Posted on

The World That Awaits: Foreign Policy Issues Confronting the 116th Congress

 

 

This NSI Law and Policy Paper:

  • Introduces the immediate challenges found in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East that are making headlines today and considers how these issues contribute to the larger picture of global affairs in 2019.
  • Addresses recent developments that are driving policy decisions confronting the 116thCongress.
  • Anticipates the key questions that Congress will need to consider for these regions in the coming year.

The authors highlight the top considerations for the 116th Congress:

  • Africa: How will Congress weigh-in on the administration’s efforts to balance between ongoing counterterrorism efforts, new development priorities, and the need to counter China’s growing economic advantage across the continent?
  • Americas: Will Congress approve NAFTA’s replacement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, and how will it respond to the dramatic geopolitical shifts at play in Brazil and Venezuela?
  • Asia: Can Congress work with the administration to create a bipartisan grand strategy to address the rapidly expanding geopolitical rivalry with China, and will it support the administration’s negotiations with North Korea?
  • Europe: How should Congress respond to the administration’s NATO policy, the grinding gears of Brexit, and the continued threats posed by Russia?
  • The Middle East: How will Congress respond to the administration’s decision to reduce U.S. military presence in Syria and Afghanistan?  Will it reconsider the U.S.-Saudi relationship?  How far will the U.S. take its “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, and how should it respond if Iran ends its adherence to the nuclear deal?

Please see NSI’s full policy paper HERE.

About the authors:

Loren Dealy Maher is a Visiting Fellow at NSI and is the President at Dealy Mahler Strategies.  She is a strategic leader with high-level government and private sector experience across national security, strategic communications and crisis management.

Matthew F. Ferraro is a Visiting Fellow at NSI and is a Senior Associate at WilmerHale.  He is a former intelligence officer who writes widely on national security and legal issues.  

Posted on

NSI Experts Weigh In: State of the Union 2019

Yesterday, President Trump delivered his second State of the Union address.  Read our expert analysis of his remarks. 

February  6, 2019

Megan L. Brown – NSI Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Cybersecurity; Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

“The State of the Union recognized some of the most serious national security issues facing the county but was much heavier on domestic policy. In many areas the president really did speak in a bipartisan way, particularly on national security, which came across as one of the least controversial area of his agenda.

He spoke directly about nation state adversaries, who we all know are using cyber attacks to disrupt and do harm. Disappointingly, he only indirectly alluded to cyber, citing theft of intellectual property and worries about China.  He said we are ‘making it clear to China that after years of targeting our industries, and stealing our intellectual property, the theft of American jobs and wealth has come to an end.’  You’d have to look to the cyber strategy and intelligence strategy to understand how that’ll happen outside of the trade context.
Overall the SOTU was heavy on domestic policy but hit some key national security highlights. I wish it had more on cyber and his goals for our leadership in the digital future. “

Zach GravesZach Graves – NSI Visiting Fellow; Head of Policy, Lincoln Network

“President Trump calls on Congress to think of our past achievements as a nation — major scientific breakthroughs, defeating fascism, building highway infrastructure. While the theme of ‘choosing greatness’ may sound cheesy, he’s making an important point. Congress has lost its capacity to think big, and tackle the tough problems. But for Congress to function better it needs more than just to be inspired, it needs to build more institutional capacity and policy expertise.”

 

 

Matthew R. A. HeimanMatthew R. A. Heiman – NSI Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security; Chairman, Cyber & Privacy Working Group, Regulatory Transparency Project

“National security and international trade made up approximately 20% of President Trump’s State of the Union address.  The small amount of content covered the expected laundry list of topics: the U.S. was being ripped off in trade deals; withdrawing from the INF Treaty was good; the U.S. was right to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear weapons agreement and enact tough sanctions; another meeting is scheduled with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un; the U.S. stands firm with Juan Guaido of Venezuela; and defending the movement of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.  It was disappointing that President Trump did not provide a more detailed rationale for his decisions to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan and was almost silent on the geopolitical competition with China and Russia for global influence.  Today, these are the most pressing issues on the national security agenda.  Regarding the drawdowns in Afghanistan and Syria, Trump said great nations do not fight ‘endless wars.’  Great nations should avoid fighting pointless wars.  In Syria, our troops are acting as an important brake against Russian and Iranian machinations.  In Afghanistan, while it remains far from a perfect democracy, our military presence has prevented Afghanistan-based terrorism from again wreaking havoc around the world while Afghani women and girls are able receive an education after the overthrow of the oppressive Taliban regime.  Regarding China and Russia, it would have been good to hear what the U.S. will do to support our allies and dissuade nations from throwing their lot in with two authoritarian, paranoid, anti-democratic, revisionist regimes.”

Jamil N. Jaffer – NSI Founder; former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush

“In his 2019 State of the Union speech, the President rightly called for bipartisanship and unity in working towards the common good; he also appropriately recognized the historic importance of American leadership in the world, honoring the sacrifices made by our men and women in arms in support of that mission, including those currently serving, as well as those soldiers of the Greatest Generation who defended our nation in what began as an ‘endless war’ and culminated in the liberation of Nazi death camps in Europe.  Likewise, the President correctly castigated the Iranian regime for its support of terrorism, the North Korean regime for its pursuit of nuclear weapons capable of reaching our shores, Russia for its blatant violations of the INF Treaty, and China for its continuing efforts to pillage the American economy of the very innovation that is our lifeblood.  He also appropriately attacked the socialist regime in Venezuela for destroying its economy, harming its people, and ruling from a position of lawlessness and her also correctly noted our success in getting our allies to meet their existing commitments to share the burden of defending their nations.

And while the President’s actions have supported many of his statements—like his decision to pull out of the catastrophically bad Iran nuclear deal, his staunch position on the INF Treaty, his support of historic change in Venezuela, and his efforts to push back on unfair and illegal Chinese trade practices—on balance, the President’s national security policies have not yet matched his rhetoric about the history and importance of American leadership in the world.  Indeed, a number of the President’s actions in the national security arena, like short-sighted and abrupt decision to withdraw American troops from Syria, his approach to negotiating from a posture of weakness with the Taliban—the very group that housed and protected Osama bin Laden both before and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001—his squandering of a strong negotiating position with North Korea (to be fair, a negotiating position he was able to obtain), and his attacks on some of our strongest allies across the globe, all the while coddling the leadership of hostile states like Russia, all work to undermine his own words about the historic importance to our nation—and the world—of American leadership.

Nonetheless, the President now has a unique opportunity to make good on his words.   If the President is prepared to truly defend the role of America in the world, he will leverage his call for change in Venezuela to make it a reality, he will protect our allies in Europe from Russian predation by helping them achieve energy independence through the direct supply of American natural gas, and he will ensure that American troops see the conflicts in the Middle East—whether in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan—through to the complete defeat of the terrorist groups that seek to kill Americans and our allies.  Likewise, if the President truly believes we are strongest when we resolutely support our friends and oppose our enemies, he will back those who seek freedom from regimes—like Iran—that support terrorism and oppress their people, he will negotiate a significantly better agreement with North Korea than the one reached a year ago, he will reject Russian claims in Europe and will penalize Vladimir Putin and his cronies further for their anti-American and anti-Western covert and overt influence activities around the world, he will push for stronger cybersecurity efforts here at home and with our allies in Europe, the Middle East, and in Asia.

Perhaps most importantly, if the President is truly going to be successful in an effort to lead both domestically and abroad, he will seek to change the tone in Washington, and he will strongly and squarely reject anti-immigrant voices, and those who support racism and anti-Semitism at home and abroad.

If the President is able to execute on these efforts, he stands to achieve historic successes in global and domestic security.  And while his record on that front is admittedly checkered to date, we should all fervently wants him—and our nation—to succeed in this regard.“

Omario KanjiOmario Kanji – NSI Visiting Fellow; Assistant Academic Director, Temple University

“The SOTU comes momentously during Chinese New Year, when China’s President Xi is no doubt taking stock of both nations and their current relationship. President Trump was correct in saying that our leaders and representatives may be to blame for our current trade predicament. Since its founding, China has been, and will be for quite some time, a most pragmatic power. Such pragmatism lends itself to calculated moves on economic and political fronts. Well-intended gestures since and including China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) have not proven terribly fruitful.

It would seem that the United States and other countries are arriving at a point of reckoning with China on trade practices, cybersecurity, intellectual property, and hostile geographical moves in the South China Sea. President Trump has stood up to a rising power where other countries had failed to; the tide may very well turn from here onward. Canada’s arrest of Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou more than proves this.

Despite all his promises, what the President may not win back from China is American jobs. It is certainly true that the American worker lost her job due to China’s entry and integration into the globalized economy. Wages in China are rising, on par with those of Mexico. However, multinationals still have a few choices for outsourcing, such as India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and others. The jobs might not come back. In addition, since the time that China absorbed those jobs, economic fundamentals and the job market itself have change drastically. The United States’ best hope is to, as the President said, outspend and out-innovate China, as well as the rest of the world.“

Andy KeiserAndy Keiser – NSI Fellow; Former Senior Advisor, House Intelligence Committee

“National security watchers found some pretty thin gruel when it came to the national security policy laid out in President Trump’s 2019 State of the Union address.

While he touched on his tried and true policies of pushing back on Chinese aggression, rebuilding the military and pursuing burden sharing among NATO allies, he did announce a new date for a summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un, and passingly referred to a plan to seek to wind down the war in Afghanistan, withdraw from the INF treaty with Russia and support new leadership in Venezuela.

In the four newer references to Trump Administration policy, I think the President hit three on the head. With North Korea, even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi credits the President with deescalating the conflict, the Russians had long been violating the INF treaty and Maduro in Venezuela years ago relinquished any modicum of legitimacy. However, on Afghanistan, the United States of America abandoned Afghanistan once before and it led to the Taliban taking power and granting Osama bin Laden the safe-haven he needed to carry out the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Maintaining an effective counter-terrorism capacity in Afghanistan is vital to U.S. national security interests.“

Harold Moss – NSI Visiting Fellow; Senior Director Strategy & Business Development, Web Products, Akamai Technologies

“Yesterday’s state of the union highlighted a naïve if not negligent perspective on national security. The president in his address categorized beyond border engagement as foolish wars, highlighting a fundamental lack of understanding with respect to buffering adversaries and pro-active engagement.  By implying our influence begins and ends at our borders, we lose the ability to pre-empt and diminish foreign threats.

In addition the  President further diminished the impact of foreign attempts to influence or interfere with our electoral process by diminishing the investigation of such actions to that of simple partisan politics. While highlighting the political impacts, the President missed an opportunity to leverage these actions to unify our divided political nation against a common enemy in service of protecting our systems of governance.“

Lester Munson– NSI Senior Fellow; former Staff Director, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

“The State of the Union speech was a civilized version of President Trump’s vision to call America home from its role in the world and focus inward.  No matter how kindly delivered or tilted toward bipartisanship, the president’s vision remains an isolationist and narrow-minded view. It is not in America’s interest to retreat from a leadership role in the world. Rather, our prosperity depends explicitly on the United States playing a vigorous and unapologetic role in promoting democracy, stability and free markets around the world.

Instead of focusing most of his speech on the southern border – where there is not in fact a crisis – the president should have made a case for a bipartisan approach to China’s authoritarian expansionism in the Indo-Pacific. This is where the real long-term threat to our interests and values resides.

While the speech was very well delivered by this president’s standards, the actual content of the speech was wrong-headed and bad for America.“

Dr. David Priess – NSI Visiting Fellow; Chief Operating Officer, Lawfare

“During his State of the Union address, the president hit some pleasant chords about the history of US national security, broadly conceived. He praised America’s scientific advances during the past 100-plus years. He also paid homage to veterans of D-Day as we approach its 75 year anniversary. And he acknowledged the heroic national efforts that led to the first manned moon landing just over a half century ago.

The speech, however, failed to resonate as well when it turned from the past to assessments of current and future national security threats — as three disconnects reveal. First, the Director of National Intelligence’s annual threat testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence just last week highlighted top-priority concerns of election security, China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. The president’s address, however, skipped over election security and breezed through the others. Second, the president’s remarks focused more heavily on what he alternatively called the ‘crisis’ and the ‘lawless state’ of the ‘very dangerous’ southern border. Yet migration from Central America seemed to barely make it into the DNI’s threat presentation, and that lacked mention of a crisis along the border itself. Third, the president opined that without his election in 2016, the United States would currently be in a ‘major war with North Korea with potentially millions of people killed.’ He offered no evidence or logic to substantiate the claim.

Additionally, the president missed a bridge-building opportunity by asserting there will be no peace while investigators continue. Cooperating fully with ongoing examinations of foreign interference in the 2016 election, in fact, would do more to bolster national security than just about anything else he could do.”

Bryan SmithBryan Smith – NSI Senior Fellow; Vice President & Technical Advisor, Beacon Global Strategies

“It was heartening to hear a speech by President Trump framed in the history of American exceptionalism, and celebrating freedom, liberty, unity, and rights for all.  These themes appeal to an audience well beyond his base and explain the reported 75 percent approval rating for the speech.

The national security portions of the speech contained some strengths but featured a few off-key notes and troubling omissions.  The President is right that ‘great nations do not fight twenty-year wars’, and he is also right to re-focus our involvement in Afghanistan on our original purpose of counter-terrorism.  But why confuse this sound strategic rationale with rhetorical echoes of the Vietnam peace movement?  He hit wave tops of some current national security issues – North Korea, Iran, INF, ISIS, and Venezuela.  His strong support for the revolt against Maduro was no doubt heard loudly in Caracas.  The President was also well-justified for taking credit for removing ISIS as territory-holding power.  The Administration has gotten far too little credit for its major role in this accomplishment, which pundits seem now to think was pre-ordained.   Missing-in-action was explicit treatment of China and Russia as the resurgent great power competitors that now drive our national strategy.

The President did, however, issue a warning to all competitors, in response to Russia’s material violation of the INF Treaty, that ‘we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far’ – a warning that we all would hope the U.S. could deliver on.  The realities of our fiscal situation put this in doubt.  Saddled with a structural $1 billion deficit, driven by mindless entitlement expansions, and a resulting national debt over $20 billion, there are serious constraints to our ability to ‘outspend…all others by far’.  Granted, this gross fiscal imbalance can persist for some time to come, but it is ultimately unsustainable.  At some point, it will spark an economic crisis that could catastrophically undermine our security.

Why do virtually no politicians address this issue?  And why would Democratic challengers to the President on the left seek to make this fiscal situation worse, still?  It could be, that like the over-plump farm turkey in mid-November, our moment of greatest peril comes when we feel most secure.“

Megan Stifel – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Director for International Cyber Policy, National Security Council 

“Portions of the State of the Union speech related to foreign policy recognized heroes of past conflicts, reaffirmed Russia, Iran, and China as threats to national security, but should have gone further to identify policies that will challenge these nations’ malign activities.

Cyber has lead the Worldwide Threat Assessment for the past five or more years. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the President made only passing reference to the matter in last night’s State of the Union address. In referring to the theft of intellectual property by China, without specifically talking about cyber-enabled theft, the President did not send a strong enough signal – to China and other nations – that this type of behavior has been, is, and will remain not an acceptable use of information and communications technologies.
Furthermore, the speech also left out references to technological innovation, which can facilitate economic growth and national security, but will also require thoughtful policy development both in ensuring privacy and civil liberties protections, as well as in securing such technologies and the data upon which they rely.”

Dan Wagner – NSI Visiting Fellow; Legislative Liaison for Policy and Budget

“Trump needs to give his speech writer a raise after tonight.  A good portion of President Trump’s speeches are typically self-centered, and this one was no different, except that he did start and end on a promising note offering points of commonality between the parties.  This State of the Union seemed to have a significant focus on domestic issues with a smattering of national security and foreign policy.

He referred to World War II several times within his speech seemingly drawing a parallel between the greatest generation and greatest time in recent American history to his presidency.  His use of the WWII veterans was symbolic as a living example that no challenge is too great for America.  He went on to stressed that America is once again winning every day.

The President did seem to reach across the aisle and had a few unifying moments when it came to increasing jobs for women and minorities (particularly in Congress), as well as prison reform.  The big moment of the night was when he discussed lowing prescription drug costs and including pre-existing conditions.  These are what the president likely sees as offerings to the Democrats for some of the things that he is asking for in return – like the wall.

On foreign policy and national security specifically, the President briefly touched on most of the major issues, with the noticeable exceptions of Russia and cyber.  He even stated that if he had not been elected President, the US would ‘be in a major war with North Korea’.  It was also interesting when he mentioned China that he stated not to blame China but to blame our leadership.  This is a very slippery slope as if to say not to blame the dog for eating the hamburger that dropped on the ground.  We should most definitely hold China accountable for their actions as well as our leadership for not holding China accountable over the years.

On Syria, the President reinforced his decision stating that ‘Great nations do not fight endless wars.’  These remarks come after the Senate voted today not to allow Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria – a war that the Congress never exercised its Constitutional powers to begin.  There seems to be some confusion within Congress as to what to do about Iran while still in Iraq and Syria.  However, the President seems clear on stopping Iranian nuclear and terrorist efforts around the world.

As much as we would all like to only focus on domestic issues, we are one tragic terrorist or cyber event away from losing focus on all discussed in this speech if we don’t get national security and intelligence right.  The speech, though good, needed more emphasis on the legitimate national security threats that his intelligence professionals are telling him.”

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Security Institute or any agency of the U.S. government. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the National Security Institute or any U.S. government entity.

 

Posted on

NSI Experts Weigh In: INF Treaty Withdrawal

Yesterday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the US would withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.  Our experts weighed in on this historic change in policy.

February 2, 2019

 

Christopher Bright – NSI Visiting Fellow; Diplomatic Historian

“It might be tempting to suggest today’s announcement about the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty is simply another expression of an unorthodox and inchoate presidential worldview.  But, the declaration should more appropriately be seen as the latest development in a debate which has preoccupied American leaders and the public for decades.

Since 1945, questions have surrounded the role that nuclear weapons should play in U.S. national security policy, the utility of attempting to actively defend the country from these arms, and the extent to which related international treaties could enhance U.S. security.  All these issues are rooted in divergent subjective assessments of the geopolitical motives and trustworthiness of the United States and its rivals, the reasons for deciding to deploy nuclear arms or contemplating their use, as well as the technological feasibility of various weapon types and possible protection from them.

The ‘Worldwide Threat Assessment’ presented to the Senate this week by U.S. intelligence leaders noted that Russia has fielded a nuclear missile which violates the INF, and it did so because the weapon offers such a significant ‘military advantage’ that a violation was worthwhile.  Other sections of the report describe nuclear arms activities underway in North Korean and China.  The intelligence report was widely accepted.  (The document was newsworthy, not because of its underlying conclusions, but because of the president’s apparent disagreement with some findings.)  This sobering assessment should compel a reinvigorated consideration of the nuclear threat to the United States.

The Trump Administration’s announcement will certainly spark considerable public discussion, Congressional debate, and academic analysis.  But, rather than generate new insights or form the basis for a rekindled bipartisan consensus, forthcoming conversations about the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty will likely only reflect existing ideological cleavages.  Unfortunately, these divisions will also probably be exacerbated by the topic’s association with the current presidential administration.”

Loren Dealy Mahler– NSI Visiting Fellow; Founder, Dealy Mahler Strategies, LLC and former Director, Legislative Affairs, National Security Council 

“Everyone agrees Russia has been in violation of the INF treaty for years, but the appropriate response isn’t to blame the treaty for failing. The appropriate response is to raise the price of cheating to force compliance. Walking away from the table isn’t a habit that makes us safer.

We should be working with our NATO allies to punish the violations and get the treaty back on track, instead of so freely abandoning yet another international obligation.“

Matthew R. A. Heiman– NSI Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security; Chairman of the Cyber & Privacy Working Group, Regulatory Transparency Project

“Both the Obama and Trump administrations have recognized that the Russian 9M729 missile systems violate the INF Treaty, and recent reports indicate that Russia has increased its deployment of these systems.  Yesterday’s decision by President Trump to begin U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a long overdue acknowledgement that the INF Treaty is no longer effective.  Continued U.S. adherence to the INF Treaty in the hopes of shaming Russia into compliance is a fool’s errand as Russia’s expanded deployment of these missiles demonstrates its defiance of the treaty terms.  Moreover, these 9M729 systems, which pose a direct threat to our allies in Europe and the Middle East, are a stark reminder of  Russia’s hostile intent.  The U.S. must now consider this strategic development in terms of both its own weapons systems and whether there is any merit to further arms reduction efforts with Russia.  Presently, the Kremlin is not a trustworthy treaty partner.”

Jamil N. Jaffer – NSI Founder; former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush

“It is unfortunate that the United States had to pull out of the INF Treaty, but Russia left us with no choice after its repeated blatant violations of the treaty; there still remains hope for maintaining this important nonproliferation regime, however if Russia returns to compliance in the next six months, the U.S. is still prepared to do the same, which is the right call.“

 

 

Dr. Rizwan Ladha – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Research Associate, MIT Security Studies Program and Harvard Kennedy School’s Project on Managing the Atom

“There were certainly a number of challenges with the INF Treaty – it was outdated, obsolete, and didn’t include China. Russia has been in breach of its treaty obligations for years. And many of the verification mechanisms have expired. These and other criticisms of the agreement are all legitimate.

However, that doesn’t mean the Trump administration should have unilaterally withdrawn from INF – and it did so without any interagency decision making process, without notifying Russia, and without even notifying our European allies. This is like a kid kicking your soccer ball into the bushes and you stomping your feet and going home sulking, instead of teaching the kid a lesson. We just let Russia off the hook, and now the future of current and future arms control and non-proliferation efforts between the United States and Russia is in jeopardy.
There are three big challenges I see going forward. First: On China, it’s still an open question whether withdrawing from a flawed agreement will set a positive or negative precedent in China’s eyes when it comes to U.S. seriousness on arms control, but my sense is that it will be hard to negotiate from a position of strength when we are not showing strong leadership ourselves. An alternate path, whereby demonstrating our commitment to treaty obligations makes clear to the Chinese that the U.S. does not take an a la carte approach to arms control, would certainly have been slower and less dramatic, but would have yielded an eventual arms control agreement with China that would have been strong, verifiable, and enforceable.
Second: On Europe, it will now be incumbent on the United States to reassure its allies – not in rhetoric, but through action – that it will not allow NATO’s security to be jeopardized, now that Russia has free legal and political space to develop and deploy intermediate-range missiles that directly threaten the European continent and U.S. bases there. The official NATO statement at the end of last year, reaffirming that the United States and NATO stand together against Russian aggression, is an important and positive rhetorical step, but the hard work begins now for the Trump administration. A failure to maintain NATO’s bonds carries a significant risk of pushing Europe to further nuclearize, which will badly damage decades of non-proliferation efforts and destabilize the world order, making us all unsafe.
Third: On the future of arms control, the U.S. withdrawal from the INF does not bode well for reducing risk between the two largest nuclear-weapons states. At the moment, the future of bilateral arms control looks extremely dim, and there is a real risk that New START will be next on the chopping block. Beyond that, it’s important to keep in mind that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation regime, is buoyed by mutual U.S. and Russian commitment to its principles, including to Article VI of the treaty, which obligates nuclear-weapons states to negotiate towards disarmament. With this latest development, the U.S. has put the entire global non-proliferation order at risk.
In sum, while the reasons for wanting to terminate the INF may have seemed prudent in the short term, the Trump administration’s decision to follow through on this threat will, in the long term, negatively impact U.S. national security and will make the world less, not more, safe.“

Lester Munson – NSI Senior Fellow; former Staff Director, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

“President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the INF Treaty is a sensible step that immediately improves American national security.  Russia’s extensive violations of the treaty and evolving U.S. security requirements more than justify the president’s actions. The administration appears to have done a good job of consulting both Congress and our NATO allies on this matter.  This significant step, which is surely not welcomed in Moscow, should throw cold water on any notion that the current administration is somehow in thrall to Vladimir Putin.“

 

Bryan Smith – NSI Senior Fellow; former Advisor to the U.S. Delegation to the INF Treaty

“The U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a necessary, but far from sufficient, response to Russia’s flagrant and material violation of the treaty.  What remains is for the U.S. to assemble a suite of capabilities that together, will deprive Russia of the advantage sought by its violation.

The Trump Administration has moved to answer the 60-year old, million-dollar question posed by Fred Ikle in his landmark 1961 Foreign Affairs article: ‘After detection, what?’  At the dawn of the modern era of nuclear arms control, Dr. Ikle wrote: ‘Yet detecting violations is not enough.  What counts are the political and military consequence of a violation once it has been detected, since these alone will determine whether or not the violator stands to gain in the end.’

The U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty is a necessary, but far from sufficient, response to Russia’s flagrant and material violation of the treaty.  (And having carefully examined the intelligence evidence when in government, I am confidence that this serious step is completely justified.)  What remains to be done is to assemble a suite of counterforce and defensive capabilities that together, will deprive Russia of the advantage it seeks from its illegal deployment of intermediate range ground-based cruise missiles.  Many ideas have been offered, to include nuclear sea-launched Tomahawks, stealthy stand-off long range air-launched cruise missiles from dual-capable F-35s, and various forms of advanced cruise missile defenses for Europe.

Whatever form this U.S. response takes, it must impose costs to Putin so great that they negate his illegal gains.  In addition, U.S. diplomacy must succeed in convincing our European allies of the necessity of this response.  Achieving both these ends will be very difficult, but not nearly as difficult as the dual-track NATO diplomacy that succeeded in placing U.S. intermediate nuclear forces in Europe, then convincing the Soviet Union to sign the INF treaty that banned such weapons.“

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Security Institute or any agency of the U.S. government. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the National Security Institute or any U.S. government entity.

Posted on

NSI Policy Paper – Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE: Countering a Hostile Foreign Threat

This NSI Law and Policy Paper:

  • Describes the foundations of Huawei and ZTE, the concerning actions taken by these companies, and the actions taken by the United States and allied governments in response.
  • Evaluates the key issues at stake for U.S. national security and competitiveness.
  • Argues that the U.S. should seek additional restrictions on Huawei and ZTE products and services in the U.S., while working with allies and partners to limit Chinese telecommunications expansion.
  • Provides actionable recommendations to counter the serious cybersecurity threat from Huawei and ZTE.

Read the complete paper here.

About the authors:

Andy Keiser is an NSI Fellow and is currently a Principal at Navigators Global, where he focuses on cybersecurity and other national security priorities.  He served 14 years on Capitol Hill for former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers – as Senior Advisor to the Committee, Chief of Staff, and Legislative Director handling all national security policy issues. 

Bryan Smith is an NSI Senior Fellow and is the Vice President & Technical Advisor Beacon Global Strategies. He provides strategic advisory services to defense and intelligence companies. He has held senior resource management positions in the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

 

Posted on

NSI Experts Weigh In: 2019 National Intelligence Strategy

Yesterday, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats unveiled the 2019 National Intelligence Strategy.  Our experts weighed in about the strengths and weaknesses of this new strategy. 

January 23, 2018

Bryson Bort – NSI Fellow; Founder & CEO, SCYTHE

“For the first time since the Cold War, Western liberal democracy is seriously at risk, and the ODNI is finally catching on. The quadrennial refresh of the national intelligence strategy is updated to reflect the 21st century where intelligence and our adversaries are increasingly at the cutting edge of technology. ‘Other emerging, disruptive technologies’ enable access and influence in a truly asymmetric way and we are, and have been, the most vulnerable.”

 

 

Megan Brown – NSI Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Cybersecurity; Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

“The NIS is constrained in what it can really tell the world about the United States’ strategy, but it offers an important sense of what worries our government. In that respect we see themes that are similar to what DHS and others are saying, with continued blurring of public and private fields of engagement.  Such consistency is good.  For example the NIS rightly addresses cyber as a major challenge for the foreseeable future. Lurking under the surface are unaddressed issues of international cyber norms, defenses, and how the IC can help protect and defend US companies from a daily onslaught of attacks and threats.

Interestingly it calls for better insight—’anticipatory intelligence’ —into evolving technologies like AI and connected devices, but doesn’t grapple with emerging threats to its abilities. The government’s national security interest in new tech is not new. The Commerce Department is right now considering export controls on a variety of emerging technology categories, to try to keep our adversaries from getting them. But regulating US companies and emerging tech may drive some innovation offshore, further straining the IC’s ability to understand and anticipate issues.

The NIS also lauds partnerships with private organizations, but I see obstacles to partnership and other IC goals.  First, we have an undercurrent of global mistrust and misunderstanding of US law and regulatory philosophy.  Other regions sit in judgment of the adequacy of US privacy law, or seek to impose their own regulatory regimes on data use, IoT devices and more. States in the US are also setting up a regulatory and punitive approach. Varied regulatory efforts may have unintended consequences, make it more difficult for innovators, and chill cooperation with the government.  The IC and others in government must champion the US positions and interests, including against regulatory threats that undermine partnerships.

 

The IC cannot stop these trends. The IC should work with agencies and global partners that can reiterate the importance of voluntary partnerships and information sharing to cyber and tech policy here and abroad.”

Cam Burks – NSI Visiting Fellow; Deputy Chief Security Officer, Chevron Corporation

“The 2019 National Intelligence Strategy of the United States is a superbly organized roadmap that will favorably position our country for much longer than the stated four year target.  Reading more like a business plan than bureaucratic doctrine, this strategy identifies foundational imperatives that will enable our country to assume a sustainable competitive advantage on a global level. Of particular importance is the timing of its release.  Our country needed to see this plan now, during a period of national political turmoil, to publicly reaffirm the strength of how their government will provide bonafide national security.  I commend Director Coats for not only his exceptional strategic vision and leadership of the community, but for his adroitness in providing Americans with an injection of confidence at just the right time.

The identified mission objectives are correctly prioritized, calibrated to the current day landscape with a deeper emphasis in the geopolitical space, intuitively designed, steeped in many of the basic, traditional elements that have made our national intelligence function comparatively superior for years.  What differentiates this strategy, however, is its clear recognition of the role of the enterprise.

Enterprise’s focus on people talent and organizational capability, as well as scalable integration, innovation, accountability, business and performance management, and the leverage power of partnerships, are measurable priorities found in most successful corporate environments.  We do this well in America, and its application, to an appropriate degree, within our intelligence apparatus, will give us that competitive advantage we need to persevere in any circumstance.

I believe strongly that our people – our intelligence professionals who dedicate their lives to protect our nation – are the most important component of this entire Strategy.  The current uncertainty in the federal employee community vis-a-vis the ‘shutdown’ and recent, uneven political commentary of the intelligence community, presents a tangible risk to its sustainability.  Attraction, retention, diversity, and professional development of this specific government workforce is profoundly important and my hope is that our national leaders realize the associated criticality and commit to it in any political environment.  The stakes are much too high for any alternative.“

Dr. Nicholas Dujmovic – NSI Visiting Fellow; former Staff Historian, Central Intelligence Agency

“Intelligence is primarily an executive function, and this National Intelligence Strategy (NIS) succeeds as a succinct yet comprehensive statement of this administration’s concerns and priorities regarding intelligence missions and activities.  Yet, you wouldn’t know from this document that by law, Congress plays an important role in setting intelligence priorities.  The NIS mentions Congress in an almost pro forma manner and exclusively on the receiving end of intelligence products and oversight reporting requirements.  This new and feisty Congress, with its renewed emphasis on legislative oversight of executive functions, may have something to say about the new National Intelligence Strategy.   I see the potential for Congress asserting itself in two areas:  counterintelligence, and the structure of the Intelligence Community itself.

Congress has a history of telling the IC that it’s not doing a good job on counterintelligence, and with all the information breaches, blown spies, and brazen influence operations the U.S. has suffered at the hands of especially Russian and Chinese intelligence, it wouldn’t be a surprise if Congress took the initiative to radically reform US counterintelligence.  The NIS identifies CI as a priority, but Congress might ask, ‘Why is it in seventh and last place, when these foreign actors are eating our lunch?’  And Congress might not stop at CI:  DNI Coats should prepare for questions from the new oversight committees like, ‘Explain to me why we need 17 intelligence agencies.’“

Amyn Gilani – NSI Visiting Fellow; Vice President of Product, 4iQ

“The 2019 National Intelligence Strategy is exactly what the Intelligence Community needs right now. Since 9/11, the threat landscape has completely evolved and previously dated strategies have been predominantly focused on adversaries similar to al-Qaeda to a point where we were operating too tactically and not prioritizing long-term mission objectives. This strategy focuses on the ’21st century challenges’ which include improvements in intelligence collection, cybersecurity, emerging technologies, and workforce growth and retention.

The DNI has given a larger platform to Cyber Threat Intelligence (formerly Cyber Intelligence). The fifth domain is getting the attention it deserves; previously writing on cyber focused on understanding adversaries, vulnerabilities, and threat detection/prevention. Now, DNI is stating how economies, health, safety, and prosperity could be at risk through cyberspace. Americans’ private data is constantly targeted by nation-sate and cybercriminal adversaries through retailers, healthcare, and various industries and the DNI is finally addressing this.

We also see some remnants of Edward Snowden and Vault 7 as there’s an introduction to new terms, like Insider Threat. Understanding the risks at the enterprise level is also key to understanding the full threat picture. We know that Russia and China play long-term games and we must be proactive on identifying insider threats, who could possibly be the person working right next to you.

Finally, the most impactful part of the strategy is people. In the ‘People’ section, we really see a reflection of the Intelligence Community workforce and how much it has struggled with retention. In the last five years, we’ve seen so much turnover within the private sector that the IC has been depleted of talent. However, this new strategy is breaking boundaries and creating a progressive work-culture. The message is bold on ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion,’ specifically stating that the IC welcomes all types of ‘national origin, language, race, color, mental or physical disability, ethnicity, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, socioeconomic status, veteran status, and family structure.’ This is a large step forward for the DNI to address how important the people are to the mission, no matter where you come from.

In a time where defense policy seems to be struggling, it’s great to see a strategy that is tailored for staying ahead of our opponents and supporting the modern-day intelligence analysts and operators.“

Kristen Hajduk – NSI Visiting Fellow; Regional Director for the National Capital Region, MD5 – The National Security Technology Accelerator

“The 2019 National Intelligence Strategy acknowledges the challenge of our generation: while our ability to gather, access, and utilize data is exponentially increasing, our biological ability to process, understand, and assess the consequences of the increasing amounts of information has not changed nearly as fast. Ultimately, this makes it more difficult for analysts, decision makers and average citizens to distinguish the irrelevant from the important. This ‘noise’ can and, often does, lead to either decision-making paralysis and/or missed opportunities.

We must adapt our structures and processes to operate effectively in this information-saturated, hyper-connected, hyper-distributed global environment.  We need to change the way we do business and learn how to leverage emerging technologies to sort through the noise and buy back the time we need to govern events and not be governed by them.  We need to bridle and saddle the technological horses of the information age, not be trampled by them.

The first step is to acknowledge and understand these factors that are driving our current security environment.  The 2019 National Intelligence Strategy effectively brings this priority to the fore.“

Matthew R. A. Heiman– NSI Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security; Chairman of the Cyber & Privacy Working Group, Regulatory Transparency Project

“The 2019 National Intelligence Strategy (NIS) is more a circumspect document than the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy, and it reads more like a catalogue of activities than a detailed strategy document.  The lack of greater specificity is to be expected when dealing with the Intelligence Community (IC).  That being said, there are two items of note.  The NIS cites Russia, China, and Iran as U.S. adversaries, but it refers to North Korea as a ‘mutual concern’ for China and the U.S.   The softer treatment of North Korea is likely a nod toward the ongoing diplomatic discussions about denuclearization.  The NIS makes cyber and cybersecurity a priority, which is appropriate, but insider threats, which are responsible for the intelligence community’s  biggest black eyes in the last decade (e.g. Snowden and the loss of NSA cyberweapons likely caused by NSA employees) are addressed with standard boilerplate.  Let’s hope efforts to address this real risk go beyond the routine.”

Jamil N. Jaffer – NSI Founder; former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush

“The National Intelligence Strategy released yesterday starts out strong with a solid assessment of the current challenges facing the U.S. government, noting the weakening of the post-WWII international order, our own increasingly isolationist tendencies, and the broad range of threats posed by our enemies.  It rightly highlights ongoing Russian influence efforts—part of what is likely to be judged the most successful covert and overt influence operation in history—and also correctly calls out the fact that both Russian and Chinese global efforts often directly conflict with our national security objectives.  The strategy also rightly highlights the threats posed by Iran and North Korea in a range of areas, including pursuit of WMD, support for terrorist groups, and aggressive cyber activities, and is likewise accurate in forecasting that outer space and cyberspace are likely to be key domains of future conflict as they are leveraged by our adversaries, as well as the potential effects of the spread and adoption of disruptive technologies, not to mention the continuing threat of international terrorism.

But there the strength of the document unfortunately ends.  The NIS overall lacks a clear, driving vision that is new, daring, and different and that is able to squarely grapple with the changing threat landscape it identifies.  Much of what is in this strategy in terms of implementing policies and procedures feels like it could have been written in the Cold War.  Luckily, though, the IC has strong leaders that can still drive change, even if the strategy itself could have been more visionary.

When Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, was in the Senate, he was a leader on a wide range of issues, in particular, on confronting Russian aggression head-on.  One hopes he might return to that role having correctly identified the threat facing our nation and the West more generally.  DNI Coats is precisely the kind of leader we need at this challenging time; likewise, leaders like Gina Haspel at CIA, Chris Wray at the FBI, Ellen McCarthy at State INR, Betty Sapp at NRO, and Gen. Paul Nakasone at NSA, and many others like them also deserve our support.”

 

Andy Keiser – NSI Fellow; former Senior Advisor House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

“Give credit to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats for laying out a four-year strategy for the intelligence community (IC) that provides strategic direction and a general framework of the threat environment to which the IC is to respond.

While the document itself is a bit preoccupied with buzzwords and generalities, the framework is the right one to direct the IC to combat the threats from hostile nation state and transnational terror organizations in domains from traditional espionage, to cyber to space.”

 

Dr. Andrea Little Limbago – NSI Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Emerging Technologies; Chief Social Scientist, Virtru

“The dual-use nature of emerging technologies appropriately resonates throughout the NIS; we are just on the cusp of how disruptive these technologies will be. Within the strategic environment, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and nano- and bio-tech are among the many emerging technologies highlighted as potential threats. As the NIS notes, these technologies dramatically shift power relations and create new asymmetries that have the potential to cause greater instability. At the same time, many of these emerging technologies are essential to strengthen intelligence and national security. The core enterprise objectives include a significant focus on new technologies to help secure and safeguard data, while allowing for innovation and data sharing to meet mission objectives. Importantly, the NIS reasserts America’s commitment to privacy and civil liberties at a time when digital authoritarianism puts them at great risk across the globe.“

Harold Moss – NSI Visiting Fellow; Senior Director Strategy & Business Development, Web Products, Akamai Technologies

“Director Coats offers a clear and logical approach for addressing the evolving threat landscape. By highlighting emerging technologies and focusing on non-traditional threat vectors he is laying the foundation for a more flexible and relevant approach to modern threats. The emphasis on expanding the national security corpus of intelligence beyond traditional boundaries, to encompass academia and industry will enable a far more resilient approach to proactively managing the threat landscape facing our nation.

I am especially enthused as Director Coats intelligently calls out two core challenges often overlooked or ignored with respect to talent acquisition and innovation. While he does not highlight how he will address these problems directly, the acknowledgement that a broader issue exists with respect to future endeavors beyond the present day concerns is encouraging. Far too often strategy is mired in the weeds of today.  Director Coats has put forth a reasonable plan that looks at addressing the problems of the forest as opposed to a handful of trees.“

Elliott Phaup – NSI Visiting Fellow; Policy Advisor, Representative Dutch C. A. Ruppersberger

“The 2019 National Intelligence Strategy builds on its predecessors in charting a path forward for the U.S. Intelligence Community in the years to come. The DNI rightfully characterizes the world we live in as ‘turbulent’ and ‘complex,’ and renews a focus on the emerging threats being leveraged by our adversaries – including those in space and cyberspace. Among others, I’m encouraged to see a focus in areas like cyber threat intelligence, leveraging partnerships to tackle tough challenges, and finding ways to harness the data rich environment of the future by empowering the IC’s unique and innovative workforce.

The NIS sets objectives which will help the IC evaluate its performance and while many areas of the NIS are encouraging, some aspects and characterizations of the volatility we are seeing at home and abroad are all too real. Whether it is isolationism, climate change affecting migration or the threats posed by the ‘weakening of the dominance of Western democratic ideals’, these are all concerning threats that the IC can’t tackle alone and will require leadership across government.“

Bryan Smith – NSI Senior Fellow; former Budget Director, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

“As a former intelligence operations officer and senior resource manager, I cannot imagine what practical use any intelligence officer could make of this so-called ‘National Intelligence Strategy’.  A strategy should clearly articulate an organization’s objectives by priority, when they will be achieved, where, and by whom.  Most importantly a strategy maps out how these objectives will be achieved.

A true strategy will have almost as much to say about what an organization won’t do, as about what it will.  One tried and true approach to strategic formulation is to undertake a brutally honest examination of an organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (‘SWAT’).  The ODNI attempts nothing of the sort here.

Instead of a strategy, we are presented with a generalized description of what the Intelligence Community does or is supposed to do (organized into seven piles).  There is no hint, for example, as to whether cyber threat intelligence should lay claim to greater resources than counterterrorism or counterproliferation, or whether the IC should prioritize Russia and China over Iran, North Korea, and terrorists.  Neither does there appear to be any intellectual link between this document and the National Defense Strategy, which actually does set some priorities.  Perhaps the document’s biggest failing, however, is that it is all ‘what’ and no ‘how’.  Exhortations, such as ‘strengthening efforts’, ‘bolstering’, ‘enhancing’, ‘expanding’ or ‘leveraging’ this thing or that do not constitute a strategy of ‘how’ to get things done.“

Dan Wagner – NSI Visiting Fellow; Legislative Liaison for Policy and Budget

“The problem with this National Intelligence Strategy (NIS), as with previous ones, is that it speaks more to how we have been conducting intelligence functions and not enough on the future.

A strategy is supposed to lay the groundwork for the future and a way forward.  The 2019 NIS does to a point, but misses the mark on the ‘how’ of fully incorporating the influences that affect intelligence assessments (technology, geopolitics, finance, trade, etc).  It also misses the ‘how’ to remain relevant to an administration that has been accused of undervaluing intelligence.

Given the shift in priorities in the National Defense Strategy (NDS), dialing the thermostat down on terrorism and increasing the emphasis on great power competition, it was expected to see the National Intelligence Strategy (NIS) make some adjustments.  The difference between the 2019 NIS and the 2014 NIS though was negligible.  Definitely not enough to illustrate the shift in strategy necessary to refocus intelligence assets and energy to align with the National priorities.  Additionally, it is not enough to likely win over one of the biggest customers, the US President.

That said, the NIS has historically done a reasonably good job broadly covering all the threats to the US, and the 2019 version is no different.  There is, after all, only so much that can be covered in an unclassified document on intelligence.  The NIS is meant to be an overall wire structure to focus the intel enterprise.

There is not enough of a change in this year’s NIS to cause any major changes in the Intelligence Community.  With a new strategy developed and released every four years, the larger concern is if this strategy has focused enough on the future rather than relaying how the enterprise has been doing business.“

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Security Institute or any agency of the U.S. government. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the National Security Institute or any U.S. government entity.

 

Posted on

NSI Experts Weigh In: Chinese Hacking Indictments

Earlier today, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced that the Department of Justice indicted two computer hackers associated with the Chinese government.  Our experts weighed in about the implications of these charges 

December 20, 2018

Megan Brown – NSI Associate Director of Cybersecurity and Senior Fellow; Partner, Wiley Rein

“Kudos to DOJ for its collaboration with other countries and its work to call out cybercrime and advance norms. While some may think these indictments are theatre without real consequences, they are a key part of US leadership that can shape expectations for international behavior.

The tactics of these and other cyber criminals hurt companies and citizens in the US and around the world.  Actions like today’s serve as a reminder that companies suffering breaches are themselves victims of criminal activity. Sophisticated companies with robust defenses are being attacked and compromised by persistent and savvy criminals who are well resourced and protected.  Like minded governments must work with the private sector to respond to these threats and build resilience across the global economy. “

Dr. Nicholas Dujmovic – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Staff Historian, Central Intelligence Agency

“With all the recent news about Russian intelligence activities, this Justice Department announcement is welcome as it brings forward the even greater Chinese threat.  But even here, we’re looking at just the tip of the iceberg.  Chinese intelligence activities against the United States and the West run the gamut from collection (technical and human) to ruthless counterintelligence to covert influence operations that are breathtaking in scope.

As Michael Hayden noted in his memoir, ‘I stand in awe (as a professional) at the depth, breadth, and persistence of [Chinese intelligence] efforts against the United States.’  These efforts involve technical access programs through IT, relentless hacking linked to the People’s Liberation Army, stealing US Navy contractor data on weapons systems, trying to recruit American and French government officials and industry leaders involved in national security through LinkedIn, subtle and not so subtle attempts to mold Western thinking about China through mechanisms like the Confucius Institutes on college campuses.  The list is seemingly endless.  Make no mistake, China is using its considerable human and technical resources to achieve intelligence dominance over the West.“

Jamil N. Jaffer – NSI Founder; former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush

“Today’s indictment of two Chinese nationals that worked with the Chinese Ministry of State Security is another strong step by the Justice Department to pursue those who would target our economic and national security through cyber theft of core American technology.  That being said, significantly more needs to be done to staunch the bleeding and to prevent American intellectual property being repurposed abroad.  It is simply not enough just to indict individuals, we must also track them down and bring them to justice.

More importantly, we must also punish such activity directly when it happens in order to deter further activity going forward.  We can best do so by taking strong military, intelligence, and foreign policy actions, where appropriate.  Such actions will work better to deter foreign cyber activities than indictments standing alone.

Moreover, the government must take action now to work directly with the private sector to empower it with the type of information it needs to defend itself against such threats going forward.  Sharing threat information after an indictment is announced is helpful, but needs to happen sooner when a threat is detected, not after hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development dollars have already walked out the backdoor.

Indeed, if there ever was a case where something more than an indictment was necessary, this is it.  Here, 45 technology companies and government agencies in over a dozen states had hundreds of gigabytes of data stolen including technologies related to computers, satellites, oil drilling, and other highly sensitive and national security matters.  The victims included the Navy, where sensitive data on over 100,000 Navy personnel was stolen, the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the NASA Goddard Space Center, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Given all this, it is critical that the U.S. government not only continue to take the kind of strong actions it has today, but that it should also do more now to address the very real threat posed to our economic and national security by aggressive Chinese cyber activity.  First, it should share information about such threats in real time, as they are detected, rather than weeks and months later when an indictment is announced.  Second, it should open the door wider to take significantly stronger action against foreign nation-states, including keeping all military, intelligence, and foreign policy options on the table.  Finally, if we are ever to truly deter such activities going forward, the government must, when appropriate, actually take such actions in response to such foreign cyber threat activities and not simply rely on an indictment in federal court.”

 

Dr. Andrea Little Limbago –NSI Associate Director of Emerging Technologies and Senior Fellow; Chief Social Scientist, Virtru

“Since 2014 the Department of Justice has issued a series of indictments that link Chinese government-backed personnel to economic espionage. However, this year has seen an uptick in indictments and public naming of China as a core violator of the rule of law.  In the past few months alone, China has been linked to the Marriott mega-breach, ten Chinese intelligence agents were indicted for compromising aviation technology, two other officers were indicted for conspiring to steal rice production technology, and a Chinese spy was extradited from Belgium for commercial theft. 

However, today’s indictment is unique for several reasons. First, the degree of international coordination, including reinforcing statements from allied governments, supports a global norm against cyber-enabled commercial theft.  Second, the Department of Justice publicly rebuked China for violating the 2015 agreement against cyber-enabled commercial theft. The rebuttal joins this year’s report from United States Trade Representative on China’s corporate espionage, and reaffirms China’s non-compliance to an agreement that was similarly made with other countries, including Australia and Canada.  Finally, while much of the focus is on the vast range of commercial espionage, it is important to also remember China’s role in the major theft of the personal data of US citizens, including the OPM and Anthem breaches. Today’s indictment notes the theft of 100,000 Navy personnel, including salary information and personal phone numbers. The indictment is yet another reminder that China’s theft is not only detrimental to U.S. commercial innovation, but it also infringes upon the privacy of U.S. citizens through a broad range of personal data theft, including health, travel, and financial data, and personally identifiable information such as social security numbers and birth dates.”

Bob Stasio – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Cyber Operations Lead, National Security Agency

“Today’s announcement regarding the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) indictment of two Chinese hackers appears to be a continuation fo the ‘name and shame’ strategy which began under President Obama. I am of two minds when it comes to this approach.  I applaud the DOJ for taking an aggressive stance against the Chinese strategy to exploit the U.S private sector with state-backed resources – most commercial entities are struggling to deal with advanced persistent threats, and this indictment gives a real signal that these type of actions will not be tolerated.

Alternatively, charging Chinese espionage actors that will likely never be extradited does nothing to practically stop hacking against the U.S. The ‘name and shame’ strategy against state actors may actually endanger current and former U.S. intelligence officials traveling overseas, as belligerent nations may seek retribution.  In my view, a more effective alternative would be using our offensive cyber capabilities under the Department of Defense to send a message versus the continual reliance on law enforcement. “

Dan Wagner – NSI Visiting Fellow; Legislative Liaison, U.S. Special Operations Command

China is the greatest threat to US National Security, period.  The next likely catastrophic event on the US will come from the Chinese in the cyber realm.  The DOJ charging two Chinese hackers for attacking multiple companies is one of many tools the US should be employing on a regular basis to stress to the Chinese this is not acceptable and there are now consequences.

For too long the Chinese and Russians have gone unchallenged, experiencing few repercussions for their constant cyber hacks and attacking.  Perhaps it was out of fear of starting WWIII.  Primarily because many senior US officials did not understand cyber or were focused exclusively on the counterterrorist fight as the greatest threat.

Countries like China and Russia continue to hack US companies and information, with the latest target being Marriott, and have openly pledged to not only not stop, but to increase.  China and Russia are starting with a leg up on the US, no thanks to Snowden.  The amount of data that countries like China, Russia, and Iran are compiling on US policy makers, as well as corporate and government leadership and technology, is scary.  What they can or intend to do with that data may be even more scary.  The US must respond by bolstering their Cybersecurity capability and prosecuting those countries and people who conduct operations against the US and our allies.

The Administration has recently released new cyber guidance in the form of a Presidential Directive granting more power to conduct cyber operations.  Recently though, the top commander in the Middle East and Central Asia authored a paper stating that the new authority is not enough.

The head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, wrote in his paper that the Pentagon must ‘normalize’ electronic warfare and cyberattacks and incorporate them into daily operations.  He went on to state, ‘We need to proactively execute cyberspace and information operations early in ‘Phase 0 / steady state’ of the planning process — well before operation execution. Only then can we shape the [information environment], hold our adversaries’ capabilities at risk and execute at the speed of war.’  I have to agree.

Russia China Iran and North Korea have all conducted offense of cyber operations around the world and it has not resulted in World War III yet.  It is not a secret that the United States has offensive cyber capabilities and such capabilities will likely also not result in World War III if executed with precision and diligence when provoked.

Taking the restraints off of US offensive cyber capabilities through the administration’s new cyber policy may be the next right step in proving our cyber superiority in the newest domain.  This is not a capability to be taken lightly.   Restraint and target vetting, as well as high level approval should be maintained.  As the article points out, there is great Intel value in cyber ISR versus cyber attack.  However, just as we flex our muscles through ‘shows of force’ to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea by conducting flyovers and moving aircraft carriers into areas in the ocean, the US must also conduct the equivalent of a ‘show of force’ in the cyber domain. The trick is we must now figure out what that looks like.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Security Institute or any agency of the U.S. government. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the National Security Institute or any U.S. government entity.

 

Posted on

NSI Experts Weigh In: Syria Troop Withdrawl

Yesterday, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would be withdrawing troops from Syria.  Below, NSI experts weigh in on the potential outcomes of this move and the future of the region. 

December 20, 2018

Matthew R. A. Heiman – NSI Associate Director of Global Security and Senior Fellow; Former Lawyer, National Security Division, U.S. Department of Justice and the Coalition Provisional Authority, Baghdad, Iraq

“President Trump threatened to withdraw forces from Syria before, and his advisors appeared to have talked him out of it.  This time, they weren’t as persuasive.  This is a bad result for the U.S. and the Middle East for the following reasons: Russia, Iran, and the Syrian regime will fill the void created by the U.S. departure; the job of destroying ISIS was not yet complete; and the U.S. pushback against Iran looks fairly toothless.  The Middle East is not a safer place and U.S. interests are not served by this move.  Let’s hope the President changes his mind.“

Jamil N. Jaffer – NSI Founder

“The President’s decision to precipitously withdraw U.S. troops from Syria is a catastrophic mistake of historic proportions.  In addition to handing Russia and Iran a major victory in a region critical to our national security, the President’s decision actually snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by allowing ISIS the chance to rapidly reestablish the very bases and infrastructure that we spent years working to destroy and sacrificing American lives in the process.  In many ways, this decision puts the President squarely in line with decisions of the prior Administration that he has, in the past, mocked as being weak and irresolute.

Even worse, yesterday’s decision—announced on Twitter with apparently little serious discussions at senior levels within the Administration—suggests to our allies that the United States is not prepared to see its military efforts through to completion.

The President’s announcement of victory against ISIS notwithstanding, the reality is that America and our allies continue to face serious threats coming from the Middle East, including from ISIS, which, while it is certainly back on its heels, is far from defeated.  Indeed, the rapid removal of American troops from Syria means that the immediate threat of terrorist attacks against Americans around the world, including here at home, will increase overnight, with groups like ISIS and al Qaeda becoming emboldened by America’s abandonment of our serious campaign against them in the region.

Other threats from the region are also likely to get worse as a result of President Trump’s policy shift.  These threats include the Iranian regime’s support of terrorism around the world through proxy groups like Hezbollah, which is also directly responsible for keeping the Assad regime in power in Syria, the rise of Russian military activity across the region and its undermining of American influence with key actors, the targeting of key American allies in the conflict against ISIS and al Qaeda, and the potential economic chaos that could result from increased instability in the region.

In sum, leaving this fight behind and abandoning our allies in the region is a step in exactly the wrong direction.”

Lester Munson – NSI Senior Fellow; Former Staff Director, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

“In Jim Mattis, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, the President has an excellent national security team.  He should listen to them and reverse his decision to abandon Syria to Iran, Russia and Bashar Assad. Removing American forces now will dramatically increase the likelihood that Syria will descend further into chaos and negatively impact American allies in the Middle East and Europe.”

 

 

David Priess – NSI Visiting Fellow; Chief Operating Officer, Lawfare

“Whatever one thinks of the merits of abruptly pulling US forces out of the continued fight against ISIS in Syria, it’s hard to deny that the way in which this appears to have been decided and announced surprised national security officials at all levels — and left them ill-prepared to execute or even explain the sudden change in policy. Generally, the interagency process allows all of the pros and cons of policy options — ranging from their tactical implications to their impact on America’s alliance relationships — to be hashed out. Even officials who had argued against the ultimate decision thus understand, and are prepared to help implement, policy change.

Having participated in many interagency meetings at various levels while at CIA and at the State Department, I recall all too clearly how laborious and frustrating the interagency process can be. But there’s a reason for that process: to avoid an unforced error like this one.”

and frustrating the interagency process can be. But there’s a reason for that process: to avoid an unforced error like this one.”

Alicia Sloan – NSI Visiting Fellow; Co-Founder, Duco Experts
“Bringing our servicemen and women home from conflict should always be our North Star. However, this announcement of victory over ISIS underscores how naive the President is as it relates to how non-state actors work, and yes, make come backs. What’s more, the message to our allies is: if you want an ally in the long term, it doesn’t pay to link up with the United States. Try Russia and Iran instead (although this blame doesn’t lie solely on President Trump).”

 

 

Glenn Sulmasy – NSI Visiting Fellow; Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Bryant University

“This is a bold and courageous decision by President Trump.  The Syrian issue remains chaotic – a mess.  The decision to get our troops out of that very chaos will preserve American lives and prevent us becoming further  entrenched within this growing debacle.  Keeping our troops in Afghanistan has done little to achieve any final victory over the Taliban or al-Qaeda.  There is little sense in putting American troops in a region that is increasingly becoming lawless without any clear cut path to a traditional ‘victory.’

There is no question that the troops who have been stationed there are relieved, and their families are delighted to get this welcome Christmas gift. This is a true victory for  the traditional, realpolitik, conservative national security policy.”

Dan Wagner – NSI Visiting Fellow; Legislative Liaison, U.S. Special Operations Command

“If there is any U.S. leader that can create a ‘winning’ narrative from getting out of Syria, it is President Donald Trump.  Right, wrong or indifferent, he has unabashedly made the decision from his gut, against the sage advice of his senior cabinet officials.  The decision was likely based on money and weighing the immediate benefit to the American voter.  This is how he will be able to turn this situation into a winning narrative with the voters, regardless of the long-term impacts amongst the coalition partners and in the Middle East.

That said the U.S. strategy has been one of an endless combination of counterterrorism as well as nation building.  It has been a losing strategy over the last 18 years of entering a country to eradicate the threat to the homeland and then become entangled in the quagmire of regional politics, while building the government back up again. Trump would argue that it is time to make others take ownership of the issues within their region. Others will argue that the U.S. broke it [Syria] and now they need to fix it.  However, others still will argue that it has been proven that no amount of money will fix the problem and the U.S. has a terrible track record for fixing nations.

There are real concerns about Russia and Iran gaining a strong foothold in Syria and thereby increasing their influence in the region.  It may also force them to take ownership of this problem, as ongoing issues in Syria will ultimately affect anything they want to accomplish in the long run.  There is a chance that it will force both countries to pour money and resources into Syria to fill the gap left by the U.S. and experience similar frustrating challenges.  If this were to happen, it would focus energy on a new problem for each of them, rather than on the U.S. directly.

The conflict in Syria is unsustainable indefinitely, and it is clear that there is no real strategy other than what we have been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq – which is to continue to throw money and U.S. blood at the problem.  Is ISIS truly defeated?  That remains to be seen.  Part of this Syrian retrograde cannot be to allow ISIS to regenerate.  The U.S. will likely need to force Syria (and Russia by proxy) to take ownership of their country.  It is only a matter of time until Afghanistan will follow suit as well.

President Trump does not have a great track record for truly caring about U.S. Soldiers.  However he does care about votes and money, and declaring victory against ISIS fits his narrative of both “winning” and “putting America first”.  Whatever the reasoning for the President to order pulling U.S. forces out of Syria, it is going to cause uncertain outcomes in that region (Syria, Turkey, Iran, Israel) and with coalition partners (including the Kurds).  However, that should only be slightly less comforting than a strategy of sustaining the same levels of funding and cost of U.S. lives indefinitely.”

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Security Institute or any agency of the U.S. government. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the National Security Institute or any U.S. government entity.

 

Posted on

NSI Podcast: Cyber Deterrence

The National Security Institute published its first podcast which analyzed cyber deterrence.  This podcast featured NSI Fellow Bryson Bort, NSI Senior Fellow and Assistant Director of Cybersecurity Megan Brown, Jason Healey of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, and NSI Senior Fellow and Assistant Director of Emerging Technologies Dr. Andrea Little Limbago.  Moderated by NSI Senior Fellow Lester Munson, the wide-ranging conversation addressed topics such as the National Cyber Strategy, the role of the private sector in cyber deterrence, and the evolution of norms in cyberspace.

To hear more conversations like this, follow us on SoundCloud and to stay up to date with the latest news and insights from NSI follow us on Twitter.

Posted on

NSI Policy Paper – Cyber Imperative: Preserve and Strengthen Public-Private Partnerships

This White Paper:

  • Examines the importance of public-private partnerships (PPPs) to United States cybersecurity policy and law
  • Explains the benefits of collaboration and partnership – domestically and abroad – over regulation and mandates
  • Describes challenges to cooperation, such as limitations in current law, the overlap in government cyber activities, and fear of post-hoc recrimination
  • Urges policymakers to strengthen partnership and collaboration through creative solutions that change the culture around private cyber risk and incidents

Click here to read the complete paper.

About the author:

Megan Brown is an NSI Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Cybersecurity Programs.  She is also a Partner at Wiley Rein LLP.  Prior to joining Wiley, Ms. Brown served in the Department of Justice as Counsel to two U.S. Attorneys General. 

Posted on

National Cyber Strategy

This afternoon, President Trump released the National Cyber Strategy. Below, NSI experts offer their commentary.

September 20, 2018

Dmitri Alperovitch – NSI Visiting Fellow; Co-Founder/CTO, CrowdStrike

“I am very pleased to see the new National Cyber Strategy formally establish the precedent to make routine the ‘work with like-minded partners to attribute and deter malicious cyber activities’. This is a key and necessary step that has been lacking in US cyber policy for many years.”

Bryson Bort – NSI Fellow; Founder & CEO SCYTHE

“This is the most comprehensive cybersecurity strategy document ever published—firmly stating a vision of the United States as ensuring a secure Internet by cooperation or force…The message appears to be: you will see an American Flag planted on your scorched computer(s).

This is the most comprehensive cybersecurity strategy document ever published—firmly stating a vision of the United States as ensuring a secure Internet by cooperation or force. It reads like a response to former NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers’ February Congressional testimony where he acknowledged current constraints in responding to the active threat landscape the US faces.

The ambitious scope is easily reflected in a just few stand out items: replacing social security numbers for identify management; addressing IOT security through the full lifecycle, although not post-deployment; a global “Cyber Deterrence Initiative” to strength partner law enforcement and information sharing capabilities; and the promise of “swift and transparent consequences” to deter attacks.

The message appears to be: you will see an American Flag planted on your scorched computer(s).”

Megan Brown – NSI Senior Fellow; Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

It is heartening to have a new cyber strategy committed to paper, for the private sector and the government.  There is a lot to like in here, and a lot of unanswered questions.  Big picture, this document lays out a muscular role for government as it relates to the private sector.

This strategy doubles down on the contracting community, with hints of some intrusive new requirements on the way.  This is notable because contractors have already been the “tip of the spear” on cyber regulatory obligations.

Not surprisingly, it tackles IT and telecom supply chain issues—hopefully the Administration can bring some clarity to the many overlapping federal efforts on this.

It puts DHS’ role on steroids and confirms the government’s commitment to nudging the private sector along, whether or not the industry wants help.  From trying to shape the market for “secure” products to encouraging manufacturers to test security and differentiate products based on security features, the government sends a message that it will take an active role.  Its emphasis on transparency and the roll out of secure next-generation telecom and IT infrastructure will affect technology companies and the broader economy.

The bottom line: industry needs to prepare for additional expectations and obligations, and get ready to interact with the government in a variety of settings.

Cameron Burks – NSI Visiting Fellow; Deputy Chief Security Officer, Chevron Corporation

“The Administration’s focus on protecting critical infrastructure against cyber attacks and providing risk-reduction activities across key sectors and the maritime space is a critical element of the new strategy. It reflects a clear understanding that enhanced government-to-private sector engagement is a vital imperative to the country’s national security.”

 

Jamil N. Jaffer – Founder, National Security Institute

“While the current administration’s national security apparatus may face significant challenges from within, the fact is, the President and his team got this one right: ignoring the costs of malicious cyber activity, including destructive attacks and efforts to undermine our core economic base through IP theft and extortion, is a recipe for disaster.

We must make clear to our enemies in cyberspace, including Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, that they will no longer be free to conduct destructive or disabling attacks on U.S. soil or against American companies, our government, or our allies, whether in Central Europe, Asia, or the Middle East.  Nor must they think it is acceptable to pillage our American industry of the very technology that is at the core of our economic vitality, undermine our democratic institutions, or pre-position assets to use against us in a future conflict.

The administration’s new strategy–with its discussion of deterrence and consequences—is thus a step in the right direction.

But more must be done immediately.  The time for mere words has passed. We must respond swiftly and surely to cyber activities that threaten our national security.  To that end, the new strategy’s promise of ‘swift and transparent consequences,’ is exactly spot on, and we must now deliver on this promise when challenged in cyberspace.”

Andy Keiser – NSI Fellow; Former Senior Advisor, U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

“The National Cyber Strategy announced by President Trump today is an important step in not only identifying the threats to the United States in cyberspace, but the opportunities and solutions. The strategy touches on typical areas of hardening federal systems, while introducing newer concepts such as an international deterrence model in cyber.

After 15 years of multiple Administrations admiring the problem, the Trump Administration should be given credit for conducting a full interagency review grown out of the National Security Strategy process to get this critical policy in place which has a direct impact on our economy and security. Though it is surely not the end all be all for what needs to happen in cyber, the new NCS will help guide a whole-of-government response to the threats against and openings for the U.S. in cyber.”

 

Dr. Andrea Little Limbago – NSI Senior Fellow; Chief Social Scientist, Endgame

“In many ways, this strategy is the first articulation of a whole-of-nation approach to the range of digital state and non-state threats. The NCS prioritizes the integration of cyber with other elements of national power, focusing on fostering diplomatic norms, countering disinformation, deterring and disrupting malicious activity, and enabling economic prosperity. The private sector also plays a prominent role in this strategy, with everything from incentivizing robust risk management and incident response to augmenting mechanisms for greater information sharing.

The promotion of a free and open internet is at the core of the NCS, and reaffirms American leadership in shaping a democratic, multi-stakeholder model of internet governance. In contrast to the authoritarian model of censorship, data localization, and digital protectionism, the NCS reasserts American commitment to an open internet as a core feature of protecting democracy. While several other recent strategies and policies have emphasized offensive cyber capabilities, that same verbiage of continuous engagement and defending forward is surprisingly minimal. In fact, the NCS emphasizes that efforts to counter malign activities will continue to respect and preserve democratic values.”

Harold Moss – NSI Visiting Fellow; Senior Director Strategy, Akamai Technologies

“The rapid pace at which technology and cyber threats are evolving, warrants the need for a combined public and private response as highlighted in the newly released cybersecurity strategy update.

The first step to a sustainable cyber strategy is enabling future cyber talent and leveraging existing public sector talent to buttress existing cybersecurity deficiencies. The acknowledgement that we must expand our cyber talent pool, is significant and meaningful.  In absence of concrete and detailed steps, one has to remain cautiously optimistic.  I for one look forward to additional context related to building the necessary foundation for such an endeavor. “

Megan Stifel – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Director for International Cyber Policy, National Security Council
“The White House strategy released importantly recognizes the opportunities of interconnected technologies as well as the risks and vulnerabilities created. The announcement today builds upon ongoing efforts to protect and defend United States information infrastructure in the new era. By bringing these ongoing efforts together into a cohesive document, today’s Strategy sends a strong signal not only that cybersecurity remains a priority to the United States, but also that it is a whole of nation effort—that the government plays an important but not independent role in sustaining the Internet ecosystem for the future.Among the key priorities identified by the Strategy are that the government must lead by example, including through workforce training and development and supply chain risk management. Expanding from the government as an enterprise risk management organization, the Strategy prioritizes building and supporting technical and policy relationships to sustain United States economic and security interests for the future. The Strategy highlights the critical role U.S., partner, and ally information and communications technologies and networks play in maintaining secure and resilient economies and the need to continue efforts to support the development of norms, multistakeholder internet governance, and internet freedom, in particular by continuing capacity building efforts to achieve these objectives.”

Dave Weinstein – NSI Visiting Fellow; Vice President of Threat Research, Claroty, Inc.

“Until now the United States has not formally adopted an international approach to cyber deterrence.  The Cyber Deterrence Initiative, which would formally strengthen collaboration with other countries on incident response and attribution, is a promising concept. Successful implementation will depend on what countries participate and their level of commitment.  In this respect, geographical diversity is key to establishing and maintaining the credibility of such a body.  The east versus west I would expect the “Five Eyes” and other NATO member-states to be among the first recruits for the coalition, but it would be worth exploring the private sector’s role in such a construct.
It’s encouraging to critical infrastructure risk management featured so prominently in the Strategy, but the substance is a bit lackluster.  More creativity is needed for government to maximize its contributions to what is largely a private sector problem.  Some of the best ways for government to “secure critical infrastructure” is to incentive investment in technology, people, and training; share actionable threat intelligence; and deter activities that hold infrastructure assets (and the citizens they serve) at risk.”
Posted on

Call for Presentations: Hack the Capitol

Hack the Capitol is an two day event in Washington, DC on September 26th and 27th to provide hands-on education and awareness to Congressional Staffers, Think Tanks, and Press. Talks, workshops, hands-on exhibits, and demos should be tailored toward a non-technical audience. Please consider this with your submission. This kind of event has never been done before and will have significant value in raising awareness of our Nation’s challenges with critical infrastructure and constructively providing kinesthetic learning at multiple levels.

To submit a presentation, click here.

Posted on

Helsinki Summit: Experts Weigh In

Early this morning, President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in three back-to-back meeting sessions.  Below, NSI experts weigh in on the outcome of the meetings and what they mean for future U.S. – Russia relations. 

July 16, 2018

Andrew Borene – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Associate Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense

“We definitely need to wait and see what gets said on the record and what specific action items come out of the meeting, before we can make reliable assessments about it.

It is not clear what, if any, defined outcomes are being sought by The White House in Helsinki with Putin. President Trump himself says he has “low expectations.” This meeting also comes right on the heels of conflicting White House messages about the US commitment to the NATO alliance, which is the Russian Federation’s most significant geopolitical counterweight. 
In the background of President Trump’s Russia summit will be a continuing tension between the President and the US Justice Department’s work on Russian meddling in the 2016 Presidential election. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Friday the 13th surprise indictment of Russian intelligence operatives for hacking during the 2016 election was probably not on President Trump’s initially planned agenda.”

Jamie Fly – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Senator Marco Rubio

“President Trump’s performance at a press conference earlier today with Russian President Vladimir Putin was nothing short of disgraceful.  He turned an opportunity to send a strong deterrent message against future Russian interference in American democracy into an attack on American institutions that only empowers our enemies.Instead of pushing back against the long trail of death and destruction that Vladimir Putin has left around the globe, President Trump lowered America to Putin’s level.  It was “Russia First” at its worst.Luckily, beyond the press conference, it appears as of now, that the damage was limited.  There were few signs of progress on arms control, Syria, or other issues.  American and Russian interests are fundamentally opposed on many of these key challenges and hopefully Trump administration officials realize that as they follow up with their Russian counterparts after this meeting, even if the President they work for clearly does not.”

Matthew R. A. Heiman – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Lawyer, National Security Division, U.S. Department of Justice and the Coalition Provisional Authority, Baghdad, Iraq

“Absent Putin reversing himself on his foreign policy agenda, the best result for President Trump is a summit that yields no significant deals.  That’s because there are very few opportunities for agreement between the U.S. and Russia.  Rather, President Trump should articulate U.S positions in the same blunt style of speaking we saw from him during his meetings with NATO members and Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom. Trump should make clear that the U.S. opposes and will continue to take strong action against interference in U.S. elections.  Trump should say that the U.S. will remain in Syria, we will not tolerate an Iranian beachhead there, and we will support Israel’s campaign of attacking the Iranian backed militias in Syria.  Trump should make clear that the U.S. stands with a Ukraine that is democratic and peaceful and enjoys territorial integrity.  The chill in U.S.-Russia relations is because Putin is a bad actor on the world stage, and it took the U.S. far too long to realize it.  Hopefully, President Trump recognizes that the best deal to be had is no deal.“

Andrew Keiser – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Senior Advisor, U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

“Similar to the past three occupants of the Oval Office, President Trump has long maintained a desire to improve U.S. relations with Russia. Though I believe it demonstrates a naivety of Russia’s decades-long work against the United States at every turn, there is nothing wrong with this desire in and of itself.

However, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary from his own intelligence services, President Trump seems to dismiss Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections and their consistent, aggressive undermining of U.S. interests around the world. Russia, the GRU and President Vladimir Putin do not respond to nuance and mixed messages, they only respond to direct, unified voices typically coupled with the credible threat of military force.

Though I was heartened to see President Trump raise the issue of Russia’s unacceptable American election interference, he went on to undermine his own government’s position with our top geopolitical foe standing by his side.

With moral equivalency offered between U.S. and Russian actions around the world, it seems Russia has been given a green light to nakedly pursue its’ own interests in Ukraine and Syria, by silencing dissent by any means necessary and by creating trouble all over the globe from Venezuela and Cuba to Moldova and Georgia to North Korea and the Arctic.

How the Russians balance the friendly rhetoric from the President of the United States, with the tough policies his Administration has put forward on sanctions, lethal arms to Ukraine, an aggressive posture in Syria and kicking out Russian intelligence officers from the U.S. remains an open question.” 

Dr. Andrea Limbago – NSI Visiting Fellow; Chief Social Scientist, Endgame

“The summit takes place at a time of increased tensions between Russia and the United States. Friday’s indictment details yet again that Russian election interference extends well beyond the DNC breach. It also includes a compromise into state board of elections websites, the data theft of half a million voters, and county-level reconnaissance of election websites, not to mention the bots and trolls leveraged throughout social media to amplify their messaging. Importantly, election interference is only one part of the playbook for Russian interference operations. Russian interference extends well beyond the 2016 election to undermine U.S. national and economic security and should have been the core topic discussed at today’s summit.

Russian interference operations extend well beyond elections, and include compromise and/or reconnaissance of U.S. critical infrastructure, underwater cables that are core to trillions of dollars of transactions and communications, a global campaign targeting routers, not to mention the NotPetya attack which caused over a billion dollars in damage globally or the onslaught of similar attacks on NATO and our European allies. This is the behavior by Russia that is deteriorating the relationship. Attending this Summit without prioritizing Russian interference operations is not only dangerous to our national, physical, and economic security, but it also provides the green light to the growing range of global actors who are increasingly adopting Russia’s interference tactics, knowing they can do so with impunity.”

Lester Munson – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Staff Director, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

““It would appear that this meeting was a missed opportunity at best. President Trump needs real achievements on Syria, North Korea, Russian cyber attacks on our elections and Russia pulling out of Ukraine. Thankfully, the president must defer to Congress on many of the matters discussed today.  He has little flexibility on lifting sanctions on Russia absent real progress on these issues. Congress, particularly the Senate, should step up its direct involvement in policy-making for the betterment of our national security.”

Posted on

NATO Summit: NSI Experts Weigh In

Early this morning, President Donald Trump met with European leaders at NATO’s annual summit in Brussels.  Below, NSI experts weigh in on the outcome of the summit and what it means for stability in Europe and U.S.-European relations. 

July 11, 2018

Jamie Fly – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Senator Marco Rubio

“NATO is the world’s most successful security alliance.  Yet NATO allies cannot rest on their laurels.  President Trump’s admonitions regarding burden sharing have produced significant results yet more needs to be done.  After almost seventeen years of war, Americans across the political spectrum expect U.S. allies to pull their own weight.  The summit declaration approved today by NATO leaders appears to do just that as the alliance works together to tackle traditional and emerging challenges to allied security.  Transatlantic security would be best served by more focus on the reality of what NATO is doing on a daily basis to protect its members’ citizens instead of theatrics and personal attacks on allies.” 

Matthew R. A. Heiman – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Lawyer, National Security Division, U.S. Department of Justice and the Coalition Provisional Authority, Baghdad, Iraq

“President Trump believes Europe takes advantage of the U.S. by enjoying NATO’s security guarantees without paying enough for the benefit.  His belief is not unreasonable.  In 2014, NATO members pledged to spend 2 percent of their GDP on their militaries.  While only the U.S., the U.K., Estonia, and Greece meet that target today, pressure from the U.S. has contributed to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Romania being on target to reach the threshold this year and others reaching this goal in the coming years.  It’s important that friends hold each other to account, and blunt talk amongst allies should not threaten the future of NATO.  Rather, NATO’s future depends on both financial contributions to military spending by each member and clear plans that ensure NATO resources match the strategic threats posed by Russian hybrid-wars, cyber attacks, and expansionism; instability in the Middle East and North Africa; and the continued risk of radical Islamic terrorism.  Hopefully, attendees at the NATO summit this week recognize that the future of the alliance depends on words being matched with deeds.” 

Andrew Keiser – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Senior Advisor, U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

“Since 1949, NATO has been the foundation for transatlantic security.  The strength of NATO helped lead to unprecedented stability and prosperity for the West.  That said, it  has been a long-standing concern of the United States that NATO allies were not doing their fair share to maintain a deterrent against aggressors of the alliance.  

Though difficult conversations among friends are probably best held behind closed doors, those quiet conversations rarely led to meaningful reforms in decades past.  Perhaps a different approach will lead to a different result that ultimately could be a stronger NATO and a more effective check on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s expansionist intentions” 

Dr. Andrea Limbago – NSI Visiting Fellow; Chief Social Scientist, Endgame

“The NATO Summit is traditionally a time to celebrate one of the most successful alliances in history. Instead, this year’s Summit is preoccupied with defense spending and achieving the 2% of GDP target by 2024. Clearly, member-state contributions are essential, but for the most part member-state spending has been increasing over the past four years. This tunnel vision on defense spending is an unhelpful distraction away from the constructive dialogue required to address the core national security threats to the U.S. and its NATO allies.

The member-states are simultaneously defending threats at home and abroad. The collective security alliance must continue to evolve and strengthen to counter the twenty-first century threat landscape. This includes domestic and international terrorist groups, countering disinformation, clarifying the cyber component of Article V, and of course the range of authoritarian regimes who are undermining stability across the globe.

NATO remains extremely relevant to safeguard democratic principles internationally and support U.S. national security. In fact, yesterday the U.S. Senate reaffirmed NATO’s relevance in a 97-2 vote in favor of supporting the U.S. commitment to NATO. Unfortunately, the current unnecessary and self-inflicted internal tensions and divisions within NATO play right into the hands of state and non-state adversaries.” 

Lester Munson – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Staff Director, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

“It is a good thing, not a bad thing, to urge our European allies to contribute more substantially to NATO’s defense. Similarly, it is good to urge Germany to untie itself from Russia’s energy predations.  The manner of delivery may be awkward and off-putting, but the substance of the president’s message today is sound.”  

Posted on

NSI Advisory Board Member Ellen McCarthy Nominated to Serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research

April 30, 2018
Contact: Garrett Ventry
[email protected]
716-628-4593 (cell)

National Security Institute Advisory Board Member Ellen McCarthy Nominated to Serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research

Arlington, VA – On June 12, 2018, the White House announced the nomination of NSI Advisory Board member Ellen McCarthy to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR).  Ms. McCarthy has served as President of Noblis NSP since 2016 and also previously served as Chief Operating Officer of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), where she oversaw NGA’s daily business activities and advised the Director of NGA on a range of issues, including strategic planning and corporate governance.  Before joining NGA, Ms. McCarthy served as President of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA), where she currently serves on the Board of Directors.  Ms. McCarthy also previously served as Director of the Human Capital Management Office and the Acting Director of Security within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, where she developed and deployed the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS), as well as in multiple intelligence roles in the United States Navy (USN) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), including as Director of Intelligence Operations, Strategy and Policy for the USCG.

“Ellen McCarthy has long been a leader and innovator in the intelligence community, serving our nation with distinction and honor both in government and the private sector, and she is an inspired pick for this critically important position,” said Jamil N. Jaffer, NSI Founder.  “Indeed, Ellen brings a unique skillset to this nomination, having served on the leadership team that reshaped NGA from the inside and having led an effort to transform Noblis NSP into a truly unified operation.”

INR is a bureau of the Department of State and a member of the Intelligence Community, whose primary mission is to harness intelligence to serve U.S. diplomacy.  INR is a direct descendant of the Office of Strategic Services Research Department and is the oldest civilian intelligence element in the U.S. Government.  INR provides independent analysis of events to State Department policymakers and ensures that intelligence activities support foreign policy and national security purposes.

Ms. McCarthy’s bio can be found here.  More information on INR can be found here.

About the National Security Institute
The National Security Institute serves as a platform for research, teaching, scholarship, and policy development that incorporates a realistic assessment of the threats facing the United States and its allies, as well as an appreciation of the legal and practical challenges facing U.S. intelligence, defense, law enforcement, homeland security, and cybersecurity communities.  NSI draws on the experience of its visiting fellows, as well as its highly distinguished advisory board and faculty, to produce timely research and policy materials that deliver insightful analysis and actionable recommendations to senior policymakers in the White House and key departments and agencies, as well as those on Capitol Hill.

About George Mason
George Mason University is Virginia’s largest public research university. Located near Washington, D.C., Mason enrolls more than 33,000 students from 130 countries and all 50 states.  Mason has grown rapidly over the past half-century and is recognized for its innovation and entrepreneurship, remarkable diversity, and commitment to accessibility.

About the Scalia Law School
The Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University is defined by three words: Learn. Challenge. Lead. Students receive an outstanding legal education (Learn), are taught to critically evaluate prevailing orthodoxy and pursue new ideas (Challenge), and, ultimately, are well prepared to distinguish themselves in their chosen fields (Lead).  It has been one of America’s top-ranked law schools for the last fifteen years.

Posted on

The State of the Union Address: NSI Experts Weigh In

 
President Trump delivered his first State of the Union address earlier tonight. He outlined his Administration’s accomplishments to date and spoke on five major policy areas: the economy, infrastructure, immigration, trade, and national security. Below are analyses of the President’s State of the Union remarks on national security from NSI experts:

January 30, 2018

Bryson Bort – NSI Visiting Fellow; Founder & CEO, SCYTHE

“Trump’s State of the Union veered between a victory lap and an appeal to unity hampered by the red meat thrown to his base.  Like negotiating in business, the best approach is a show of strength whether it’s there or not.  This speech was clearly setting up the 2018 mid-terms: ‘together we can achieve absolutely anything,’ but this message may have been lost in the strong emphasis on traditional Republican interests: constitutionalism, second amendment, defense, and smaller government.  A significant amount of the speech was devoted to the tax cut legislation, the only significant legislative achievement of 2017, but was short on a detailed vision for the future.  Only immigration was mentioned in any detail for action.”

Matthew R. A. Heiman – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Lawyer, National Security Division, U.S. Department of Justice and the Coalition Provisional Authority, Baghdad, Iraq

“In his State of the Union address, President Trump in stark and strong language called for strengthening our military and nuclear arsenal in order to defend against our adversaries, with a particular focus on the barbaric regime ruling North Korea.  President Trump’s blunt assessment of America’s place in the world and its national security needs is a welcome and necessary change from the retrenchment and passivity of the Obama administration.”

Jamil Jaffer – Founder, National Security Institute; Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee

“Today’s State of the Union had a strong finish, with the President publicly making the case for a newly assertive America, unafraid of her enemies and unashamed of her allies.  The President correctly called for an end to the defense sequester which has hampered our military effectiveness for far too long and instructed the Secretary of Defense to ensure that we have a viable capture option for terrorists that can’t be prosecuted.  Perhaps most importantly, the President called out North Korea, Iran, China and Russia for the very real threat they each pose to our national security.  On the critically important issue of our nation’s security, this speech was a strong, confident, and unmistakable message to our friends and enemies alike.”

Andrew Keiser – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Senior Advisor, U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

“President Trump tonight shined a bright spotlight on America’s growing economic strength.  History tells us that military strength abroad can only be derived from economic strength at home.  America’s adversaries and allies alike are taking notice and the President’s State of the Union sought to ensure they didn’t miss the memo.”

Lester Munson – NSI Visiting Fellow; Former Staff Director, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

“The president’s speech highlighted many compelling issues and was even inspirational at points.  His constricted view of foreign assistance, however, is of concern and risks, in some measure, American leadership around the globe.”

 

Bryan Smith – NSI Visiting Fellow; Vice President & Technical Advisor, Beacon Global Strategies

“Building ‘peace through strength’ requires the Congress to do what only it can under our Constitution — pass appropriations. Yet it has failed to so for four months of this fiscal year.  Granted, tax reform, immigration political polarization — all make passage of an annual spending bill dauntingly complex.  But so is life. There is no excuse for fiscal abdication.  A full year Continuing Resolution would prevent the President from executing his national security strategy, but more to the point, would betray our men and women in arms.”