Intel & politics

Trump and CIA, you need each other

Every four to eight years, the CIA engages in a dance of seduction as it greets a new President-elect. The agency uses the transition, that interregnum between the election and the inauguration, to get to know the new President and discern from all sources what are the best ways to serve the President's needs. The CIA is always eager to put its best foot forward by showing its willingness to support the new President and his team, convince the new chief executive that it is worth the money in terms of manpower and budget, and look for ways to ingratiate itself with the new national security crowd.

However, this year things seem different. Rather than extensive courting, the transition to a Trump presidency seems to have all the charm of a hostile takeover.

Intel & politics

Presidential Elections: A Perilous Time for U.S. Intelligence (Lawfare Research Paper Series)

Intelligence issues have intersected with presidential politics several times in U.S. history. Each instance was unique, and the effects have been mixed. Candidates have sometimes made claims based on intelligence to enhance their standing, or to attack their rivals. In other cases, unforeseen events forced candidates to express and defend a position on U.S. intelligence. There are also remarkable examples where politicians voluntarily surrendered a potential electoral advantage to preserve an important defense secret. Whether an intelligence topic is inserted into a presidential campaign on purpose or as a result of external events, there are considerable risks to both the intelligence and the political processes. 

Intel & politics

Is It OK for Spies to Elect a President?

It’s a tenet of the intelligence business that spies are supposed to avoid the political fray, declaring allegiance to no party or candidate, and speaking the unvarnished truth to whomever is in power.

Donald Trump has turned that tradition on its head. Compelled by a candidate whom they say poses a unique threat to U.S. foreign policy and security, dozens of current and former intelligence professionals have in the past few months lept into the political arena in an unprecedented, coordinated effort to keep a presidential nominee from being elected.

This is new territory for American spies, who, when they do criticize politicians, tend to do it retrospectively in score-settling memoirs or op-eds, and not in the heat of a presidential campaign. But just as the 2016 election has departed from tradition in so many ways, intel professionals are now feeling unleashed to try to block Trump and help his opponent get elected.

Intel & politics

Intelligence File: Military need or political necessity?

Officially, the security cabinet, which usually comprises up to seven or eight ministers, is the most important body of the government. The cabinet is legally authorized by the entire government to discuss and confirm the most sensitive issues of war and peace, special intelligence operations and secret diplomatic missions. It is supposed to be an intimate forum, where its ministers can conduct an open and free debate and reach the right decision. But in reality the cabinet has turned into a kind of debating club and has been bypassed by a smaller group that makes the real decisions.

This privileged group has no legal or official standing but, for all intents and purposes, calls the shots. This is the trio of the prime minister, the defense minister and the chief of staff. Sometimes the chiefs of the Mossad and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), the head of Military Intelligence and the commander of the air force are invited to take part in the consultations.

Intel & politics

Intel Analysts: We Were Forced Out for Telling the Truth About Obama’s ISIS War

Two senior intelligence analysts at U.S. Central Command say the military has forced them out of their jobs because of their skeptical reporting on U.S.-backed rebel groups in Syria, three sources with knowledge of their claim told The Daily Beast. It’s the first known instance of possible reprisals against CENTCOM personnel after analysts accused their bosses of manipulating intelligence reports about the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS in order to paint a rosier picture of progress in the war.

One of the analysts alleging reprisals is the top analyst in charge of Syria issues at CENTCOM. He and a colleague doubted rebels’ capabilities and their commitment to U.S. objectives in the region. The analysts have been effectively sidelined from their positions and will no longer be working at CENTCOM, according to two individuals familiar with the dispute, and who spoke on condition of anonymity.