President Donald Trump is giving priority attention to shaking up intelligence agencies. New Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic member of Congress and military veteran, is rightly known for unconventional views.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe, a former Republican congressman from Texas, is a critic of the intelligence establishment. FBI Director Kash Patel is a Trump loyalist with no previous bureau experience.
A shakeup is called for. Intelligence work demands discretion, but in recent years public relations has been the order of the day.
After the 2016 elections, the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA (National Security Agency) and the director of national intelligence publicly highlighted how Russia meddled in the 2016 elections, including hacking Hillary Clinton campaign emails.
With great fanfare, they met with President-elect Trump to present evidence behind the conclusions. With equal hype, they testified before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.
There is no doubt that Russian hackers and human agents meddled in the 2016 and 2020 elections. How much this affected the results is extremely uncertain. The fact that they interfered is undeniable. President Barack Obama revealed these developments in October of 2016, just before voting occurred.
Why did the intel officials go public with lights, cameras and melodrama? Because they wanted to protect themselves in the contemporary political warfare of Washington. Politicians want to score points with voters, and Russia does threaten security, but protecting our nation involves secrecy. These bureaucrats were shielding themselves.
The national media focus on intelligence insecurities continued, sometimes. Controversy and associated political consternation swirled for a time around President Trump’s removal of the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, who had become a harsh public critic of his administration. Again, in earlier periods, protecting national security dictated maintaining a disciplined silence, a durable truth worth remembering.
Traditionally, intelligence work has involved balancing electronic and human surveillance. Today our government deemphasizes human agents. In World War II and the Cold War, that dimension was vital.
It still is, as our British partners well understand. Ongoing emphasis on public relations by officials is the other side of reliance on relatively automated electronic tools.
Congressman Darrell Issa, R-California, a successful tech entrepreneur, has been insightful in analyzing intelligence agencies. In 2016, he publicly opposed FBI legal efforts to try and force Apple to decrypt the iPhone.
Issa and Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of both the CIA and the NSA, argued Apple should not be required to comply. Government professionals should handle such hard tasks, as eventually they did – with outside help.
In November of 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower spoke at the cornerstone ceremony of the new CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. He emphasized that in this field, “Success cannot be advertised; failure cannot be explained. In the work of intelligence, heroes are undecorated and unsung, often even among their own fraternity.”
In that era, there was automatic — not to be confused with automated — understanding of this. In evaluating public office candidates, consider the degree to which they express maturity and selflessness — rather than political expediency — in addressing national security. That includes presidential candidates.
When you find such candidates, who are serious about defense and national security, support them as fully as possible. Look for signs of selflessness, along with disciplined attention to policy. Political and related government experience is desirable, as long as that is combined with other qualities.
Serving our nation is an honor.
Arthur I. Cyr is the author of “After the Cold War – American Foreign Policy, Europe and Asia.” (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan).
Contact acyr@carthage.edu