Thomas E. Ricks's Blog, page 102

Why I don't think Snowden is, or will become, a Chinese intelligence asset

By Stuart Herrington

Best Defense guest columnist

Unless he was an asset of the Chinese or some other foreign
intelligence service prior to "coming out" as he did, I don't think
it's likely any foreign intel service is going to latch onto Edward Snowden.

If he were already a recruited asset, one would think that
his case officers would have given him a better exfil plan than "fly to
Hong Kong and hold a press interview." In fact, were he already on some
service's payroll, the counsel would have been "stay right where you are,
you can do us the most good in your current Booz Allen position." He is a
"property," but don't think it likely that he would be picked up in
such a short time by any country's service, China included.

To use jargon, Snowden is "blown" -- that is, he is
a hot potato, with many downsides politically and from almost any perspective. My
guess is that he realized after his flight to HK and going public that this was
not a very swift move, and that he was in danger of being picked up by the
authorities, acting on behalf of the local U.S. mission there (or, in his
paranoid mind's eye, snatched and rendered by the hated CIA) -- and he was
relentlessly besieged by media -- so he disappeared himself for the moment,
which won't last in Hong Kong, a very well-organized society with a super
security force. In short, any service that might like to contact him for a
debriefing or other relationship would right now be appealing to its highers
(the very top) with arguments as to just why they would wish to touch this guy
at this time.

Based on what we know now, which could change in a flash, I
would vote that no service, Chinese or otherwise, will touch this fellow; and,
if they do, it would be a quiet interview, just to sniff out what, if anything,
he might have that would merit undertaking political risks to touch him.

Stuart Herrington is a former commander of the U.S.
Army Foreign Intelligence Command, INSCOM. He also is the author of several
books about intelligence, including Traitors
Among Us: Inside the Spy Catcher's World.   

Do we have a neo-imperial Washington versus an anti-imperial American public?

So supposes Andrew Sullivan, the blogfather, who writes
that, "We
have a neo-imperial apparatus in Washington and an anti-imperial public. At
some point, one of those will have to give."

Is he correct?

I asked my
favorite neo-imperialist, Tom Donnelly
of AEI, what he thought. This is what he wrote back:

If we could just set aside
the whole "imperial" construct, which excites without informing....

1. The climate in Washington
seems to me profoundly different than in past, which I would say is a
generational matter. The center of political opinion is an amalgam of Barack
Obama and Ted Cruz, who share little except a belief that foreign policy
doesn't matter and that military power isn't important.

2. The public doesn't know
what to think. Americans would never describe themselves as
"imperialistic," even when we act that way. Conversely, there's still
a pretty strong "Don't Tread On Me/America Should be Number One" sentiment,
or at least I think so. The public is not getting much guidance from the
political elites of either party.

3. It's going to be hard to
know if there's been a fundamental shift until something really, really bad
happens. When it does -- as it always does -- we will either snap back to past
practice (which will also require, regardless of the particulars, a significant
defense reinvestment; we are probably already at the point where we are no
longer capable of a rapid and large response), or we won't. I wouldn't want to
bet the mortgage either way.

'The 7 Deadly Sins of Defense Spending'

They are, according to five of
my CNAS colleagues, these:

1. Redundant Overhead, Layering and Workforce

2. Inefficient Business
Practices

3. Excessive
Acquisition Costs and Overruns

4. Excess Infrastructure, Installations and Management Costs

5. Unaffordable Increases in Cash Compensation

6. Unsustainable Growth of Military Retirement System Costs

7. Escalating Military Health Care Costs

If these seven money gluttons aren't tamed, they warn, "DOD will have no choice but to find savings through deep
cuts to force structure, modernization and readiness -- the very core
capabilities required for the U.S. military to maintain global pre-eminence."

You can read the whole report here. You likely will hear
more if you tune in to the CNAS annual
conference tomorrow (Wednesday).

Here's our stake in Syria: If Assad prevails, it's a victory for Iran in the region

By Col. Robert Killebrew (U.S. Army, ret.)

Best Defense guest columnist

Few in the West understand the stakes in the
Syrian rebellion.

For Iran, maintaining the Assad regime is a
vital interest in its attempt to break out of its Persian Gulf isolation. For
that reason, the Iranian mullahs have put skin in the game -- troops of the
Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as well as Hezbollah fighters that
are deployed alongside units of the Syrian regular army and irregular police
forces -- and Iran shows every sign of being willing to do more. Barring any
dramatic action by NATO or the United States, it is difficult to see how the
Syrian opposition can prevail. The next two years may well see an emboldened
Iran astride the Levant, a complaisant Assad regime propped up in power, Turkey
and Jordan swamped with Syrian refugees, and Turkey and Israel confronted with
a strengthened, hostile Iranian presence on their borders -- in Turkey's case,
flanking a vulnerable Turkish salient extending across Syria and turning north
along the current eastern border with Iran.

For Iran, propping up an Assad government in
Damascus gives the mullahs access to an unmatched, dominating presence in the
Levant -- that stretch of geography from Israel's southern border to eastern
Turkey -- that touches every frontline Mideast country. As well, a Syrian-Iranian
victory offers Iran an outlet to the Mediterranean and access to the
near-obsolete Russian naval facility at Tartus, a base that has begun to figure
again in Russian plans for its navy. Wars never really return to the status quo
ante, and a victory for the Assad regime, and a concomitant rise in influence
and access for Iran to this strategic geography, changes for the foreseeable
future the power balances and political relationships in the region and perhaps
the world.

The consequences of a Levant dominated by Iran
and Iranian aggressiveness should be carefully considered. Any hope for
Lebanese independence will be lost, and supply lines through Syria and the Bekaa
Valley -- and possibly from Tartus -- to Hezbollah will be fortified by Syrian
and Iranian air defenses to make Israeli strikes more difficult. Israel will be
under more pressure than ever, and Jordan more vulnerable.

One of the more consequential results of an
Assad victory, though, will be rising tensions between Sunni Turkey and Shia Iran,
with an exhausted Syria playing a passive, pass-through role. (It is
interesting that, as Iranian attention shifts northwestward, the Saudis and
other Gulf states will likely become bystanders to Sunni-Shia competition,
instead of their accustomed role at the center of regional politics.)

As recent events in Turkey show, the
pro-Islamist policies of current Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan have
caused an unusual tide of domestic dissent. In the face of an external threat,
however, there is every reason to believe the nation Ataturk founded will
unite, and the (majority Sunni) Turkish people will stand behind their
ubiquitous flag. Turkey through Erdogan has been outspoken that Assad should
go; the Turks have sheltered refugees and assisted rebel forces. They have
earned Iranian enmity. In a post-rebellion Levant with Assad still in power,
there can be little doubt what Iran's attitude will be toward Turkey. Even
aside from the current proxy hostilities, the particular brand of Shia Islam
that Ayatollah Khomeini installed after the Iranian Revolution makes mandatory
Iran's enmity to the West, and to the Sunni sect. Iran's previous and more
recent record of hostility to other governments, including aggression against
States even outside the Mideast, is a good indication that it will be actively
hostile to Turkey as well. Given free use of the interior of the Levant, with
access to Russian arms and the resources of the Syrian state, Iran will be in
an exceptionally strong geopolitical position to follow up its inclinations.

Competition between Sunni Turkey and Shia Iran
can take many forms other than outright war, though that possibility cannot be
discounted if the two states find themselves directly at odds, the Turks feel
themselves at a geographical disadvantage, and Iranian hostility to Sunni Islam
takes a more violent form. However, Iran has other options than all-out war. It
is the world's leading sponsor of modern terrorism, that strange mixture of
murder and crime, and it has become adept at mobilizing and directing global
networks of terrorist organizations and criminal mafias (which are often one
and the same). An Iranian campaign against Turkey could well take place in
Turkish cities, mosques, schools, and market squares, while marshaling strong
conventional forces to dissuade a Turkish response. At the same time, the IRGC
will most probably conduct terrorist attacks in Western countries and the
United States as a demonstration and a warning of the cost of supporting Turkey,
which has been a stalwart and supportive member of NATO since the alliance's
beginning.

How the West -- and Europe in particular --
comes to Turkey's defense will be the most severe test of the alliance in its
history. Today, Turkey balances between both sides of the Bosphorus. A Turkish
intellectual once said to me, "Our generation thought the way for Turkey was
toward Europe and the EU. But the younger generation (of which Erdogan is a
member) has figured out that the EU is a white, Christian club. They will face
east." The loss of the Turkish "bridge" to the Mideast, with all the explosive
energy and industry of this growing, modern country, would be a disaster for
the West. European policymakers may be tested to support an ally or give in to
Iranian terrorist blackmail; if the choice is the latter, Europe will
effectively have confirmed the "white, Christian club" and will have withdrawn
from the Mideast. The choice for American policymakers will be as stark: The
IRGC has already attempted at least one terror attack inside the United States,
and there is every reason to believe it would be tried again in the case of
U.S. support for its Turkish ally and, indirectly, Israel as well. As the
Iranian nuclear program progresses, the long-term potential of Iranian short-
or medium-range nuclear missiles should not be discounted.

Whether Assad falls or stays in office will
result in historic realignments in the Middle East and the Mediterranean
littoral -- the Levant, from which the state of Syria was carved. As Iran ups
the ante and the West fumbles for a response, chances increasingly favor
Assad's survival as an Iranian puppet. Iranian suzerainty over Syria and a
breakout into the Levant will give it an enormous geographical advantage from
which to attack both Israel and Sunni Turkey, already a foe in all but name. The
confluence of these political, cultural, and military events presages not only
an uncomfortable near-term future, but also the potential for prolonged and
bitter religious war through this century. American policymakers should
consider carefully future U.S. options as events unroll in Syria.

The differences between whistleblowing Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning -- and some similarities to Daniel Ellsberg

The case of Edward Snowden, who
came out yesterday (Sunday) as the
leaker supplying the info to the Washington Post and the Guardian about the NSA's data-harvesting
program, on first impression reminds me more of Daniel Ellsberg than of
Bradley Manning.

I opposed what Manning did. I thought his actions were
reckless. He did a data dump, making secret information public without knowing
what it was or what he was really doing. I remember mentioning, for example, an Ethiopian journalist
who wound up in the hot seat because of the WikiLeaks release.

Manning's act was that of a goofball anarchist. Snowden's,
by contrast, seems to have been one of civil disobedience. That is, he seems to
have known exactly what he was doing. Snowden does seem to have some elements
of Manning, a mixed-up kid, but on balance seems to me to be more of an
Ellsberg -- that is, a disillusioned insider who was appalled by what he saw
and made a choice to disclose the existence of certain government programs.

As for the assurances of intelligence officials that we
should not worry because they will be careful: I don't buy them. The
intelligence community has not come clean about the torture of captives, so why
should it have credibility on this? At any rate, the health of our Bill of
Rights should not be dependent upon the constitutional interpretations and
tender mercies of secret policemen and their staff lawyers.   

So, do I think Snowden should go to jail? Yes, I think he
should expect to. Martin Luther King, Jr. did too, when he consciously broke
the law in protest. Breaking the law to make a point and then doing some time
in consequence fit well within the American tradition. That said, knowing what
I know now, I would hope it would be just a few months on a prison farm.

I have several friends who have a very different view, and
think this guy is more of a Philip Agee, someone who has changed sides, and
should be considered at worst a traitor and at best a
self-righteous little jerk. Listening to them, I have to admit to some qualms.
Foremost is Snowden's flight to Hong Kong. I want to know more about that
before concluding that this guy was right. Leaving the country is not what a
pure act of civil disobedience would entail. In addition, I find his choice of
refuge, Hong Kong, a bit odd. It looks more like a defection than civil
disobedience. It is possible that this guy will turn out to be more Guy
Burgess than Daniel Ellsberg.

Speaking of Burgess, I would like to know if Snowden is
providing cover for other, still undisclosed leakers. If so, that might change
the equation, too. Wouldn't real civil disobedience call for a clean slate?
That is, "This is who we are, and this is what we did, and why we did it."   

Odierno nails a general

For failing to properly act
on a sexual harassment issue. This may be the beginning of
accountability.

The other shoe would be putting strong people in the jobs
that deal with sexual harassment and assault. That would send a message,
especially if those people move on to good jobs afterwards. The Air Force seems
to be moving in this direction.

Ali Jalali lays out the three things the Karzai regime needs to do to survive

By April Labaro

Best Defense bureau of Afghan political affairs

What exactly is Afghanistan transitioning to in
2014? This question is central in the ongoing (and going) debate about "Afghanistan
2014," which has given everyone involved a case of "'transition fatigue,"
according to Professor Ali J. Jalali.

Jalali, a former interior minister of Afghanistan,
gave a lecture recently at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced
International Studies about his personal assessment of the upcoming transition
in Afghanistan. When it comes down to it, he believes that the best that anyone
can hope for is the survival of the regime.

To ensure that outcome, Jalali outlined three key areas that should be addressed
during the transition:

The first is the state of security
post-withdrawal. Jalali emphasized the importance of ensuring that the Afghan
army has the capacity to provide security after all international forces have
left and warned that the number of tanks and arms left behind does not mean
greater security.




The second point, one just touched on, was the
economy. The main worry here, he said, is that around half of the workforce is
currently in the service sector and most of these jobs will be lost when
international organizations leave. But Jalali remained optimistic, saying the
projects to be put in place over the next two years, specifically in the mining
industry and railroad construction, will create more jobs over time.




Lastly, but most importantly, is the regime's
ability to demonstrate its political will. The election being viewed as fair
and free is, above all, the biggest factor in ensuring the survival of the
regime. But is Afghanistan ready for a fair and free election? In addition to
addressing challenges with technical and logistical readiness, Jalali said he believes
that the most important step towards demonstrating political will is the
establishment of both a strong and independent election commission and a
process for dealing with complaints. Legislation on election rules and the
establishment of an office to handle complaints must be passed before the
commission can even begin to implement its operation plans for the upcoming
election.

Jalali summed up his points by concluding that "the
snapshots are bad, but the video is different." In other words, this transition
through 2014 and beyond is fragile and riddled with serious doubt and potential
breaking points. But with a strong national agenda and the regime's publicly confirmed
political will, it is possible for Afghanistan to hold a free and fair election
and transition to a stable and secure state. Time seems to be on the side of
the government for now, but we can't afford to forget that, as Jalali put it,
if the Afghan people don't win, everyone will lose.

Is anything private anymore? No, and that may be the fault of the post-9/11 panic

Short answer: No.

I fear we really are living in a national security state.  A few weeks ago I would have said that is an
exaggeration, but reading these linked stories, no more. No wonder Eric Holder thought
it was no biggie to begin fingering reporters as co-conspirators in leaks. In
the crowd he is running with, he's probably considered a wild-eyed civil
libertarian. Even so, I think it is past time for him to walk the plank.

Among the outfits reportedly turning over access to surveillance
mechanisms: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube,
Apple. All those smug hipsters in skinny jeans sold you out. I feel justified
in my withdrawal from "social media." Is Steve Jobs's overweening smile the
face of 21st century American totalitarianism? Maybe so -- I always suspected
there was something sinister about California cool.

They say this program was designed to target foreigners.
That may be how it started, but I don't trust these guys to obey strict limits.
So I think it is time to bring the surveillance agencies under control. The
national leadership panicked after 9/11, and now 12 years later we have an
Orwellian surveillance program. Forget Benghazi. This is the juicy target that
the American right -- and left -- should be going after. A New York Times editorial avers that the Obama administration has
"lost all credibility" on the issue.  

As an Army colonel said to me a few years ago, How can you win a war for your values by
undermining them?

(A Best Defense 21-gun salute to Bart Gellman and his
homies on this one. Somebody throw this guy a Pulitzer.) 

Breakfast with the cyberchief: He wants some RoE, and also pre-approved actions

By Alexander Sullivan

Best Defense guest columnist

Gen. Keith Alexander, who as director
of the NSA and commander of U.S. Cyber Command is perhaps the most
knowledgeable individual on defending America in cyberspace, offered an
assessment of the cyber threat that was clear-eyed and yet understated: It is
here to stay, it is growing, and it will continue to get worse.

Luckily, speaking at a breakfast
held by the Association of the U.S. Army's Institute for Land Warfare on May 29,
he also offered some areas of opportunity for short- and mid-term progress in
confronting this danger to U.S. national security.

DOD is currently planning a transition to
the Joint Information Environment (JIE), a wholesale overhaul of its network
architecture that will see most computing services delivered via the cloud.
Gen. Alexander stressed the need for the JIE to comprise a "thin, defensible,
virtualized" network structure protected by cryptologic platforms developed at
Fort Meade.  Not only will virtualization be eminently more secure
(patching vulnerabilities will happen instantaneously across the network rather
than iteratively on 15,000 separate enclaves), but it will provide considerable
savings on hardware, software, and IT support personnel over the long term.
Greater security at a lower price in a time of budgetary austerity -- this is
exactly the type of investment the Pentagon should be making.

Discussing military cyber, Alexander
suggested contours of a new system for organizing, training and equipping
America's cyber warriors. He called for a "joint revolution" that would further
elevate coordination on cyber department-wide. (Currently, Cybercom's main role
is to coordinate and direct activities of service elements, whose requirements
are implemented at the service G-6 level.) As the number of cyber operators
increases, the military needs to create streamlined training and doctrine that
avoids bifurcation along traditional organizational lines (e.g., signals at the
secret level and intelligence at the top secret level) and trains cyber
operators to a single high standard encompassing both defensive and offensive
capabilities.

The overwhelming impression is that
the military understands the path to fielding a robust cyber force with a common platform to view the battlefield, unified
command and control, and the ability to mass forces to defend and, if
necessary, attack. By Gen. Alexander's own admission, what remains less clear
is the policy framework for how those forces will be employed in defense of the
nation.

Alexander argued for legislation
that enables two-way sharing of threat information between the government
(NSA/Cybercom, DHS, and DOJ) and operators of critical infrastructure -- and
stated that he could provide "100 percent auditable" privacy controls to
Congress that would assuage concerns from industry and the public. That way,
when the government sees attack indicators, it can warn likely targets to
increase vigilance. Conversely, Tier 1 Internet service providers and other
well-placed private actors could provide the government with important early
warning on inbound attacks. Privacy concerns have
stymied attempts to pass such legislation, but there are feasible ideas for compromise and
it would greatly facilitate cyber defenders' domain awareness.

When asked if the military would
conduct a pre-emptive cyber operation to forestall an incoming attack, Gen.
Alexander stated that civilian policymakers needed to develop standing rules of
engagement in case of a cyberattack on U.S. infrastructure. Because cyber
operations are measured in milliseconds, not days, a certain set of actions
needs to be pre-authorized. This makes sense if we're talking about defensive
measures to prevent further damage or intelligence gathering to aid in
attribution (always a thorny problem in cyberspace and requiring the ability to
react quickly). Beyond a certain point stopping well short of offensive
retaliation, said Alexander, a direct line should be opened to the secretary of
defense or the president, similar to procedures in place at NORAD. Civilian
leaders can then formulate a measured response from among the full panoply of
instruments of national power. Strategic circuit breakers and strong civilian
control are particularly important in cyberspace, where a higher tempo and the
weapons' overall novelty increase the risk of dire miscalculation.

Rebecca's War Dog of the Week: Veteran blinded by IED to take guide dog to 2016 Games in Rio

By Rebecca Frankel

Best Defense Chief
Canine Correspondent

"War Dogs" as a canine distinction is a wide-encompassing
label, extending beyond just combat-trained dogs. This is in part because the
ripple effects of war are so far reaching. In my mind -- as well as here in
this feature -- "war dogs" includes combat theater strays as well as the therapy
and service dogs who assist veterans acclimating to life after war. Which is
why the news that former Navy lieutenant and Paralympian medalist Brad Snyder would
be getting a guide dog is not only exciting, but very relevant to the war-dog
world of today.

Snyder, now 29, lost both his eyes in an IED explosion
during his deployment to Afghanistan in 2011. NBC reports
that Snyder was attempting to help "two Afghan soldiers wounded
in an initial IED blast" when he "tripped a second hidden bomb in a farm-field
irrigation ditch. His eyes were irreparably damaged by the detonation and later
were removed by a surgeon."

Despite such an altering injury, within a year's time Snyder
would win
two gold and one silver medals at the London Paralympic Games in 2012, where he
also broke the world record for the 100-meter free. The story of his
courageous and lightning-quick recovery became an inspirational narrative
during the games. (Just watch this interview -- Snyder's
resilience and eloquence is remarkable.)

Snyder will be competing again in 2016 and his plan is to
take his new canine partner with him to Rio for the games. "Having
a dog will allow me to walk to and from swim practice, get to and from the gym,
and also be able to travel to swim meets across the country," Snyder told
reporters.

Snyder was in Bloomfield, CT yesterday, meeting with
staffers of Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation and their dogs. Part of the
reason for the gathering was so Snyder could meet a handful of trained dogs for
service-dog matchmaking. (In Fox's news coverage seen here,
Snyder was cozying up to two dogs: Gizzy and Houston. Houston has a stronger,
more determined demeanor, while Snyder said he noticed Gizzy was more
"delicate.") As the Fidelco CEO Eliot Russman explains, the process is
extensive. "We look at pace of the client, living situation, temperament
of the dog, and a number of factors to create the best possible partnership..." There's
even a "three-week training process in the client's home."

Dogs actually have a long history of assisting wounded
veterans, especially men blinded during battle. During WWI and in its
aftermath, France would often assign its own military dogs (who, for whatever
reason, were no longer able to serve on the front lines) to soldiers blinded by
gas. These dogs were trained to bring these men to their favored destinations
after they'd returned home from the front. When hospitals were being inundated
with wounded soldiers, Dr. Gerhard Stalling of Germany,
after watching his own dog show
"signs, from the way the dog was behaving, that it was looking
after the blind patient," opened the first-ever guide dog school in
1916.   

The first-ever officially trained "seeing-eye dog" didn't
come to the United States until 1928. Buddy was a German Shepherd trained in Vevey,
Switzerland and brought over by a young man named Morris Frank. The pair was
met with great skepticism; upon their arrival in New York, crowds gathered to
watch the spectacle of a blind man being led by a dog -- one reporter actually
taunted Morris as he and Buddy took their first steps into Manhattan's busy
streets. It was because of Buddy that Morris, though not a veteran himself,
would later become instrumental in ensuring that soldiers returning from WWII in
need of guide dogs would have them.   

Whichever candidate he chooses -- whether it's Gizzy or Houston
-- Brad Snyder is looking forward to the changes a guide dog will bring to his
life and to share his experience with other veterans who may be in a similar position.
"As the country downsizes our military efforts overseas,
we're dynamically changing, and I want to help smooth the transition of those
who are hanging up their uniforms," he said.
Anytime we can show a successful transition, like the one I'm making, that's
encouraging."

Rebecca Frankel is away from her
FP desk, working on a book about
dogs and war.