Gun Control Now A Matter Of National Security

Why Gun Control Is Now a Matter of National Security

Opinion
By Steven Simon, Jonathan Stevenson
04/22/2021 06:30 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/22/why-gun-control-is-now-a-matter-of-national-security-484323

Steven Simon, an International Relations Professor at Colby College, served on the National Security Council during the Clinton and Obama administrations, including as Senior Director for Counterterrorism.

Jonathan Stevenson, a Senior Fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and Managing Editor of Survival, served on the National Security Council as Director for Political-Military Affairs, Middle East and North Africa, from 2011 to 2013.

For all the tragic mass shooting headlines this year, the American gun control debate seems permanently stuck. Last week, nine people were killed by AR-15 fire in Indianapolis; before that, 10 died in Boulder, and eight in Atlanta. Despite the anguish over the past month — and despite a push by President Joe Biden — Congress looks unlikely to take any immediate action.

We share Biden’s view that the level of U.S. gun violence is a “national embarrassment.” But as National Security Council veterans who have specialized in counterterrorism — with direct experience involving far-right American terrorism, burgeoning jihadism, and Northern Irish extremism in the 1990s — we also see a new threat rising, one that has the potential to change the urgency of the debate: the growing, and heavily armed, American militia movement, which made a show of force on January 6.

Armed demonstrators protest outside of the Michigan State Capitol on January 17, 2021 in Lansing. – Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Increasingly, as militias acquire and stockpile weapons, they’re turning guns from a public-health concern into a threat to national security. And it’s possible that if proponents of reform — including advocacy groups, congressional leaders and Biden — began addressing it that way, they’d have a chance of energizing the debate against the National Rifle Association and its allies. Indeed, the shock of the insurrection has increased the political burdens of an NRA in internal disarray and offered a new perspective on the need for significant gun control legislation.

As America learned on January 6, anti-government militia groups are more than willing to jump walls, break doors and disrupt the underpinnings of our democracy. These groups, with transnational ties, also enjoy easy access to high-power, high-capacity, small-caliber semiautomatic weapons—many of which can be converted to fully automatic. The concern isn’t that these weapons will somehow enable militias to challenge the U.S. military on the battlefield, which they certainly will not. It is that they make mass casualty attacks against political or cultural adversaries both easy to carry out, and easy to frame as inspirational events of the kind that mobilize insurrection.

The executive orders Biden issued earlier this month imposing restrictions on gun kits and devices that turn pistols into rifles are marginal safeguards and rather thin gruel overall. But his call for reviving the federal ban on assault weapons is more promising and an acknowledgment that serious action is required. An important additional measure would be more rigorous required background checks. At least one key Republican senator, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, has expressed openness to working with Biden on a gun bill.

Generating bipartisan consensus for an effective crackdown on firearms will always be difficult. While gun control is now unlikely to lose existing supporters, it is also unlikely to win many new ones. But reframing the issue as a national security imperative could galvanize passive backers now focused by the assault on the Capitol on maintaining political stability in the United States. A plausible objective would be to

Political Blotter for Week Ending 24 November 2019

After weeks of public hearings, bipartisan political theatrics, and Tweets, POTUS Trump’s “ass is in a sling” after Gordon Sondland, his Ambassador to the European Union, and political donor who gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee, testified before the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and said that “I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is ‘yes’.”

Ambassador Sondland further testified that, “They knew what we were doing and why. Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret.”

Regarding any official explanation for why POS45 held up the Congressionally-mandated money for Ukraine, he said, “I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer.”

Of course, POS45 had to deny it all and had the unmitigated gall and audacity to say of Sondland – again, whom he appointed as Ambassador to the European Union after Sondland donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee – that, “This is not a man I know well.”

Aside from the obvious bomb drops which’ve occurred this week in the Impeachment Investigation being conducted by the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – which include testimony by:

• Gordon Sondland, Ambassador to the European Union,
that
“yes,” there was “a quid pro quo.”

• Dr. Fiona Hill, Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia and Senior Director for Europe and Russia, National Security Council,
that
“It is a fiction that the Ukrainian Government was launching an effort to upend our election, upend our election to mess with our Democratic systems.”

• Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman, Director for European Affairs, National Security Council,
that
“supposed Ukrainian involvement in partisan support of candidate Clinton and in opposition to President Trump,” was a “key element of that particular narrative that developed… that the Ukrainians would have to deliver an investigation into the Bidens,”
-and- that,
“in the President asking for something, it became — there was — in return for a White House meeting, because that’s what this was about. This was about getting a White House meeting. It was a demand for him to fulfill his — fulfill this particular prerequisite in order to get the meeting.”

• Ambassador P. Michael McKinley, Former Senior Advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,
that,
“I was concerned about what I saw as the lack of public support for Department employees,”
and that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s continued refusal to interact, or respond to him on the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, or of his own intent to resign,
“indicated a lack of support that was broader than simply a question of statements.”

• William B. Taylor, Jr., Chargé d’Affaires Ad Interim for U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine,
that
“That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation,”
and
“that President Trump would like to hear about the investigations” of the Bidens, that “it was becoming clear to the Ukrainians that, in order to get this meeting that they wanted, they would have to commit to pursuing these investigations. And Mr. Danyliuk, at least, understood — and I’m sure that he briefed President Zelensky, I’m sure they had this conversation — believed that openingthose investigations, in particular on Burisma, would have involved Ukraine in the 2020 election campaign. He did not want to do that,”
-and- that
“In a regular, NSC secure video conference call on July 18th, I heard a staff person from the Office of Management and Budget say that there was a hold on security assistance to Ukraine but could not say why. Toward the end of this otherwise normal meeting, a voice on the call, the person who was off screen, said that she was from OMB and her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending of security assistance for Ukraine until further notice,”
-and- that
“President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself. Mr. Morrison said that he told Ambassador Bolton and the NSC lawyers of this phone call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland.”

And then, there’s this – though it’s not now receiving much press – which recently happened:

Lev Parnas Helped Rep. Devin Nunes’ Investigations
“The indicted Giuliani associate helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for the Republican congressman in 2018.”

by Betsy Swan, Political Reporter
Updated Nov. 21, 2019 3:16AM ET
Published Nov. 20, 2019 7:58PM ET
https://www.thedailybeast.com/lev-parnas-helped-rep-devin-nunes-investigations

“Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Rep. Devin Nunes in 2018, Parnas’ lawyer Ed MacMahon told The Daily Beast.

“Nunes aide Derek Harvey participated in the meetings, the lawyer said, which were arranged to help Nunes’

“Dad… Don’t worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.”

“Dad, my sitting here today, in the US Capitol talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision forty years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.”

Alexander S. Vindman, LEFT, (who was born 9 minutes before his brother) with his twin brother, Yevgeny, at the Pentagon in 2016. They are both Lieutenant Colonels in the Army. Yevgeny, who goes by Eugene, also serves on POTUS Trump’s National Security Council, as an attorney handling ethics issues. (Credit Carol Kitman)

— Lt. Col Alexander Vindman (US Army), concluding opening comment 19 November 2019 in the impeachment investigation. LTC Vindman and his family emigrated to the United States from Ukraine, then part of Russia, when his father was aged 47, and he was then-aged 3-and-a-half in 1979. LTC Vindman has shed blood for our nation, having been awarded the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in an October 2004 Iraqi roadside attack. He previously served on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff from September 2015 to July 2018, and is currently assigned to the National Security Council as a foreign area officer specializing in Eurasian political-military operations, specifically including Ukraine. He earned his Bachelor’s degree from Binghamton University, and his Master’s in Public Administration from Harvard.

The Army records LTC Vindman’s awards, which include:
Purple Heart, Defense Meritorious Service Medal (2^nd award),