Armed men in uniform identified as US special operations members in northern Syria in May 2016 (Delil Souleiman/AFP/Getty Images) The buck stops where? When news broke of the Trump administration’s first counterterrorism mission, a raid on a suspected al-Qaeda base in Yemen, the White House called the mission an unqualified success. White House press secretary Sean Spicer noted that 14 terrorism suspects were killed and "an unbelievable amount of intelligence" was gathered. But subsequent reports suggest that, in fact, almost everything went wrong. Numerous civilians were killed, including an 8-year-old American citizen, along with a Navy SEAL. An $80 million aircraft sustained heavy damage and was intentionally blown up. In the aftermath, unnamed military officials blamed Trump for the outcome. They told Reuters that the president did not have "sufficient intelligence, ground support, or adequate backup preparations" in place when he made the call to go forward. Retired Adm. William H. McRaven, the former head of Joint Special Operations Command, told CNN that risky covert missions only succeed when such meticulous planning exists. But how much responsibility for these decisions actually lies with the president? While presidents don't gather intelligence or design missions themselves, they are responsible for asking the right questions. It's their job to understand the risks of a mission and what contingencies are in place. Colin Kahl, who served as a deputy assistant to former president Barack Obama, has charged that Trump simply didn’t ask those questions. He tweeted on Thursday that the outgoing administration intentionally left decisions on raids in Yemen to the new president. “Obama thought the next team should take a careful look,” he said, but “team Trump didn't do a careful vetting of the overall proposal or raid.” In fairness, gathering this kind of information in Yemen is difficult. The country's ongoing civil war forced even the most well-trained Americans out of the country in 2015, making it much harder to assess areas where raids would be carried out and what kind of opposition commandos might face. Even so, it's on the President to decide if due diligence has been done. "You can mitigate risk in missions like this, but you can’t mitigate risk down to zero," William Wechsler, a former top counterterrorism official at the Pentagon, told the New York Times. In this case, it seems, mitigation and preparation may have taken a back seat. — Amanda Erickson President Trump speaks on the phone with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Jan. 28. (Alex Brandon/AP) The big question Our colleagues' big scoop on President Trump's combative phone call to Australia is far from the only big leak we've from the Trump White House so far. News outlets seem to be getting a steady diet of documents and tales of acrimony from within the administration. So we asked Aaron Blake, a senior political reporter for The Fix, the Post's politics blog: What do all the leaks tell us about Trump’s first two weeks in office? "Leaks generally aren’t from moles who infiltrate a politician’s office for the purpose of leaking things. They come from someone who is supposed to be “on the team,” and they’re a symptom of discord of one kind or another — sometimes multiple kinds all at once. "They happen when people know they’ll have to deal with an unnecessary problem that’s not of their own making. They happen when people are frustrated. They happen when people don’t feel like they are part of a cohesive team and no longer care if the leaks hurt their bosses. "We have seen this, I think, on a large scale when it comes to the leaks coming out of the intelligence community. Trump regularly poked intel agencies by doubting their information and conclusions, even eventually comparing their conduct to “Nazi Germany.” And what we saw the whole time was a steady stream of leaks about Russian hacking and more that reflected poorly upon the man who, by the way, was about to take oversight of their entire apparatus as president. "More recently, plenty of reporting indicates Trump’s team didn’t keep basically anybody in the loop on its controversial travel ban executive order. So while a poorly prepared and implemented ban would have been bad enough, you also had agencies and members of Congress aghast that they weren’t given the chance to prevent it. "Trump’s campaign was successful, but it was also a kind of stream-of-consciousness, seat-of-the-pants operation that didn’t seem all that coordinated. They still won, but now we’re seeing the same lack of organization and planning from the Trump White House. And the leaks suggest that they aren’t exactly running a tight ship — which may be putting it lightly." |