Why Tuslsi Gabbard Had to Go

Recent reporting on Tulsi Gabbard’s departure from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has focused on a familiar Washington storyline: an institutional feud between ODNI and the CIA, competing intelligence assessments about Iran, and bureaucratic infighting masquerading as policy disagreement. It is a plausible explanation because parts of it are likely true. Gabbard’s ODNI and John Ratcliffe’s CIA were reportedly at odds on several fronts. Her congressional testimony on the Iran nuclear threat diverged from elements of Ratcliffe’s testimony and the administration’s public case for war. The disconnect was visible. Yet the turf-war explanation appears insufficient on its own. It explains some of what happened after the administration moved toward military action against Iran, but it does not adequately explain signals that emerged beforehand. Most notably, it does not explain why the Director of National Intelligence was absent from one of the most consequential national security discussions of the Trump presidency.

When Benjamin Netanyahu presented his case for joint military action against Iran at the White House Situation Room on February 11, Gabbard was reportedly not invited. At that point she had not publicly contradicted administration policy. She had not testified to anything politically inconvenient. She had not become the focus of a public controversy. Yet she was apparently excluded from a discussion that would shape one of the administration’s most significant national security decisions. That exclusion does not prove why she eventually departed. But it strongly suggests that her marginalization was already underway. Whatever the later reporting reveals about bureaucratic conflict, the indicators point to a deeper problem that predated the public dispute.

strong>The Worldview Problem

To understand that problem, it is worth recalling why Trump selected Gabbard in the first place. Her principal value to the administration was political. She had served as a lieutenant colonel in Army Reserves as a public affairs officer but had little experience in intelligence work. For years Gabbard had been one of the most prominent critics of American military intervention in the Middle East........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)