1UA TV

Amid unresolved questions about the role of its military in Africa, the U.S. has kicked off a two-week exercise in Agadez, Niger, designed to strengthen security partnerships and train elite counterterrorism units in the volatile Sahel region.

Flintlock, an annual military exercise directed by the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, involves participants from eight African countries and 12 Western countries. The event helps regional partners learn to work together to patrol vast, ungoverned spaces where terrorist groups such as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar Dine and Boko Haram operate.

Major General J. Mark Hicks, the commander for Special Operations Command Africa, said the investment in training in the region is crucial because the terror groups control only patches of territory and can still be destroyed.

“Africa matters to us because it is a ‘preventive-medicine theater’ versus an ’emergency-medicine theater,’ ” Hicks told reporters in a conference call on April 5.

“These threats, as they exist in Africa, are at a level where they can be dealt with … by, with and through our African and European partners, at a very low cost,” he said. That cost efficiency, he said, makes them comparable to preventive health care, “versus something like Iraq and Syria, where you have to go into emergency medicine and large military activities.”

Enabling regional partners

One regional effort taking shape that Flintlock organizers hope to support is the G5 Sahel, a 5,000-person joint military force created by Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger. The U.S. is contributing $60 million toward the G5 Sahel project, but believes the training offered at Flintlock offers unique value. 

“We are enabling the G5 Sahel partners both to command and control tactical formations, to cooperate across national boundaries and deal transnationally with transregional threats,” Hicks said. “We’re also providing tactical training to tactical units, which will be fielded in the context of the G5 Sahel immediately after the exercise.”

This year’s Flintlock exercise is the first since an ambush last October in which four U.S. soldiers and four Nigerian troops and an interpreter were killed while on patrol near the border with Mali. The exercise location rotates annually and was already planned to be held in Niger.

“The focus this year on Niger is really centered on the increasing threats that we see, both from al-Qaida-aligned JNIM (Group for Support of Islam and Muslims) and ISIS-aligned ISIS Greater Sahara. They are descending through central Mali, threatening not only Mali but Burkina Faso and Niger,” Hicks said. “So we are mindful of the changing facts on the ground, and this exercise is focused to enable our partners that are part of the G5 to deal more directly and more effectively with those threats.”

U.S. involvement

Since the October attack on U.S. forces, many have questioned the U.S. military presence on the continent. The Pentagon has yet to release its report investigating the incident, but reporting by The New York Times concludes that “a series of intelligence failures and strategic miscalculations” led to the attack in October, and leaked drafts suggest the Pentagon will pull back on its presence on the ground in West Africa.

Five U.S. senators recently returned from a one-week, bipartisan congressional trip to Africa, including a stop in Niger. The senators met with U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Special Operations Command officials and were briefed on the October ambush.

“The United States has some of our best military personnel, diplomats and aid workers serving on the front lines in Africa,” Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, said in a statement. “My past week in Niger, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Burkina Faso has been an eye-opening testament to the vital economic, political and security assistance partnership between the U.S. and African countries.

“In each of our meetings this week, we reaffirmed the value we place on U.S.-African relations and the dire need for a fully staffed, empowered U.S. diplomatic corps committed to working to advance fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, and democratic transparency and accountability,” he added. 

According to U.S. Ambassador to Niger Eric Whitaker, who also participated in the conference call, Americans cannot wall themselves off from the issues affecting the region and must play a role in helping local partners find solutions.

“We have a vested interest in Africa developing its own security because we wouldn’t want to see issues there, such as pandemics, terrorist organizations or other issues — piracy, for example — that might spread on to the United States,” he said. “So we’ve chosen to invest in the African partner nations in helping them to address security challenges first and foremost.” 
…

The Federal Reserve on Tuesday proposed new rules that could allow some large banks to reduce the amount of capital they must hold as a cushion against a future economic shock.

The proposal may clear the way for some large banks to reduce their capital levels in the future, but the largest firms on Wall Street are not likely to get such relief, the Fed said.

The proposal is expected to reduce bank paperwork and also make it easier for regulators to monitor the health of banks, said Randal Quarles, the top Fed official in charge of regulations.

“Our regulatory measures are most effective when they are as simple and transparent as possible,” Quarles, the Fed vice chairman for supervision, said in a statement.

The Fed said the proposed changes were likely to somewhat increase the amount of capital required for the 30 largest banks known as GSIBs, or global systemically important banks.

The measures should modestly decrease the amount of capital required for banks smaller than the GSIBs, the Fed said.

“No firm is expected to need to raise additional capital as a result of this proposal,” the Fed said in a statement.

Banks and other stakeholders will have 60 days to comment on the proposal, which is likely to take effect next year, said the Federal Reserve.

The new capital standards would be the first reform of capital standards conceived after the decade-old financial crisis.
…

The Federal Reserve on Tuesday proposed new rules that could allow some large banks to reduce the amount of capital they must hold as a cushion against a future economic shock.

The proposal may clear the way for some large banks to reduce their capital levels in the future, but the largest firms on Wall Street are not likely to get such relief, the Fed said.

The proposal is expected to reduce bank paperwork and also make it easier for regulators to monitor the health of banks, said Randal Quarles, the top Fed official in charge of regulations.

“Our regulatory measures are most effective when they are as simple and transparent as possible,” Quarles, the Fed vice chairman for supervision, said in a statement.

The Fed said the proposed changes were likely to somewhat increase the amount of capital required for the 30 largest banks known as GSIBs, or global systemically important banks.

The measures should modestly decrease the amount of capital required for banks smaller than the GSIBs, the Fed said.

“No firm is expected to need to raise additional capital as a result of this proposal,” the Fed said in a statement.

Banks and other stakeholders will have 60 days to comment on the proposal, which is likely to take effect next year, said the Federal Reserve.

The new capital standards would be the first reform of capital standards conceived after the decade-old financial crisis.
…

President Donald Trump lifted a U.S. travel ban on citizens from Chad on Tuesday after a six-month U.S. government review found improvements in the African country’s security standards, the White House said.

The Trump administration added Chad to a revamped travel ban list in September after it said the Chadian government had failed to send proof it had taken adequate security measures to prevent terrorists from traveling to the United States.

With Chad taken off the list, seven countries — Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela — are still subject to the travel restrictions.

In a proclamation lifting the ban on Chad, Trump said the other seven countries “did not make notable or sufficient improvements in their identity-management and information-sharing practices” and would remain on the list.

Trump’s critics have said his travel ban unfairly singled out Muslims, and violated U.S. law and the Constitution.

Courts struck down the first two versions of Trump’s travel ban, and the current one is narrower in scope than its predecessors. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider its legality this spring, and a decision is expected in June.

Trump said in the proclamation that Chad had taken steps to make its passports more secure and had improved the sharing of information with the United States on known or suspected terrorists.

Chad has been an ally of the United States in fighting jihadist groups — some linked to al Qaeda and Islamic State — in the Sahel.
…

President Donald Trump lifted a U.S. travel ban on citizens from Chad on Tuesday after a six-month U.S. government review found improvements in the African country’s security standards, the White House said.

The Trump administration added Chad to a revamped travel ban list in September after it said the Chadian government had failed to send proof it had taken adequate security measures to prevent terrorists from traveling to the United States.

With Chad taken off the list, seven countries — Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela — are still subject to the travel restrictions.

In a proclamation lifting the ban on Chad, Trump said the other seven countries “did not make notable or sufficient improvements in their identity-management and information-sharing practices” and would remain on the list.

Trump’s critics have said his travel ban unfairly singled out Muslims, and violated U.S. law and the Constitution.

Courts struck down the first two versions of Trump’s travel ban, and the current one is narrower in scope than its predecessors. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider its legality this spring, and a decision is expected in June.

Trump said in the proclamation that Chad had taken steps to make its passports more secure and had improved the sharing of information with the United States on known or suspected terrorists.

Chad has been an ally of the United States in fighting jihadist groups — some linked to al Qaeda and Islamic State — in the Sahel.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump says his administration will likely say “after the fact” how it decided to respond to a suspected chemical attack on the outskirts of Syria’s capital.

“It will be met, and it will be met forcefully,” Trump said before meeting with senior military leaders late Monday. 

He highlighted what he said was the power of the United States to stop atrocities like the attack Saturday in rebel-held eastern Ghouta that killed at least 40 people.

“We have a lot of options, militarily,” he said, with out giving specifics. Last year, he ordered airstrikes on a Syrian airfield used to launch another chemical attack.

Trump was critical of former President Barack Obama for what he said was a failing strategy of publicizing planned military maneuvers ahead of time.

Syria has denied using chemical weapons throughout the conflict that began in 2011, including the most recent suspected chemical attack. Russia said there is no evidence Syria carried out such an attack.

Trump said Monday, “We are getting some very good clarity,” regarding who was responsible, a task that has been difficult throughout the Syrian war and the source of conflict among the many international players involved.

Earlier he told his Cabinet at a White House meeting that the U.S. would figure out who was responsible for the attack, whether it was Syria, Russia, Iran or “all of them together.”

Assigning responsibility was the domain of investigators from the Joint Investigative Mechanism between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which was dissolved after Russia vetoed a renewal of its mandate in November. The United States put forward a new proposal Monday to Security Council members for a new attribution mechanism, but it was not immediately clear whether it would win the necessary Russian support.

U.N. diplomats said the United States was pushing for a vote on the resolution on Tuesday.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley told the Security Council on Monday that both Russia and Iran could stop the Syrian government’s “murderous destruction,” adding that Moscow’s hands are “covered in the blood of Syrian children.” 

“We have reached the moment when the world must see justice done,” Haley said. “History will record this as the moment when the Security Council either discharged its duty or demonstrated its utter and complete failure to protect the people of Syria. Either way, the United States will respond.”

Moscow’s envoy Vassily Nebenzia said the OPCW, which is tasked with investigating such allegations without determining responsibility, could send a fact-finding mission “tomorrow” to Damascus.

“There the Syrian authorities and Russian troops will provide conditions to travel to the area of the alleged incident,” Nebenzia said.

But Nebenzia went on to say that Russian experts have already visited the site, collected soil samples, interviewed witnesses and medical personnel, and that no chemical weapons attack had taken place. 

New attribution mechanism

Britain says Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson spoke to Acting U.S. Secretary of State John Sullivan by phone and the two “agreed that, based on current media reports and reports from those on the ground, this attack bore hallmarks of previous chemical weapons attacks by the Assad regime.”

French President Emmanuel Macron has also spoken by telephone with Trump several times to coordinate their response to Saturday’s attack.

The alleged chemical attack occurred amid new attacks on the last rebel enclave in eastern Ghouta.

First responders said they discovered families suffocated in their homes and shelters with foam on their mouths. Relief workers said more than 500 people, mostly women and children, were brought to medical centers with difficulty breathing, foaming at the mouth and their eyes burning.

The Civil Defense and Syrian American Medical Society said patients gave off a chlorine-like smell, and some had blue skin, an indication of oxygen deprivation.

Meanwhile, Syria and Russia say two Israeli war planes operating in Lebanese air space carried out an attack early Monday on an air base in central Syria. Israel’s military did not comment on the strikes against the T4 base in Homs province.The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 14 people were killed, including Iranian forces.

In February, Israel accused Iranian forces of using the same site to send a drone to Israeli territory. It responded by attacking Syrian air defense and Iranian military targets within Syria, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to “continue to harm anyone who tries to harm us.”

Initial Syrian state media reports Monday blamed the United States, which along with France denied responsibility.

VOA’s William Gallo, Jeff Seldin and Margaret Besheer contributed to this report.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump says his administration will likely say “after the fact” how it decided to respond to a suspected chemical attack on the outskirts of Syria’s capital.

“It will be met, and it will be met forcefully,” Trump said before meeting with senior military leaders late Monday. 

He highlighted what he said was the power of the United States to stop atrocities like the attack Saturday in rebel-held eastern Ghouta that killed at least 40 people.

“We have a lot of options, militarily,” he said, with out giving specifics. Last year, he ordered airstrikes on a Syrian airfield used to launch another chemical attack.

Trump was critical of former President Barack Obama for what he said was a failing strategy of publicizing planned military maneuvers ahead of time.

Syria has denied using chemical weapons throughout the conflict that began in 2011, including the most recent suspected chemical attack. Russia said there is no evidence Syria carried out such an attack.

Trump said Monday, “We are getting some very good clarity,” regarding who was responsible, a task that has been difficult throughout the Syrian war and the source of conflict among the many international players involved.

Earlier he told his Cabinet at a White House meeting that the U.S. would figure out who was responsible for the attack, whether it was Syria, Russia, Iran or “all of them together.”

Assigning responsibility was the domain of investigators from the Joint Investigative Mechanism between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which was dissolved after Russia vetoed a renewal of its mandate in November. The United States put forward a new proposal Monday to Security Council members for a new attribution mechanism, but it was not immediately clear whether it would win the necessary Russian support.

U.N. diplomats said the United States was pushing for a vote on the resolution on Tuesday.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley told the Security Council on Monday that both Russia and Iran could stop the Syrian government’s “murderous destruction,” adding that Moscow’s hands are “covered in the blood of Syrian children.” 

“We have reached the moment when the world must see justice done,” Haley said. “History will record this as the moment when the Security Council either discharged its duty or demonstrated its utter and complete failure to protect the people of Syria. Either way, the United States will respond.”

Moscow’s envoy Vassily Nebenzia said the OPCW, which is tasked with investigating such allegations without determining responsibility, could send a fact-finding mission “tomorrow” to Damascus.

“There the Syrian authorities and Russian troops will provide conditions to travel to the area of the alleged incident,” Nebenzia said.

But Nebenzia went on to say that Russian experts have already visited the site, collected soil samples, interviewed witnesses and medical personnel, and that no chemical weapons attack had taken place. 

New attribution mechanism

Britain says Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson spoke to Acting U.S. Secretary of State John Sullivan by phone and the two “agreed that, based on current media reports and reports from those on the ground, this attack bore hallmarks of previous chemical weapons attacks by the Assad regime.”

French President Emmanuel Macron has also spoken by telephone with Trump several times to coordinate their response to Saturday’s attack.

The alleged chemical attack occurred amid new attacks on the last rebel enclave in eastern Ghouta.

First responders said they discovered families suffocated in their homes and shelters with foam on their mouths. Relief workers said more than 500 people, mostly women and children, were brought to medical centers with difficulty breathing, foaming at the mouth and their eyes burning.

The Civil Defense and Syrian American Medical Society said patients gave off a chlorine-like smell, and some had blue skin, an indication of oxygen deprivation.

Meanwhile, Syria and Russia say two Israeli war planes operating in Lebanese air space carried out an attack early Monday on an air base in central Syria. Israel’s military did not comment on the strikes against the T4 base in Homs province.The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 14 people were killed, including Iranian forces.

In February, Israel accused Iranian forces of using the same site to send a drone to Israeli territory. It responded by attacking Syrian air defense and Iranian military targets within Syria, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to “continue to harm anyone who tries to harm us.”

Initial Syrian state media reports Monday blamed the United States, which along with France denied responsibility.

VOA’s William Gallo, Jeff Seldin and Margaret Besheer contributed to this report.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump, who has disparaged Latin American countries over immigration, narcotics and trade, heads to the region this week for a summit that diplomats say is likely to be awkward and tense.

Trump will arrive in the Peruvian capital, Lima, on Friday for the Summit of the Americas with an agenda of encouraging commercial ties and urging allies to take a hard line on Venezuela, according to U.S. officials who briefed reporters on the trip.

But the U.S. president’s divisive rhetoric and fraught relationships with leaders such as Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto make it unlikely he will make big strides toward his goals, experts said.

“He is going in profoundly unpopular in the region, and that obviously complicates the ability of leaders to work with him,” said Mark Feierstein, who managed hemispheric issues for President Barack Obama’s White House, and is now an adviser with the Albright Stonebridge Group.

The visit is stirring nostalgia for Obama, the Republican president’s Democratic predecessor, a Peruvian diplomat said.

The diplomat added, however: “Nobody has lost any sleep over Trump,” saying: “We all know how to smile and nod along, so we’re not too worried.”

Trump has complained about U.S. job losses to Mexico, threatened to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada and began his presidential bid with a speech describing Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and drug dealers.

Trump has also taken aim at migration from Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and other Latin American countries and threatened to cut off aid to Colombia and Peru over the drug trade.

As he prepares for his trip, which includes a stop in Colombia after the summit, Trump has ramped up his rhetoric on illegal immigration with a plan to send National Guard troops to the U.S. border with Mexico.

Unpopular in region

Mexico’s Pena Nieto on Monday ordered a review of all cooperation with the United States, a sign of growing frustration with Trump. Many Mexicans want to see their government take a harder line.

After Trump’s first year in office, only 16 percent of poll respondents in Latin America approved of Trump’s performance, according to Gallup.

Sergio Montenegro, 40, who works at an insurance company in Lima, compared Trump with some populist leaders who gained power in Latin America in recent decades.

“Being loud, always at the center of attention, constant scandals … that’s been our reality for many years,” Montalvo said. “The United States isn’t respected as much now … before, whatever Americans said seemed to be the right thing – the voice of reason. Now whatever they say is questioned.”

Asked about how confrontational Trump might be at the summit and if there was discussion about countering his low regional popularity, a U.S. official on the briefing said: “He speaks what’s on his mind. And I think he will speak to issues of shared values and shared goals within the region.”

A source in the Brazilian government told Reuters on condition of anonymity that a positive agenda from Washington “is badly needed if the Trump administration wants to keep productive relations with the region.”

At the summit, leaders will try to build consensus around cracking down on corruption in the region, a theme brought into focus last month by the resignation of Peru’s former president, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, over ties to a scandal involving Brazilian construction conglomerate Odebrecht.

Venezuela

The White House also wants to turn up regional pressure on Venezuela’s socialist president, Nicolas Maduro – disinvited from the summit – who called an election for May that his opposition and Washington have cast as a sham. Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have fled to Colombia and other neighboring countries to escape hunger and poverty.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio is set to meet with Trump on Wednesday before the trip to urge more humanitarian aid for Venezuelans, tougher financial and economic sanctions on Maduro, and to “lay the groundwork for an international cooperative effort to rebuild post-Maduro Venezuela after free, fair and open elections are held,” an aide said.

Rubio, who is holding a hearing about the summit on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, also wants Trump to boost support in Cuba for democracy and human rights, the aide said.

The United States, a major buyer of Venezuelan oil, has weighed ramping up economic sanctions. A U.S. official told reporters last week that no decisions were imminent but could be made over the next several months.

At the summit, diplomats from countries critical of Maduro might formally condemn the election and discuss ways to help Venezuelan migrants, according to a source at Argentina’s Foreign Ministry.

Such a statement would be “unprecedented,” said Ana Rose Quintana, an analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. 

“The statement would be the groundwork for additional sanctions later on,” Quintana said.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump, who has disparaged Latin American countries over immigration, narcotics and trade, heads to the region this week for a summit that diplomats say is likely to be awkward and tense.

Trump will arrive in the Peruvian capital, Lima, on Friday for the Summit of the Americas with an agenda of encouraging commercial ties and urging allies to take a hard line on Venezuela, according to U.S. officials who briefed reporters on the trip.

But the U.S. president’s divisive rhetoric and fraught relationships with leaders such as Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto make it unlikely he will make big strides toward his goals, experts said.

“He is going in profoundly unpopular in the region, and that obviously complicates the ability of leaders to work with him,” said Mark Feierstein, who managed hemispheric issues for President Barack Obama’s White House, and is now an adviser with the Albright Stonebridge Group.

The visit is stirring nostalgia for Obama, the Republican president’s Democratic predecessor, a Peruvian diplomat said.

The diplomat added, however: “Nobody has lost any sleep over Trump,” saying: “We all know how to smile and nod along, so we’re not too worried.”

Trump has complained about U.S. job losses to Mexico, threatened to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada and began his presidential bid with a speech describing Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and drug dealers.

Trump has also taken aim at migration from Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and other Latin American countries and threatened to cut off aid to Colombia and Peru over the drug trade.

As he prepares for his trip, which includes a stop in Colombia after the summit, Trump has ramped up his rhetoric on illegal immigration with a plan to send National Guard troops to the U.S. border with Mexico.

Unpopular in region

Mexico’s Pena Nieto on Monday ordered a review of all cooperation with the United States, a sign of growing frustration with Trump. Many Mexicans want to see their government take a harder line.

After Trump’s first year in office, only 16 percent of poll respondents in Latin America approved of Trump’s performance, according to Gallup.

Sergio Montenegro, 40, who works at an insurance company in Lima, compared Trump with some populist leaders who gained power in Latin America in recent decades.

“Being loud, always at the center of attention, constant scandals … that’s been our reality for many years,” Montalvo said. “The United States isn’t respected as much now … before, whatever Americans said seemed to be the right thing – the voice of reason. Now whatever they say is questioned.”

Asked about how confrontational Trump might be at the summit and if there was discussion about countering his low regional popularity, a U.S. official on the briefing said: “He speaks what’s on his mind. And I think he will speak to issues of shared values and shared goals within the region.”

A source in the Brazilian government told Reuters on condition of anonymity that a positive agenda from Washington “is badly needed if the Trump administration wants to keep productive relations with the region.”

At the summit, leaders will try to build consensus around cracking down on corruption in the region, a theme brought into focus last month by the resignation of Peru’s former president, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, over ties to a scandal involving Brazilian construction conglomerate Odebrecht.

Venezuela

The White House also wants to turn up regional pressure on Venezuela’s socialist president, Nicolas Maduro – disinvited from the summit – who called an election for May that his opposition and Washington have cast as a sham. Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have fled to Colombia and other neighboring countries to escape hunger and poverty.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio is set to meet with Trump on Wednesday before the trip to urge more humanitarian aid for Venezuelans, tougher financial and economic sanctions on Maduro, and to “lay the groundwork for an international cooperative effort to rebuild post-Maduro Venezuela after free, fair and open elections are held,” an aide said.

Rubio, who is holding a hearing about the summit on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, also wants Trump to boost support in Cuba for democracy and human rights, the aide said.

The United States, a major buyer of Venezuelan oil, has weighed ramping up economic sanctions. A U.S. official told reporters last week that no decisions were imminent but could be made over the next several months.

At the summit, diplomats from countries critical of Maduro might formally condemn the election and discuss ways to help Venezuelan migrants, according to a source at Argentina’s Foreign Ministry.

Such a statement would be “unprecedented,” said Ana Rose Quintana, an analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. 

“The statement would be the groundwork for additional sanctions later on,” Quintana said.
…

The U.S. military is bracing for a possible strike in Syria. Preparations for a high-risk North Korea summit are barreling forward. The White House staff is on edge, unsure who will be fired next, and when. And the national security team is holding its breath to see whether their new leader will be a shock to the system.

Enter John Bolton, the pugnacious former U.N. ambassador who took over Monday as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser — the third person to hold the job in barely 14 months. Trump’s selection of Bolton last month set off a guessing game in Washington as to just how much of an imprint his take-no-prisoners approach to foreign policy will have on Trump’s team, already beleaguered and exhausted after a tumultuous first year.

If Bolton had any first-day jitters, he had little time to indulge them. A daunting to-do list has awaited him, punctuated over the weekend by a suspected chemical weapons attack by Syria’s government that led Trump to start exploring potential military retaliation.

Although Bolton didn’t formally start until Monday, he was spotted entering the White House over the weekend, carrying an umbrella as he strolled down the driveway toward the West Wing on a rainy Saturday.

And on Monday, he appeared at his first Cabinet meeting, where Trump talked up his forthcoming meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, chided China for taking advantage of the United States and condemned the “atrocious” chemical attack in Syria. Bolton didn’t speak, but was seated prominently behind Trump as reporters were briefly allowed into the meeting.

“I think he’s going to be a fantastic representative of our team,” Trump said later in the day. He pointed out the fact that Bolton was starting in the midst of an urgent situation with Syria, adding: “Interesting day.”

Inevitably, Bolton’s past statements in public jobs and as a Fox News commentator follow him into the job. At the White House press briefing Monday, spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about a comment Bolton made in 2013 on Fox and Friends — he said he would have opposed an authorization to use force in Syria.

“The point of view that matters most here at the White House, as you well know, is the president’s,” Sanders replied.

Next to go?

Apprehension outside the White House about Bolton’s influence has been matched by hand-wringing in the West Wing about whose fortunes will rise and fall as the new national security adviser takes charge.

In Trump’s reality-show-infused White House, it’s become a truism that when a powerful aide departs — like the chief of staff, national security adviser or a Cabinet secretary — others who were considered aligned with that aide are often the next to go. There have been many such shake-ups, even in just the past few weeks. And Bolton, in his former jobs at the U.N. and at the State Department, developed a reputation as someone who doesn’t suffer fools quietly.

Even before Bolton started, rumors were circulating about potential exits on the national security team. The night before Bolton started, the White House said National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton would be departing, a high-profile public face of national security team. The White House said Trump thanked Anton for his service, but his departure marked another moment of upheaval in an administration marked by months of in-fighting and high-level departures.

Although it’s unclear whether Bolton will “clean house,” two U.S officials and two outside advisers to the administration said that the White House has been considering a significant staff shake-up in the part of the NSC that handles the Middle East. That comes as Trump prepares for a key decision next month on whether to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, the 2015 accord that Bolton has long derided.

Traffic cop

In the weeks since being named to the post, Bolton has quietly sought to calm concerns that he would push a more militaristic, hawkish approach on the president, considering his previously expressed support for pre-emptive military action against North Korea and regime change in Iran.

Although he stayed out of the public eye, showing deference to outgoing national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Bolton privately told some foreign embassies and influential foreign policy experts that he planned to approach the job more like a traffic cop, guiding a decision-making process in which the president can hear competing views, said individuals familiar with those conversations who weren’t authorized to discuss them and requested anonymity.

Frank Gaffney, a longtime Bolton associate and former Reagan administration official who runs the far-right think tank Center for Security Policy, said Bolton views his role as “to help the president get his program implemented.” Bolton has been “preparing his whole life to be in this job,” Gaffney said.

Yet in his 2007 book Surrender is Not an Option, Bolton reflected on his decision to take a job at the U.S. Agency for International Development after President Ronald Reagan was inaugurated rather than work at the White House, out of concern his own voice would not be heard.

“Being on the White House staff was fun,” Bolton wrote. “But I wanted ‘line’ responsibility — to manage something and to change it, not simply to be ‘staff,’ even at the White House.”

Bolton’s start comes after the tortured exit for McMaster, Trump’s second national security adviser, a three-star general who never developed a strong personal bond with the president. While the White House said McMaster’s exit had been under discussion for some time and stressed it was not due to any one incident, it came after months of speculation about his future in the administration.
…

The U.S. military is bracing for a possible strike in Syria. Preparations for a high-risk North Korea summit are barreling forward. The White House staff is on edge, unsure who will be fired next, and when. And the national security team is holding its breath to see whether their new leader will be a shock to the system.

Enter John Bolton, the pugnacious former U.N. ambassador who took over Monday as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser — the third person to hold the job in barely 14 months. Trump’s selection of Bolton last month set off a guessing game in Washington as to just how much of an imprint his take-no-prisoners approach to foreign policy will have on Trump’s team, already beleaguered and exhausted after a tumultuous first year.

If Bolton had any first-day jitters, he had little time to indulge them. A daunting to-do list has awaited him, punctuated over the weekend by a suspected chemical weapons attack by Syria’s government that led Trump to start exploring potential military retaliation.

Although Bolton didn’t formally start until Monday, he was spotted entering the White House over the weekend, carrying an umbrella as he strolled down the driveway toward the West Wing on a rainy Saturday.

And on Monday, he appeared at his first Cabinet meeting, where Trump talked up his forthcoming meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, chided China for taking advantage of the United States and condemned the “atrocious” chemical attack in Syria. Bolton didn’t speak, but was seated prominently behind Trump as reporters were briefly allowed into the meeting.

“I think he’s going to be a fantastic representative of our team,” Trump said later in the day. He pointed out the fact that Bolton was starting in the midst of an urgent situation with Syria, adding: “Interesting day.”

Inevitably, Bolton’s past statements in public jobs and as a Fox News commentator follow him into the job. At the White House press briefing Monday, spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about a comment Bolton made in 2013 on Fox and Friends — he said he would have opposed an authorization to use force in Syria.

“The point of view that matters most here at the White House, as you well know, is the president’s,” Sanders replied.

Next to go?

Apprehension outside the White House about Bolton’s influence has been matched by hand-wringing in the West Wing about whose fortunes will rise and fall as the new national security adviser takes charge.

In Trump’s reality-show-infused White House, it’s become a truism that when a powerful aide departs — like the chief of staff, national security adviser or a Cabinet secretary — others who were considered aligned with that aide are often the next to go. There have been many such shake-ups, even in just the past few weeks. And Bolton, in his former jobs at the U.N. and at the State Department, developed a reputation as someone who doesn’t suffer fools quietly.

Even before Bolton started, rumors were circulating about potential exits on the national security team. The night before Bolton started, the White House said National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton would be departing, a high-profile public face of national security team. The White House said Trump thanked Anton for his service, but his departure marked another moment of upheaval in an administration marked by months of in-fighting and high-level departures.

Although it’s unclear whether Bolton will “clean house,” two U.S officials and two outside advisers to the administration said that the White House has been considering a significant staff shake-up in the part of the NSC that handles the Middle East. That comes as Trump prepares for a key decision next month on whether to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, the 2015 accord that Bolton has long derided.

Traffic cop

In the weeks since being named to the post, Bolton has quietly sought to calm concerns that he would push a more militaristic, hawkish approach on the president, considering his previously expressed support for pre-emptive military action against North Korea and regime change in Iran.

Although he stayed out of the public eye, showing deference to outgoing national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Bolton privately told some foreign embassies and influential foreign policy experts that he planned to approach the job more like a traffic cop, guiding a decision-making process in which the president can hear competing views, said individuals familiar with those conversations who weren’t authorized to discuss them and requested anonymity.

Frank Gaffney, a longtime Bolton associate and former Reagan administration official who runs the far-right think tank Center for Security Policy, said Bolton views his role as “to help the president get his program implemented.” Bolton has been “preparing his whole life to be in this job,” Gaffney said.

Yet in his 2007 book Surrender is Not an Option, Bolton reflected on his decision to take a job at the U.S. Agency for International Development after President Ronald Reagan was inaugurated rather than work at the White House, out of concern his own voice would not be heard.

“Being on the White House staff was fun,” Bolton wrote. “But I wanted ‘line’ responsibility — to manage something and to change it, not simply to be ‘staff,’ even at the White House.”

Bolton’s start comes after the tortured exit for McMaster, Trump’s second national security adviser, a three-star general who never developed a strong personal bond with the president. While the White House said McMaster’s exit had been under discussion for some time and stressed it was not due to any one incident, it came after months of speculation about his future in the administration.
…