven year undertaking, was launched in 2009 by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The 6,000 page report sought to determine if the Iraq invasion was “right and necessary” and “whether the U.K. could–and should–have been better prepared for what followed,” according to a statement by Sir John Chilcot, the retired civil servant who spearheaded the effort.

U.K. forces joined the U.S.-led coalition in March 2003. The conflict, which was sparked by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, killed 179 British troops. Nearly 4,500 American troops died, along with over 100,000 Iraqis, including civilians.

As a thesis to a handful of key findings, Chilcot concluded, “The U.K. chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

To the detriment of then Prime Minister Tony Blair’s detractors, the report saw no reason to suspect intentional wrongdoing or unlawful activity on the part of Blair or Parliament.

At a press conference Wednesday following the Chilcot report’s release, Blair said his decision to join U.S. forces in Iraq was “the hardest, most momentous, most [agonizing decision] I took in my ten years as Prime Minister.”

Blair lamented the thousands of Iraqi deaths that resulted from the invasion, but did not go as far as expressing regret for the decision. He was steadfast in defending the U.S.-led coalition’s decision to depose Saddam Hussein, the tyrannical leader of Iraq who was eventually captured by U.S. forces and hanged in Iraq.

He also sought to console the families of British soldiers who perished on the battlefield, by claiming they did not die in vein. “[British forces] fought in the defining security struggle of the 21st century, against the terrorism and violence which the world over destroys lives and divides communities,” said Blair.

Here are some of the findings from the report, which is based on testimony from 150 witnesses and 150,000 documents:

• The U.K.’s judgement of the severity of the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) threat posed by Iraq was not justified by the evidence, or lack thereof.
• Blair underestimated the consequences of an invasion, and did not properly prepare for the vacuum left by Hussein’s absence.
• Blair’s government understood the risks (i.e. internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and Al Qaida activity in Iraq) and joined the invasion anyway.

Chilcot ended the report by offering a suggestion for what we can learn from the U.K.’s errors in the Iraq War. “Above all, the lesson is that all aspects of any intervention need to be calculated, debated and challenged with the utmost [rigor],” he said. “Sadly, neither was the case in relation to the U.K. Government’s actions in Iraq.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Report Blasts Tony Blair, UK Government’s Handling of Iraq War appeared first on Law Street.