The Two Teams

[Maddy]

I thought this was a helpful paradigm for understanding today's news.

♦ TEAM One – The Department of State is aligned with the CIA. Their media PR firms are CNN, CNNi and the Washington Post. Their ideology is favorable to the United Nations. Their internal corruption is generally driven by relationship with foreign actors. References: Hillary Clinton, Clinton Global Initiative, John McCain, Qatar, Muslim Brotherhood, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, Cass Sunstein, Brookings Institute, Lawfare, China-centric, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Council on Foreign Relations.

♦ TEAM Two – The White House is aligned with the Pentagon (DoD) and National Security Council (NSC). Their media PR firms are domestic in nature. New York Times, Politico, etc. Their internal corruption is generally driven by domestic influence. References: Barack Obama, George Bush, Wall St, Big Banks, Multinational Corporations, Defense Contractors, FBI (state police), Judicial Branch, and community activists writ large. [Presidential elections only affect Team Two (nationalism -v- globalism). In the modern era Team One is independent

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/

[flyingpylon]

Direct link to the full article, since it will get pushed off the home page quickly:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/bl ... ent-trump/

[Mark Leavy]

Maddy,

I don’t have recent experience, but a decade ago… that post is correct.

[Maddy]

Mark, please elaborate. Any useful examples of how the two teams differ in terms of their objectives and their manner of achieving them?

[Mark Leavy]

Mark, please elaborate. Any useful examples of how the two teams differ in terms of their objectives and their manner of achieving them?

Okay... but damn.

The state department and the CIA are the same organization. Every embassy Deputy of Chief is a top level CIA spook.
So... when you read State Department, think CIA.

The pentagon (defense department) is a commercial entity that is driven by cash flows from Defense Contractors, Line Item budgets from congress (think lobbyists and defense contractors) and CIA grants. They are generally anti CIA, but will take the money when Paul shows up in the budget meetings. FWIW every CIA agent I've ever met is named Paul.

At other Pentagon levels they generally believe in the mission, but are willing to be persuaded if their pet project is funded. At the highest level they are persuaded (not by bribes or the mission) but by the headiness of their impact on the world. The true believers pretty much sound like kbg. Most of the Pentagon high level are very pro Executive Branch when it is democratic and less so otherwise. They are anti State Department but will take their money.

So... just for reference, this is based on my personal one on one conversations in the sandbox with Petraeus, Odierno and McChrystal and years of negotiations in private conference rooms and in working out funding sources for my projects.

Edit: Typing without thinking. Not McNamara, McChrystal.

[Xan]

So... just for reference, this is based on my personal one on one conversations in the sandbox with Petraeus, Odierno and McNamara and years of negotiations in private conference rooms and in working out funding sources for my projects.

Mark, one day will you fill in some gaps in your resume here that we didn't know existed until now?

[Mark Leavy]

So... just for reference, this is based on my personal one on one conversations in the sandbox with Petraeus, Odierno and McNamara and years of negotiations in private conference rooms and in working out funding sources for my projects.

Mark, one day will you fill in some gaps in your resume here that we didn't know existed until now?

My apologies Xan. It's late and I was typing without thinking.
Not McNamara. McChrystal.

[Xan]

So... just for reference, this is based on my personal one on one conversations in the sandbox with Petraeus, Odierno and McNamara and years of negotiations in private conference rooms and in working out funding sources for my projects.

Mark, one day will you fill in some gaps in your resume here that we didn't know existed until now?

My apologies Xan. It's late and I was typing without thinking.
Not McNamara. McChrystal.

That does help the math add up a bit better, but still, any further detail you'd care to provide would be welcome.

[Mark Leavy]

That does help the math add up a bit better, but still, any further detail you'd care to provide would be welcome.

I was one of the three founders of a small Portland Defense Company. Urban Robotics.

[Xan]

That does help the math add up a bit better, but still, any further detail you'd care to provide would be welcome.

I was one of the three founders of a small Portland Defense Company. Urban Robotics.

Cool!

[Kriegsspiel]

Cool stuff. Which part of the sandbox did you meet with Petraeus and McChrystal in?

It doesn't look like I ever saw any of your technology, but I appreciate anyone in the drone industry. It was always a Good Thing to have ISR when we were out and about.

[Mark Leavy]

Cool stuff. Which part of the sandbox did you meet with Petraeus and McChrystal in?

Patraeus and Odierno at COB Speicher near Tikrit. (Al Sahra airbase).
McChrystal at the JSOC compound in Bagram.

[Kbg]

One comment on Mark's post...that's the Special Forces world.

Conventional forces, where the truly ginormous dollar bill stacks are to be found runs differently.

The direct SOF budget gets you about 4 new AF bombers.

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... elease.pdf

The military-industrial complex is alive and well...all the previous posts missed Congress. Go there if you want to really understand how the game is played.

I served a couple of Pentagon tours. As a CGO I left my first tour beyond cynical and incredulous. When I went back as senior officer I found out the system is the way it is because everyone who is in power likes it that way. Congress is happy to make the DoD budget a gigantic jobs program and DoD is happy to take the money. If you dig into the past you'll find the Pentagon has probably the most stable budget in all of government as a percent of GDP and how it's been historically split up. The fundamentals have stayed the same for decades.

Since WW2 the political consensus has been the US would rather set the rules for the world than have them set for us. If you don't like it, see if you can actually get some Libertarians elected (good luck with that, wonder why?)

For the record, I'm a classical realist as regards foreign policy. My .02, better to have a big stick than to be beat by a big stick.