2:04 PM 1/4/2018 – Was the 2016 Election an Intelligence Failure?

Spread the Knowledge
  • 1
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    1
    Share

Mike Nova’s Shared NewsLinks

Mike Nova’s Shared NewsLinks
Was the 2016 Election an Intelligence Failure? – War on the Rocks
Michael Wolff tells a juicy tale in his new Trump book. But should we believe it?
Michael Wolff’s book ‘Fire and Fury’ leaves breadcrumbs for Mueller to investigate
Michael Wolffs Trump book: The latest in a career of controversy
The Fallout From Michael Wolffs Trump Book: DealBook Briefing
Trump lawyer demands retraction of Michael Wolff ‘Fire and Fury’ book
michael wolff trump – Google Search
The Early Edition: January 4, 2018
Michael Wolffs Fire and Fury: Inside Trumps White House
Intel responds to the CPU kernel bug, downplaying its impact on home users – PCWorld
VOA Interview: Security Adviser McMaster Discusses Iran, Pakistan
“Mopping up of high-ranking servicemen 2017
Ex-aide Bannon has lost his mind – Trump
pakistan shanghai cooperation organization – Google Search
Pakistan – Google Search
US Iran Pakistan – Google Search
US Iran – Google Search
Iran – Google Search
Transatlantic Relationship – Google Search
Trans-Atlantic Relationship – Google Search
In Era of Trump, Germany Seeks a Stronger Role Abroad
US Germany Russia nytimes – Google Search
US Germany Russia – Google Search
U.S. Will Never Be the Same After Trump, Germany Says

 

Mike Nova’s Shared NewsLinks
Was the 2016 Election an Intelligence Failure?

mikenova shared this story from War on the Rocks.

Editor’s Note: This is the sixth installment of “The Brush Pass,” a column by Joshua Rovner (@joshrovner1) on intelligence, strategy, and statecraft.

Russia tried to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election. Its method was simple: steal emails from prominent Democrats and leak them to the public. According to multiple government and private sector reports, Russian intelligence organizations deceived email users into undermining their own communications security. It then used cutouts like Wikileaks and DCLeaks to reveal their communications. Russia also engaged in a massive disinformation campaign to sow confusion and doubt among the public. Spreading “fake news” supported Trump’s claims that the electoral system was rigged, that mainstream media outlets were untrustworthy, and that existing institutions were designed to favor elites at the expense of the people. All of this created an environment of distrust and disillusionment.

This was not the first time that Moscow employed so-called active measures to interfere with U.S. politics, but Cold War efforts were laughable flops. This case was different. The rise of social media created new opportunities to spread misinformation rapidly, and the razor thin electoral margin in key states meant that even minor shifts in public opinion could change the outcome.

Some observers claim Russian success was also an American intelligence failure. Writing in The New Yorker, Dana Priest charges the intelligence community with failing to predict the Russian disinformation campaign, and then failing to warn the public and Congress when it occurred. “Only after the fact,” she concludes, “when a Russian disinformation campaign had already tainted the 2016 Presidential election, did the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, another vast post-9/11 creation, disclose the Kremlin’s interference.”

Others have made similar arguments, including longtime intelligence officials. Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morrell suggested that the election was a multi-layered failure. Part of the problem, said Morrell, was a “lack of imagination.” While analysts had been worried about Russian cyber operations for years, they had failed to imagine how Moscow could use social media platforms as political tools.

The failure to anticipate Russian actions is a particularly serious charge, given that the intelligence community had made anticipatory intelligence one of the key tenets of its reform effort. According to the 2014 National Intelligence Strategy, the goal of anticipatory intelligence is to “detect, identify, and warn of emerging issues and discontinuities.” The concept is more flexible than traditional strategic warning against states and non-state groups. Instead, it encourages creative approaches to predicting new kinds of threats and opportunities, especially including novel quantitative methods. In addition, it focuses on “trends, events, and changing conditions” instead of specific adversaries. The strategy describes anticipatory intelligence as one of the community’s “foundational intelligence missions,” and the Intelligence Advanced Research and Projects Activity is currently sponsoring a variety of research effortsto develop new technologies, methodologies, and approaches to measuring accuracy.

Organizational changes have complimented this new approach to warning. In 2011 Director of National Intelligence James Clapper eliminated the position of national intelligence officer for warning, perhaps trying make good on the old adage that every analyst should also be a warning analyst. The idea was that subject matter experts with deep knowledge of specific regions or issues would be best suited to spot indicators of change. Better to get them in the habit of providing warning, rather than leaving the task to an office of generalists.

The community’s effort to grapple with Russian election meddling is arguably the first real test of America’s new approach to anticipatory intelligence. While we do not have access to classified assessments, what we know suggests it missed the mark. Intelligence officials frequently warned of Russian activities, noting that it was beefing up its ability to use cyberspace for espionage, military operations, and possibly sabotage. But they largely missed the key ways in which Russia interfered in the election. While anticipatory intelligence is meant to flag discontinuities, assessments of Russian activity took an evolutionary approach.

The unclassified annual threat briefings given by the director of national intelligence to Congress are instructive. In 2014, Clapper mentioned Russia’s efforts to integrate cyber-operations with conventional military operations and warned that it would continue to exploit cyberspace for espionage. In 2015, he mentioned how Russia was using the Internet for propaganda purposes, but focused more attention on the threat of cyber-attacks against industrial control systems.

The picture became a bit clearer in the January 2016 briefing. Clapper used familiar language about Russian propaganda but also included an important warning: “Russian cyber actors, who post disinformation on commercial websites, might seek to alter online media as a means to influence public discourse and create confusion.” This was a fair summary, though it wasn’t very precise. The tone of the briefing, especially when compared to previous years’ assessments, suggested that the community was more concerned about Western solidarity than with the effects of fake news on U.S. politics. And the briefing was silent about doxxing – the practice of stealing individuals’ private information and posting it online.

At a glance this looks like a clear a failure of anticipatory intelligence, though it will be many years before we have a full picture of what analysts actually concluded in the years before the election. Their classified reports may have been more prescient. We should also be cautious about accepting claims that the election was failure of imagination. The 9/11 Commission used the same phrase to describe intelligence before al-Qaeda’s attack, but it was wrong. Calling for more imagination is dubious advice in any case, because we are capable of imagining just about anything.

In this case, however, the critics may be right. It is certainly possible that the community failed to anticipate the scope and importance of Russia’s activities, despite all the investment in anticipatory intelligence. There are several reasons why assessments may have gone wrong. First, while analysts were aware of past Russian efforts to meddle in U.S. elections, those efforts never amounted to much. There were clearly other reasons to worry about Russian cyber-operations, as the annual threat briefings attest, but this wasn’t high on the list. Second, analysts may have been befuddled by the bizarre confluence of events in the campaign season. Russian influence operations may have been important, but only because they occurred during the strangest election in modern U.S. history. Third, the intelligence community may have missed the mark because anticipatory intelligence is still an immature concept. Despite its prominent placement in the National Intelligence Strategy, the community had only recently begun funding efforts to put the concept into practice.

Finally, intelligence leaders may have been too eager to make every analyst a warning analyst. While this idea wasn’t new, warning intelligence had previously been treated as a distinct discipline requiring its own training regimen. Asking line analysts who specialize in other areas to add this to their portfolio is a recipe for disaster, especially given that the community was simultaneously redefining what it meant by warning. And according to a recent survey, there was no complimentary effort to increase the amount and quality of warning education. In short, analysts were being asked to perform a separate and still ambiguous mission on top of their existing duties and without sufficient preparation.

What about the claim that intelligence officials should have gone public sooner? The intelligence community, after all, was reportedly tracking Russian activities by at least spring 2016. The FBI privately confirmed to reporters that Russia was behind the DNC hack shortly thereafter, and over the summer of 2016 the CIA reported that Vladimir Putin was personally involved. Shouldn’t they have done more to protect the integrity of the election by sounding the alarm about Russian-sponsored doxing and fake news?

This criticism is less convincing. Intelligence agencies are responsible to the president, not the public. The decision to release intelligence is not theirs to make. It’s harder to judge Priest’s claim that intelligence officials kept congressional intelligence committees in the dark, as she provides no evidence that this occurred. Instead she cites a State Department official who was unimpressed with the level of detail in intelligence reporting, and infers that members of Congress were similarly uninformed.

In any case, while the community may have failed to anticipate the nature or consequences of Russian meddling, it deserves credit for attributing Russian actions, giving the Obama administration months to respond. Whether it chose the right response is another question.

Injecting intelligence into domestic controversies is inherently dangerous because it invites politicization. If the public expects intelligence agencies to weigh in, policymakers will be tempted to pressure them to reach certain conclusions. This has terrible consequences for the quality of intelligence and for intelligence-policy relations. Over time a certain cynicism is likely to emerge. Critics will accuse agencies of partisanship and the community as a whole will lose any vestiges of independence and objectivity; witness the claims that intelligence professionals are card-carrying members of the “deep state.” Intelligence agencies have struggled for decades to maintain political neutrality while still remaining responsive to political leaders. Asking them to join the fray will make that much more difficult. As U.S. officials work to prevent foreign states from influencing future elections, they should keep this danger in mind.

Joshua Rovner is Associate Professor in the School of International Service at American University. He is the author of Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence (Cornell, 2011), and writes widely about intelligence and strategy.  

Image: FBI.gov

Was the 2016 Election an Intelligence Failure? – War on the Rocks

mikenova shared this story from Russian propaganda on social media – Google News.


War on the Rocks
Was the 2016 Election an Intelligence Failure?
War on the Rocks
Others have made similar arguments, including longtime intelligence officials. Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morrell suggested that the election was a multi-layered failure. Part of the problem, said Morrell, was a lack of imagination. While 

Michael Wolff tells a juicy tale in his new Trump book. But should we believe it?

mikenova shared this story .

Michael Wolff’s book ‘Fire and Fury’ leaves breadcrumbs for Mueller to investigate

mikenova shared this story .

Michael Wolffs Trump book: The latest in a career of controversy

mikenova shared this story .

The Fallout From Michael Wolffs Trump Book: DealBook Briefing

mikenova shared this story .

The political flyaround

• Paul Manafort sued Robert Mueller to limit the scope of the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in last year’s presidential election. DealBook’s White Collar Crime Prof doesn’t rate his chances. (NYT)

• Will 2018 be the year that Mr. Trump follows through on his hard-line trade stance and starts imposing tariffs? (NYT)

• Gov. Andrew Cuomo said that New York State would challenge the new tax plan in court, and asked the state legislature to add a statewide payroll tax. (NYT)

• Mr. Trump shut down a White House commission on voter fraud. (CNN)

• The administration must decide on two policy choices this year that could batter the American solar industry. (WaPo)

• Would Twitter ever suspend Mr. Trump’s account? (NYT)

DOW 25,000.

The Dow Jones industrial average broke past 25,000 points for the first time.

Yes, 1,000 point moves aren’t what they used to be, but the pace of the rally is still notable. If the blue-chip index closes above 25,000, it will have taken the Dow just 23 trading sessions to go from 24,000 to 25,000. That would be the fastest move from one millennial marker to the next on record, writes the WSJ’s Amrith Ramkumar.

“Of course, each 1,000-point milestone gets easier as the index marches higher. The climb from 24000 to 25000 was a 4.2% gain, compared to a 7.1% climb when the Dow hit 15000 in 2013.”

A strong rally in technology shares has powered stocks in the new year. The Nasdaq Composite surpassed 7,000 on Tuesday, and both it and the Standard & Poor’s 500 index are at record highs. In fact, this might be the best start to a year for the S.&P. 500, writes Instinet’s Frank Cappelleri.

“The SPX has logged consecutive gains of least 50 basis points while notching 52-week new highs. That may not sound too outlandish, but according to SentimenTrader, this combination has never happened before. Thus, it equates to the BEST start ever…”


Spread the Knowledge
  • 1
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    1
    Share
  •  
    10
    Shares
  • 10
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •