Politico -
It’s a split that shows Waltz’s unique position in the administration. Traditional defense hawks — who care most about the breach in security at the center of the controversy — are also more likely to want Waltz to stay. They view him as someone who, given his close personal rapport with President Donald Trump, can sell a more aggressive foreign policy to hardcore MAGA ideologues who are wary of more traditional Republican policies. [...]
Other conservative commentators who view Waltz’s positions as too neoconservative, however, were eager to use this episode to try and kickstart conversations on forcing him out.
The debate emerging in Washington lays bare the fact that different factions are vying for influence over President Donald Trump’s foreign policy agenda, and ultimately the future of the Republican Party’s platform, according to interviews with five people familiar with the administration’s internal thinking. All were granted anonymity to discuss internal party dynamics.
[...] Waltz’s job appears to be safe. Trump told reporters on Tuesday afternoon in a Cabinet meeting that Waltz is a “very good man” and the attack in Yemen was ultimately “totally successful.”
“You have to learn from every experience. I think it was very unfair the way they attacked Michael,” the president said of Waltz, who was in the room at the time. Trump instead directed his ire at the Atlantic journalist who had access to the Signal group chat, Jeffrey Goldberg, who he called a “sleazebag.”
So, Waltz set up the SIGNAL chat with editor of The Atlantic an inadvertent party.
What next?
Readers are encourage to watch this video, with an all to accommodating FOX talking head helping the man. Would you hire and trust this person in a business you run? Would you think him up to the job, if in your organization?
Crabgrass opinion:
Of course, my personnel decision up front would have never let the guy into things.
Waltz has a Wikipedia page.
From the video, he takes responsibility for the chat fuck-up, but only to a degree and needlessly maligns both editor Goldberg, while blaming the Biden Presidency as somehow at fault for all it did or did not do. That is called passing the buck. That is not an act of courage nor of contrition over having made a mistake with a focus on doing better next time. It is superficial, and mediocre, two characteristics I spot in the video but with the admission I well may be reading the man wrong from that limited presentation. Playing the blame game and trashing others when he'd fucked-up is a gratuitous thing, when discussing a situation he instigated that was clear error.
Will Trump give him the boot? Crabgrass doubts it would happen, but would welcome it even with uncertainty that a replacement might be worse.
Crabgrass would be completely surprised if Hegseth is removed from DOD head over this event.
In discussions at EmptyWheel speculation focused on the JG target Waltz had in mind, (where Jeffrey Goldberg erroneously got included), was Trade Rep Jamieson Greer (wiki page). The discussion included thoughts over getting others besides the U.S. government to pay for the operation, Egypt and European nations, because they predominated Suez and Red Sea trade. In that context, the trade rep would be a person already in dealings with both. He could put on the squeeze with a Trumpian tariff threat, or otherwise. It makes sense.
How the Waltz SIGNAL designations got mixed up, Waltz says he does not know, but carelessness is a clear factor.
In the post operation thread an "MAL" was praised, which could be a Mossad Political Action and Liaison Department abbreviation, as humint of a person targeted for assassination whereabouts for strike purposes would be needed, Mossad being good on humint. Also, Israeli notice of strike launch times would be needed to assure Israel did not scramble aircraft in detecting U.S. F-18 or other air activity and raise a friendly fire threat.
I.e., the guess here is that it was Israeli cooperation that helped set target locations, particularly one or possibly more human target locations for assassination.
BOTTOM LINE: In planning air based assassinations and destruction of enemy positions, it is not normal to invite a member of the media into policy discussion.
That such a thing was done is astounding. Big fuck-ups usually have a head or two chopped, but Trump seems to not bind himself to normal actions. Bet on nobody being fired or reassigned. Bet on a protocol being articulated, even if not made public, on use of SIGNAL and proper care. No heads will roll.
Last, the guy who set the agenda and those included, Waltz, seems to Crabgrass to be the wrong person for the job, but Trump decides that, not me. Again, that video is linked, so you watch and decide.
UPDATE: News now indicates a campaign is involved, ongoing as of today; e.g., here, here and here.
FURTHER: Waltz is a bullshitter and I really have a hard time with that. Again THIS VIDEO. But so is Trump, so, kindred souls is all I can say.