Fire and Fury like the World has Never Seen

North Korea has accused the United States of “trying to drive the situation of the Korean peninsula to the brink of nuclear war” after the UN Security Council unanimously adopted new sanctions on August 5th  in response to Pyongyang’s long-range ballistic missile tests in July. Speaking at the ASEAN Regional Forum, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho said Pyongyang would “teach the US a severe lesson” if it used military force against North Korea.  As I am writing on 8 August President Trump forcefully announced “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen… he has been very threatening beyond a normal statement. They will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before.”  In apparent response to this Presidential ultimatum, a spokesman for the Korean People’s Army issued a statement carried by the regime’s state-run KCNA news agency warning that North Korea is “seriously reviewing” a plan to strike the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam with missiles.  Meanwhile there are leaked intelligence reports that North Korea is loading anti-ship missiles aboard its coastal defense patrol boats and that it has successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead capable of being mated with its ballistic missiles.  While these dueling threats of open warfare unless the other side backs down are meant to be red lines, they could have the positive effect of energizing China to effectively pressure North Korea’s “Boy Leader” Kim Jong Un to at least suspend nuclear weapons and ballistic missile testing before rhetoric devolves into large scale open conflict.

Nobody is asking me but before unleashing “fire and fury” on North Korea I would deploy a Yokosuka-based Aegis SM3 armed ship along with a JMSDF Aegis cruiser to the sea of Japan, protected by ROK destroyers and Tac Air backed with CAP from Kadena or a CVN,  to shoot down any ballistic missiles launched from North Korea. After these forces are on station the US, Japan, ROK should explain in a joint statement that this is necessary because we cannot know whether a North Korea ballistic missile launch is a test or is nuclear armed and headed to any of these three countries.  If Russia or China feel compelled to demarche this action we should tell them to lean on their little fat friend in Pyongyang and we will stand down.  Since North Korea is adamant about not negotiating away its missiles or nuclear weapons, the US and its allies should move immediately to neutralize Pyongyang’s weapons of mass destruction with our operational missile defense capabilities.  The point here is to be completely defensive, but responsive to the threat being presented.  If this needs to be gisted into a tweet I would suggest, “If NK wants to test its missiles we will ensure their failure!”

On the subject of leaks, Attorney General (AG) Sessions and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Coats announced on August 3rd  that considerable resources are being allocated to investigating leaks of classified material, identifying the leakers, and pursuing prosecution where warranted.  While most Americans don’t seem to care, stopping leaks related to national security has become job one for the Justice Department assisted by the Office of the DNI (ODNI). There is, however, considerable partisan fueled debate about whether the spike in leaks since the November elections are motivated by those unhappy with the results of the 2016 presidential election or are not leaks at all but rather legitimate “whistleblowing” about wrongdoing or First Amendment protected criticisms of presidential policies and actions.

As I listened to the AG and DNI warn leakers in stern words such as “don’t do it” and “we will catch you” I was wondering why they thought they could be any more successful than previous administrations at stemming leaks.  I particularly had in mind Nixon’s “Plumber’s Squad”, which was not constrained by the law or the Constitution and their inability to identify “Deep Throat” whose leaks would lead to the impeachment of the President.  I am all for prosecuting leakers, but that’s at the back end of the process after sensitive government information has already been made public. Besides deterrence through more investigative resources and rigorous prosecution, I hope the AG and DNI are also considering using technology more effectively to prevent classified information from being leaked.  Data tagging, managing access privileges, policy enforcement software, and automated information monitoring and auditing can all be used on the front end by government agencies with information to protect to thwart leaking before it happens.

In my experience today’s leaks are no more pervasive, widespread, or persistent then they have been over the course of my Washington experience dating back to the Watergate Days of 1972.  What is different and pernicious now is that many of the leaks during the Trump Administration seem aimed at deligimatizing the 2016 elections because self-appointed guardians of US national security believe they have the right to publicly question electoral judgment of the American people. Defending the constitution, or just being a good citizen, means accepting the results of elections.

The current crisis with North Korea certainly inflames the dangers resulting from the unauthorized disclosures of national security information to the degree that they divide the American body politic, compromise our allies, and confuse our adversaries.

That’s what I think; what do you think?

Advertisements

How the IC will be Shaped (Changed?) by the Trump Administration

With all the news during the first week of March about Trump Administration contacts with Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak and what the Intelligence Community did or did not know, it is easy to understand why the confirmation hearing for former Senator Dan Coats to be Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on February 28 drew such little notice.  Given President Trump’s Tweeter claims on March 4th that the Obama Administrations tapped his communications during the campaign and FBI Director Jim Comey along with former DNI Jim Clapper’s denials on 5 March that the Trump campaign was not targeted for surveillance, I think the immediate question is “why would Dan Coats still want to be DNI?”

If you watched or read the transcript of Dan Coats’ SSCI Confirmation Hearing it is hard to see it as anything but a friendly, non-controversial “home coming.”  For the most part the Senators thanked their former colleague for being willing to serve as DNI while lobbing softball questions with little push back or follow up to his talking point responses.  Two things former Senator Coats kept coming back to in responses to various questions was his commitment to follow the law in all situations and to be as transparent as possible.   https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-nomination-daniel-coats-be-director-national-intelligence

Nonetheless a few things stood out to me about this confirmation hearing:

  1. Coats’ flawed description of the DNI as an NFL Coach working with his coordinators and assistant coaches (IC agency heads) to produce a winning result.  Senator Coats did not mention that unlike an NFL Coach the DNI does not have hire/fire authority over his “coordinators” and “assistant coaches”  At least Senator Manchin made a polite and passing reference to this critical difference in authorities between the DNI and every NFL Coach.
  2. Coats defended the size of the ODNI noting it has less staff then there are musicians in DoD to do its important work of overseeing the intelligence community.  Former Senator Coats did agree that after 12 years a review of IRTPA is probably something worth considering and said he would start with the Robb-Silverman Commission Recommendations for where the law might be improved
  3. Coats did not share the concerns of several senators that the National Security Council Executive Order has not been modified to clarify that the DNI is a member of the Principals Committee.  He said the White House has assured him he will be invited to all Principal Committee meetings and he takes them at their word.
  4. Coats said nothing about the line reporting relationship between the DNI and the Director of CIA and all of the SSCI members were polite enough not to ask about it.
  5. Coats did not say nor was he asked about his position on government backdoor encryption access.
  6. Based on Coats’ opening statement and the Q&A, the open animosity between President Elect Trump and the Intel Community of just a month ago must have been “fake news” as it did not come up.
  7. In response to questions, Coats assured the SSCI he would support investigations into Russian involvement in trying to influence our past election as well as personal links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.  He also pledged to investigate/support other appropriate investigations into leaks associated with Russia.  He assured the committee he would insure the Congress is kept fully informed regarding these investigations.

 

Despite all the concerns in the media about whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians for political advantage or whether the Obama Administration used Intelligence Community (IC) resources to monitor the Trump campaign for political advantage, the Coats hearing got me thinking about how the IC will be shaped (changed?) by the Trump Administration.  Looking back at both recent history and what was said about the IC institutionally during the campaign I can foresee impacts for the IC across the following three broad areas:

Contracting and the Business Environment

Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) that have been occurring in the IC’s industrial base since 2015 will continue during the Trump administration, but at a slower rate.  This slowdown in M&A activity will be the result of three forces: (1) the diminished number of attractive companies left that are available for M&A consideration; (2) the debt loading taken on by companies that have merged or acquired other companies; and (3) lack of clarity about what changes to expect in the corporate tax code.

Because the Trump administration is populated with business people who are concerned about business metrics, (e.g., how the money is spent, with an emphasis on cost, performance and schedule), any IC programs that are behind schedule and underperforming will be in jeopardy. With an emphasis on performance, schedule and cost metrics, the IC will be looking for solutions vice full time equivalents (FTE, aka people) and using more automation to reduce cost. This is already manifesting itself with a hiring freeze and will impact what the distribution should be between blue and green badgers in the IC. Budgetary pressures will also cause the IC to look hard at what should be in-sourced or out-sourced, with an eye towards more “XXX as a service” procurements. FY 17 is expected to be flat, but industry is looking forward to business growth with anticipated FY18 national security plus ups.  Acquisition Reform seems unlikely, but “Other than Traditional Authorities (OTAs)” will be used more extensively to streamline and accelerate the acquisition process.

Organizational Change to the IC

Real change to the organization and processes of the IC requires Congressional legislation, which seems remote given the political capital this would take as well as the competition for scarce Congressional calendar days.  Immigration, healthcare, and tax reform will not leave much energy or time for IC structural reform over the term of the 115th Congress.  Because the Trump Transition team saw the ODNI staff providing an extra layer of bureaucratic management with little added value, this is an area I see the Trump Administration downsizing despite Dan Coats’ defense of the size of the ODNI staff in his opening statement at his confirmation hearing. An open question is which National Intelligence Centers does the Trump National Security Team see as worth preserving because of their independent ability as ODNI entities to integrate intelligence? Should they remain under the DNI?  While I am sure Senator Coats’ trust is well placed, the reality is that the White House’s lack of interest in modifying the NSC EO to include the DNI as a member of the Principals Committee suggests to me that the authorities of the DNI are not all that important to this administration.

Restoring Trust and Confidence in the IC

Perhaps through no fault of its own the IC has been caught up in a highly charged partisan debate between President Trump himself and whether the IC is being used to undermine his creditability as Commander in Chief.  Depending who you are listening to, allegations that the IC is withholding sensitive intelligence from the President, left a transparent trail of intelligence reports suggesting the Trump Campaign had ties to Russia, and  tapped the phones in Trump Tower, these claims are either baseless or disturbing.  I know I don’t know who or what to believe at this point.  The question now is not if an investigation of these allegations will be conducted, but who will conduct the investigation(s) and with what authorities?  What seems to be inevitable about any impending investigation is that the IC will looked at critically and depending on what is found (or not found) the IC could find itself on the threshold change as resulted from the Church Committee, the 9-11 Commission, and the Iraq WMD Commission.

There are too many known unkowns at least for me to even speculate what such an investigation will find, but my beltway common sense sensor tells me the IC has been too close to the partisan tumult for too long not to come out of this unbruised in some way.  Until whatever investigation(s) are completed the best things the IC can to do bolster its confidence and trust with the President, the Congress, and the American people is adhere to the tried and true advice of many others, which is: stay off the front page, focus on competence, and eschew involvement with policy decisions.  It is probably also worth remembering that a public battle with the President of the United States is more than likely a losing strategy for the IC because he is the only nationally elected figure in the government – – – – and he needs to be Customer # 1.

 

That’s what I think; what do you think?