"Allegiance". Where's yours Tulsi Gabbard?
The recent upheaval in the Intelligence Community reminded me of an intriguing episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation
This week Joseph Kent, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center resigned from his position, citing the irrationality of the recent war we started in Iran. He explained his position in a respectful but hard hitting open letter to the President of the United States, which as of today has been viewed nearly 100 million times on X. This is a big deal.
https://x.com/joekent16jan19/status/2033897242986209689?s=20
Kent lauds the President for realizing, in the past, that Middle East wars depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation, and he cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran now.
Why?
Because, “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
He goes further (emphasis mine):
“Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous war with Iraq that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women.”
Joe Kent served 11 combat missions for this country.
His direct boss, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, on the other hand, appeared in front of a Senate Intelligence Committee this week, defending her boss’s decision to attack Iran, a country which, according to her own agency (and Joe Kent), did not pose any imminent threat to this country. Gabbard predictably evaded a simple, direct question in order to deflect any criticism around the President:
In this exchange with Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) Gabbard testifies that
Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated last year, and that was the assessment of the IC (Intelligence Community)
There has been no effort of Iran to rebuild that program since
And then she acknowledges, based on a statement issued from the White House, that the President ordered the attack because Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat.
And that’s where she gets stuck.
Senator Ossoff: “Was it the Intelligence Community’s assessment that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?”
Gabbard: “The only person that can determine what is and what isn’t an imminent nuclear threat is the President”
Ossoff wouldn’t have any of that, and neither should we.
Really? He is the only person who can make that determination? What special powers of deduction and foresight does he have that no one else does?
What is the point of National Intelligence if not to assess threat, imminent or not? How does the President make that determination if our Intelligence Community cannot? Gabbard is really saying that he is the only person who is allowed, given the chain of command, to commit our troops to combat. This is true, but is it sensible and justified?
Despite her efforts to deflect, she is saying that the Iranian war isn’t based on intelligence, it’s based on the President’s judgement. Who then is informing the President’s decision if it isn’t our Intelligence Community? This is, of course, why Joe Kent’s opinion is so damning.
“Allegiance”
I am a fan of the Star Trek Next Generation series which aired in 1989 and ran for seven seasons. Many of the episodes are mediocre, however Next Generation writers were able to deliver timeless gems upon occasion.
The recent upheaval in the Intelligence Community reminds me of an episode which first aired in 1992 (Season 3, Ep 15) titled “Allegiance”.
If you aren’t familiar with The Next Generation or its predecessor, the iconic “Star Trek” series created by Gene Roddenberry in the 1960’s, the concept is that our species, sometime in the future, solves its problems of war and poverty and embarks on a mission of exploration and peace.
What would we do if we had access to replicators that bring into being anything we want and warp engines that can propel us to all corners of our galaxy? Nothing good, sadly, at least in our present state. Technology like that can only be wielded by a species that has evolved spiritually first. Maybe someday. But unlike most movies and series, Star Trek gives us an idea of what our potential might be if we simply stopped tormenting each other and started to help instead.
The stories take place around the adventures of the Starship Enterprise, outfitted with the best technology and crew available. In The Next Generation series, the character of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, played by British actor Patrick Stewart, embodies the ideal qualities of a leader: courage, morality, sensibility, intelligence, temperance, tenacity, curiosity and compassion.
In “Allegiance” Captain Picard is kidnapped by an advanced ET civilization and teleported off his ship and placed in confinement with three other individuals from other advanced civilizations. None know where they are or why they were abducted. No demands are made of them. They are simply trapped in a secure room together.
Meanwhile, aboard The Enterprise, the captain has been replaced by an imposter, indistinguishable from Picard himself. His crew is unaware of the switch but slowly notices that the replicant captain begins to behave more and more erratically.
It is a fascinating story, beautifully told in less than an hour with two interrelated storylines unfolding at the same time.
Back in the cell, all four abductees recognize the senselessness of their situation. There is no communication with their captors. There seems to be no commonality between any of them which might explain why they, specifically, were abducted in the first place. One comes from a civilization of pacifists who engage exclusively in “cerebral” pursuits. Another comes from a much more violent species who adopt a “kill or be killed” approach. The third is a cadet, training to eventually become a crew member of an exploratory vessel like the one Picard commands.
Food is provided but it is inedible to the vicious appearing fellow prone to angry outbursts, especially when hungry. He is an obligatory carnivore who needs fresh meat in order to survive. Escape is the only way to avoid starvation or being eaten. There is a single door in the room, which is locked of course. Each attempt to open the door results in a painful shock to whoever was touching it. Meanwhile one of the four is getting hungrier and more impatient.
While working on finding a way through the door, Picard realizes that in order to free himself and his fellow prisoners they needed to understand why they were brought there in the first place. He wants to learn more about the other three.
Picard has a moment of insight when he inquires more about the cadet, who, in her studies at the academy recounted how she and her classmates learned about diplomacy from classes based on Picard’s long and stellar record as a premier captain. In her response to a clever and leading question she reveals that she was aware of information which Picard knew was deeply classified. It would have been impossible for her to know of it. He realizes that the young cadet had been deceiving all of them.
And then, an epiphany. They each had a different attitude toward authority. The pacifist and his willingness to oblige to whomever is in control in order to survive. The anarchist who is unwilling to bend to the will of anyone else. The “cadet” in training, dedicated to learning how to serve in a hierarchal system. Picard himself rounds out the quartet as a person trained in command.
He announces that he will no longer participate in the charade. The captors appear and confirm what Picard deduced. He was indeed part of a behavioral experiment devised by them to learn how intelligent species respond to authority, a concept not present in their civilization which is comprised of individuals who operate in harmony using telepathy. Deception is impossible for them and hierarchy is not needed. They evolved as a species which thinks and acts together.
Now that the experiment has been exposed, Picard is brought back to The Enterprise where first officer William T. Riker, with support of the other officers, has assumed command of The Enterprise. It turns out that their behavior was also being observed during an another arm of the experiment.
In turns out that the stand-in captain had been ordering his crew to bring the ship close enough to a pulsar that the integrity of The Enterprise and the lives of thousands of our best men and women on board would be endangered. What would it take before the senior officers refused to comply with orders that were seemingly whimsical and given with no explanation? With whom or what did their true allegiance lie?
An interesting parallel to where we are today.
I invite you to watch the final scene where the crew of The Enterprise finally decides that allegiance to the ship and crew “Trumps” allegiance to their captain. As a teaser, Picard, finally back in command of his ship, teaches his curious captors something they weren’t expecting:
What happened to you Tulsi?
I met Tulsi Gabbard several times in early 2019 when she was campaigning for POTUS on a platform of “no more regime change wars”.
She gave an engaging speech to about 40 people at a restaurant in Portsmouth, NH. She was warm. She listened. She looked you in the eye when you met her. She gave everyone who wanted to talk to her one-on-one a big hug.
I wanted her to win though knowing it was a huge long-shot. While we hugged I whispered in her ear that she was going to be President one day. I thought that if enough people believed it, especially her, we could manifest it.
And then I handed her “Beyond Misnformation”, a comprehensive, fifty page document which summarized the most salient of the preponderance of evidence that the twin towers did not fall from plane collisions and jet fuel fires but explosives. It was written by my friend and colleague, Ted Walter, now the Executive Director of the International Center for 9/11 Justice.
She looked me in the eye and thanked me for the information. We met at small gatherings in NH a few more times. She never brought up the 9/11 topic.
Tulsi attended to herself well in the DNC primary debates in which she was allowed to participate. She became aware of the sordid means her party used to exclude her from the conversation. She briefly served as a political commentator for Fox News, a harbinger of her eventual decision to abandon the Democratic party all together.
Her allegiance was to our country, not her party. Her alignment with Donald Trump 2.0 was not so surprising. He professed to everything she wanted to do as President. The top spot in the Intelligence Community was an appropriate appointment for the two tour veteran who once served on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, which oversaw military intelligence and counterterrorism. Though she continued to support the conventional 9/11 explanation I was still a fan. She may come around in the future. Everyone eventually will, in my opinion.
Today Tulsi Gabbard appears like she is in an unenviable situation. As DNI she is in a unique position to know exactly what our massive intelligence gathering apparatus has concluded. She, of all people, knows that her boss decided to start a war on a whim. She cannot defer to a higher authority.
For all intents and purposes, whoever is sitting in the Oval Office right now is acting like a foreign agent, a replicant if you will, with little resemblance to the man for whom she campaigned. If she joined ranks with Joe Kent it might be the push needed to finally swing public opinion far enough away from the Trump agenda that the military would refuse to follow his orders.
The succession of power goes from President to VP to the Speaker of the House and into Trump’s cabinet, but what good would that do if whoever is Commander-in-Chief cannot compel this country’s fighting force to comply with specific orders?
Yes, Tulsi, it seems that you are in an uncomfortable spot. However it is only uncomfortable because you believe your job is to do the President’s bidding. That’s your job description, but what are your convictions as a soldier who vowed to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?
Surely you realize that your boss is holding on to his job by a thread and you will soon be a private citizen again and will be remembered as another crony in perhaps the most obviously compromised administration in modern times.
On the other hand, stepping down now would secure you a place in history, earn you a reputation for standing up to authority when the situation demanded it. In other words, if you still have political ambitions now would be the time to “jump ship”.
You have been given a rare opportunity of being in the right place at the right time. Your compunction is written on your face. You can’t hide it from the camera or the President. Resign now, when it will have the most impact and before you are frivolously dismissed for not showing enough conviction to your boss’s agenda.
Thank you, and I agree that the ethical thing for Tulsi Gabbard to do now would be to resign along with Joe Kent. Some say she's walking a thin line to hold on to her job and that eventually Trump will fire her anyway. One way of parsing her answers to Senator Ossoff's questions is that she was being very cagey to make sure all future blame on this debacle of a war goes to Trump and not her. She said "we gave the President all the inputs, ....." and the decision on whether there was an imminent threat was his alone. So without contradicting him or disagreeing with his decision, which would have been the honest and honorable thing to do, she cleverly distanced herself from future culpability. Sad to see, as I used to be a fan of hers, too.
Why is everyone in the Anti-War movement picking on Tulsi now, like a total focus on Tulsi? The simple truth is if she stood up for the truth she would be fired and replaced with one of the neocon toadies who would be just lovin' the prospect of starting WW3 because in their version of the Bible that will usher in The Savior, and then we'll have Paradise.
Same may be true of JD Vance, he has to play along if he has any chance of ever changing things.
I would rather keep those two in the background, hoping that deep down they're one of us but are waiting for the best opportunity to cause a drastic change. Such secret revolutionaries are more often than not the ones that facilitate revolution, not the very loud and vocal ones on the outside.
If you want to pick on someone pick on one of the many Neocon Minions of the Central Bank cult who are really calling the shots on this Iran misadventure.
We are being set up for another Covid style economic debacle. Disaster Capitalism at its finest.