Monthly Archives: November 2021

When The Washington Post reported this week that CIA Director William Burns slipped into Afghanistan on Monday to meet with Taliban leader Abdul Ghani Baradar, it was described as the highest-level face-to-face encounter between the Taliban and the Biden Administration.  WaPo cited anonymous sources for the information and the CIA offered no immediate comment on the reporting.  If the reporting is accurate, it doesn’t answer any immediate questions about why the President would dispatch the CIA director for such a meeting.

What we do know, is that the unexpected advances of the Taliban that have dominated the headlines over the past week and a half were initially blamed on an intelligence failure by many.  Early on, Cipher Brief Expert and former Acting Director of CIA John McLaughlin tweeted that “The ‘intelligence failure’ drumbeat is starting. People should be careful about the charge if they have not actually seen/read the intelligence…”

So, what intelligence did the US have that would have led to a different outcome in Kabul and throughout the country?

• The New York Times reported last week that “classified assessments by American spy agencies over the summer painted an increasingly grim picture of the prospect of a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and warned of the rapid collapse of the Afghan military, even as President Biden and his advisers said publicly that was unlikely to happen as quickly.” The paper cited current and former US government officials, saying, “By July, many intelligence reports grew pessimistic, questioning whether Afghan security forces would muster serious resistance and whether the government could hold on in Kabul, the capital.”
• On August 15, The Wall Street Journal reported that administration officials said they knew that a “total capitulation of the Taliban was a possibility, and they planned their withdrawal efforts accordingly.” But they also cited an administration official, saying “it wasn’t so much a failure in intelligence in which the administration based its decision, but rather, a change in circumstances brought about by the swift U.S. withdrawal.”

But private sector analysts were watching as well. Here’s an inside look at what The Cipher Brief has been publishing since January with key outtakes from Cipher Brief Expert Tim Willasey-Wilsey:

Brief: January 25, 2021

“The Afghans themselves are also monitoring the Washington newsfeeds in forensic detail and will be encouraged by Sullivan’s statement. Recently, all too many conversations in Kabul have been about when to leave and which route to take. Some wealthier Afghans already have their money in Dubai and children in foreign universities. Some even have passports and property in the United States, UK or Germany. For those who are less fortunate, the discussions are about which route to take out. The Uzbekistan border is favoured because a visa costs just $30 and there is a variety of onward routes via Turkey or Russia to the West whereas the routes via Iran or Pakistan are more restrictive or liable to interference.”

Brief: March 11, 2021

“Saleh will advise Ghani not to take Taliban or Pakistani promises on trust. Instead, Ghani may decide to call Washington’s bluff. He may doubt that Washington is really willing to abandon Afghanistan on 1^st May with the risk of a rapid Taliban victory jeopardising all the hard-won advances in areas such as women’s rights and counterterrorism over the past 20 years. The spectre of Al Qaida re-establishing camps in Afghanistan would surely be too much for Biden and Blinken.”

“Even if there were no helicopters from the US Embassy roof, the TV pictures of the Taliban entering Kabul, and of Afghan refugees fleeing their advance could evoke memories of Saigon in 1975. The reimposition of Taliban curbs on women would provoke international opprobrium. And subsequent reports of AQ training camps being re-established in Afghanistan would bring back recent and painful memories. After all the blood and treasure expended in Afghanistan that would be a disastrous outcome.”

Brief: April 19, 2021

“The Afghan government may be able to hold on to power for a few years as the Najibullah administration survived after the Soviet departure. However, there is a danger that there will be a sudden dam-burst in confidence with senior officials and politicians leaving en masse and hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing westwards through Iran, Pakistan and the Central Asian Republics. As the Taliban re-enter Kabul, we could see disturbing scenes of retribution and, in time, the return of Al Qa’ida figures from their hiding-places in the tribal borderlands in Pakistan. Only then will people re-examine this decision and recognise that the Afghan deployments since 2014 have not been that onerous.”

---

The Cipher Brief hosts private briefings with the world’s most experienced national and global security experts.  Become a member today.

---

Brief: June 1, 2021

“According to my sources, the Taliban are convinced they can take Kabul “within days” of the NATO withdrawal and they believe the Afghan army is “in a shambles and demoralised”. Although the Taliban will not disrupt departing US troops (unless attacked) they are not willing to wait until September to continue their campaign against Kabul government forces.”

“But we should not take much comfort from the Najibullah example. The comparisons with today’s Afghanistan are misleading. Najibullah’s government was able to reach and supply all the major towns by military convoy. The Afghan army was deployed to protect towns and road communications. By contrast, in 2021, only the route between Kabul and Jalalabad is reasonably safe. Convoys cannot get through from Kabul to Kandahar, Kandahar to Herat, or Kabul to Mazar-e-Sharif. The Afghan army is spread across the country in piecemeal district centres (often surrounded by Taliban-controlled countryside) and have to be resupplied by air. This is not a sustainable model.”

“Furthermore, a number of today’s Afghan leaders, officials and military officers have received offers to relocate to the United States, Germany and elsewhere. As the security situation continues to deteriorate, the gradual trickle of departures is likely to gather pace. In such circumstances, the government could implode quite suddenly.”

“To some, this may evoke images of the 1975 fall of Saigon with the big losers being the Afghans who remain, particularly the women, who face a future of uncertainty and anxiety. There could also be a migration crisis reminiscent of Syria in the last decade.”

Brief: June 28, 2021

“One key indicator is that Afghan security forces have begun to surrender to the Taliban. The procedure is quick and simple. Tribal elders are used to deliver a stark message to Afghan troops often holding positions in district centres. The message is often; “The non-believers are leaving Afghanistan. They are defeated. Your leaders are corrupt. You can surrender now, and we will protect you; or you can fight, and we will kill you.” Recently, the Taliban appear to have honoured their promise not to punish Afghan soldiers who surrender. News of this new-found leniency is likely to encourage other units to follow suit and lay down their arms. In several provinces, including in the north, the Taliban are tightening their grip on those cities which are still held by the government. The Taliban will soon be in a position to cut off food supplies and demand their surrender, possibly offering a similarly lenient dispensation to the population. Now that the Taliban possesses captured armoured vehicles and artillery, their ability to exert pressure on the cities is enhanced. In Kabul, a sense of panic has begun to grip the capital. There are desperate attempts to sell family homes but there are no buyers even when houses are on the market at one tenth of their previous value. Some families have departed to Tajikistan, conscious that several of the land border crossing-points with the Central Asian Republics have been captured by Taliban forces in recent weeks.”

Read also Putin’s Calculated Afghanistan Play from Cipher Brief Expert Robert Dannenberg

---

The Cipher Brief hosts private briefings with the world’s most experienced national and global security experts.  Become a member today. 

---

Read more expert-driven national security insight, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief

 

The post What Intelligence was there on Afghanistan? appeared first on The Cipher Brief.

find more fun & mates at SoShow now !

Colder weather is settling in around much of the globe and after a year and a half of managing a global pandemic, energy markets are more complicated than ever.  The U.S. petroleum inventory is at its lowest level since 2015, the UK is experiencing a severe energy crisis, Russia continues to push Germany on the Nordstream II pipeline and winter has already come to China, which has experienced weeks of rolling blackouts. What does all of this mean as both state and non-state cyber actors continue to take aim at energy infrastructure?

The Cipher Brief spoke with energy expert Norm Roule, a top adviser on energy issues, to get a sense of where we’re headed.

Norman T. Roule served for 34-years in the Central Intelligence Agency, managing numerous programs relating to Iran and the Middle East.  He served as the National Intelligence Manager for Iran (NIM-I) at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from November 2008 until September 2017.  As NIM-I, he was the principal Intelligence Community (IC) official responsible for overseeing all aspects of national intelligence policy and activities related to Iran, to include IC engagement on Iran issues with senior policy makers in the National Security Council and the Department of State.

The Cipher Brief: Give us a brief snapshot of the global energy market today and what you think we will see in the coming months.

Roule: The energy market is working through what will hopefully be the final phase of a perfect storm of market distortions ignited by the pandemic and influenced by shifts in capital markets and climate change initiatives. I say the final phase because most countries are returning to growth and pre-pandemic energy consumption. Most of the drivers of this final phase will likely push prices upward in the near term. A few involve long-known issues that are now coming into play. A few remain unpredictable. Ancillary industries that rely on oil, gas, or distillates as significant feedstocks will either raise prices or shift production to areas with less exposure to hydrocarbons. In short, in the coming weeks, consumers should expend to not only pay more at the gas pump but at the supermarket and mall.  We are likely to see relief in the Spring as the pandemic and supply chain distortions wane, seasonal demands on oil and gas pass, and energy producers ramp up operations to exploit high prices. China’s economy also shows signs of slowing, and financial packages meant to jump-start global economies will run their course.

The Cipher Brief: Energy markets seem more complicated than ever. What are the primary variables at play?

Roule: Global oil consumption is now back to 100 million barrels per day, a statistic last seen when the pandemic hit. Production is up, but the most crucial trend in recent months has been the deep draw on the glut of oil stocks during the pandemic. Producers – especially OPEC – have constrained production to reflect their cautious approach to market stability and their desire to reduce the stockpiles accumulated during the pandemic. As a result, stocks are now lower than before the pandemic. If you exclude the strategic petroleum reserve, the U.S. petroleum inventory is at a level not seen since 2014-2015. Stockpiles at Cushing are at a similar level. U.S. gasoline stocks are around five million barrels below pre-pandemic seasonal averages.

U.S. producers have consolidated, and the industry prioritizes return on equity over expansion, particularly in a political environment that is increasingly hostile to hydrocarbon production. As a result, U.S. oil production is still about 1.7 million barrels a day below pre-pandemic levels. Add to this the push to reduce carbon emissions, gas supply cuts, and some supply chain distortions, and you get a surge in gas prices and a need for oil (and coal) to replace gas in electricity production, as we see in China.

The Cipher Brief: The administration seems to be blaming OPEC plus for high oil prices. What’s happening within the cartel?  How does the cartel see the current energy market?

Roule: OPEC’s role in oil markets remains deeply significant. The cartel produces 40 percent of the world’s oil, but 60 percent of the world’s total traded exports. That inevitably gives it an important voice. It is also clear that OPEC+ leaders remain confident in their strategy to maintain market stability and benefit from prices that are not so high that they ignite demand destruction. OPEC discipline during this turbulent period has been quite good, especially given that it is far from a monolith of views and capabilities. For example, the UAE would likely support additional production. Moscow makes positive noises about its willingness to increase production, but it follows Riyadh’s lead for the revenue and political advantage it derives from the current market.  

Riyadh remains the architect of OPEC’s approach. Kuwait and Baghdad seem comfortable with this strategy. Production restraint is made easier because about half of OPEC’s members reportedly are unable to meet production quotas due to technical problems, mismanagement, or a lack of capital investment. This list includes Angola, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Libya, and Venezuela.  

OPEC decision-making likely rests on a handful of variables, some predictable, others not. The cartel has done well in its assessments of global recovery and pandemic impact. But questions remain on aviation recovery. Likewise, even their best analysts have a tough time predicting the impact of speculators, weather trends, and the future of sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi will do what they can to avoid the financial and political consequences of inflation and any energy-instigated recession.

The strains in US-Saudi relations appear to have undermined Riyadh’s sympathy for Washington’s challenges. The Saudis are tired of being a political target within the U.S. They also seem to believe that while the U.S. touts itself as being interested in only renewable energy sources, it has no problem criticizing the Kingdom when high gas prices become a political issue. Last, we should recall that it was only in May 2020 that a group of Republican Senators publicly called on Saudi Arabia, demanding that it stabilize the energy market. From Riyadh’s perspective, it has done precisely that.

The Cipher Brief: Are the Gulf oil producers serious about renewable energy? 

Roule: Absolutely. Regional leaders certainly understand the consequences of climate change for their people. In recent years, the region has experienced some of the highest temperatures on record, causing concern that, if unchecked, the trend could make portions of the Middle East unlivable.

But their approach is different from ours and as we all know, Gulf economies rely heavily on revenues from hydrocarbons. To varying degrees, all the Gulf states are trying to diversify their economies. But they also want to avoid a situation in which they are stuck with stranded strategic assets. In the West, our climate narrative tends to focus on ending the use of hydrocarbons. As with Norway, Gulf producers claim that they will use the resources from their oil revenues to fund the transition to a new energy economy.

---

Join The Cipher Brief for Members Only expert conversations on issues related to economic and global security.  Become a member for just $10 a month and then join us for a Members Only Brief with Norm Roule on Thursday, November 18 at 1:30p.  Members receive invitations via email.

---

Their focus tends to be a balance between a reduction of emissions and reduction of hydrocarbon use. Recent weeks have seen multiple significant events in the Gulf in which they tried to highlight their decision to expend resources and political bandwidth on green technologies, hydrogen production, and carbon capture solutions. We will also see increasing efforts to plant trees and to rely on natural gas instead of oil for power generation. They also claim they will try to end gas flaring and reduce methane emissions. I don’t think these efforts will satisfy Western environmental activists who demand an end to oil use, but the trend is undeniable.

The Cipher Brief: What is happening with U.S. oil and gas producers?  How are they responding to changing conditions?

Roule: Much has changed in the last two years. First, the sector underwent significant consolidation. The larger publicly-held companies must satisfy investors and financial institutions with a steady return on equity over the growth. Washington has cooled on its support for the industry. The decision to kill the Keystone Pipeline and limit drilling on federal property has contributed to industry reluctance on expansion. Last, some investors are pushing for companies to devote more attention to renewable energy sources.  During the pandemic, this reduced capital investment to about half of average expenditure, thus producing our current limited production capacity. U.S. rig count has significantly improved over the past year, but not on a scale that would return U.S. production to pre-pandemic levels. In the near term, smaller privately-held firms are likely to spend the resources to expand production with public firms following once they get a sense of what 2022 will bring.

The results speak for themselves. At the beginning of the pandemic, the U.S. produced around 12.8 million barrels of oil per day (BPD). By May 2020, production declined to 9.7 million BPD, and with recovery is now approximately 11.3 million BPD.  We are once again a net importer, bringing in about 1.3 million BPD in October.

We have seen a broader recovery in gas production, particularly in Texas. But a lack of production, low stockpiles, and unprecedented demand from abroad means consumers will face high bills if winter is severe or the risk of short supplies. Beyond heating, gas-fired power plants produce more than 50% of New England’s electricity, for example, so that any price spike will play out elsewhere in the economy.

The Cipher Brief: Is there a policy response to this situation?

Roule: I think policymakers globally are praying for a mild winter. But beyond this, policy options are few in the near term. A release from the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) is conceivable. Still, we should remember the SPR was established for national emergencies and not a piggy bank to manage gas prices in an election year. Domestic producers will take a while to ramp up production, but policymakers will find this tough to seek in the current political environment. The administration could ban oil and gas exports or allow Congress to pass legislation enabling the federal government to sue OPEC for its cartel activities. Either step would invite predictable and unwelcome diplomatic consequences. 

Although the American public demands cheap energy, it isn’t enthusiastic about supporting the infrastructure needed to achieve this, even if the power is produced elsewhere.  Let me cite a couple of recent examples:

• Maine voters just rejected the construction of a billion-dollar electric line that would have delivered Canadian hydro-power electricity to New England.

• The administration is wrestling with a decision as to whether it should shut a pipeline that carries crude oil from Canada to refineries across Wisconsin, Michigan, and the Great Lakes region. 

If the administration hopes to convince OPEC members to increase production, it will improve relations with Gulf Arabs. It might be possible to convince Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE to lift production to cover the exports of OPEC members unable to meet their production quotas. In an extreme situation, the administration might consider a temporary oil export waiver to Iran as a sign of goodwill. I think the political blowback on the latter rules it out, but the possibility is there. 

The Cipher Brief: The United Kingdom seems to be working its way through a severe energy crisis. How did this happen, and what are its policymakers doing in response?

Roule: The United Kingdom’s energy challenge is significant. As with other countries, it faces consequences of production limitation and the need to turn to more climate-friendly energy sources.

A few basics.  Gas produces about 40% of the country’s electricity and heats many of its homes. Once London could rely on the North Sea for its gas; it now imports about half of its gas requirements.  Norway is its primary gas source, but it also depends on gas producers in the U.S., Russia, Qatar, Belgium, and the Netherlands. To add to its woes, the U.K.’s storage capacity would survive only a short period of peak consumption. In 2017, London closed a massive Rough, which accounted for 70% of the country’s entire gas storage system. At the time, London believed it could rely on the global LNG market for reliable and cheap gas. Unfortunately, most LNG tankers head to Asia, a trend that can only increase as power-hungry Asian countries wean themselves from coal and oil.

The exploitation of new energy sources in the U.K. is no less contentious than in the U.S. A good illustration of this would be the tussle over the development of the Cambo oil and gas field in the waters near Scotland. Opposed by environmentalists who cite the inevitable carbon emissions the project and its oil would produce, the project offers to ease London’s energy woes and provide around a thousand jobs. The Johnson government has yet to indicate whether it will approve the project.

London’s options are few and leaving the country reliant on market conditions means risking shortages. For this reason, it has reportedly asked Qatar to agree to become the “supplier of last resort” in case global suppliers are unavailable. 

---

Go beyond the headlines with expert perspectives on today’s news with The Cipher Brief’s Daily Open-Source Podcast.  Listen here or wherever you listen to podcasts.

---

The Cipher Brief: What’s the Russian angle to the energy story?

Roule: Upfront, I think we should worry whether Russia will perceive the energy crisis as offering an opportunity for aggression. What if Moscow decides its gas hold over Europe allows it to invade Ukraine without penalty? Or as a means of pushing German regulators to accelerate their approval of the Nordstream II pipeline?

Moscow insists that it is meeting contractual obligations and that its exports have increased in the past year. At the same time, there are routine reports that Russia’s gas supplies to Europe have not only not met requirements, but that gas flow reversed in the Yamal-Europe pipeline. Russia also maintains eight gas storage sites in Europe to help manage supply during high-demand periods. Gas levels at these sites are currently low. Critics claim Gazprom diverted production to Russian domestic storage and that exports in October fell to the lowest level since 2014. When pressed, Moscow explains shortages saying that it must fill its winter supply stocks and expects to send Europe additional gas this week. 

But if the current energy dynamic seems to be in Russia’s interest, Moscow’s long-term prospects are dim. A global shift to renewable energy sources forces Moscow to reckon with the prospect of holding a massive oil infrastructure of little commercial value. If so, future historians may look at the recent Glasgow climate summit as a significant step in accelerating Russia’s decline, possibly a new era of aggression as it seeks to accumulate power ahead of this decline or a more competitive race for market share against OPEC members.

The Cipher Brief: What about China?

Roule: No major country has endured such energy problems in recent months as China. After weeks of rolling blackouts, China looks well on its way to solving its coal problems that partially contributed to this situation. That won’t delight environmentalists, but it should ease China’s electricity problems and ensure its citizens stay warm this winter. Winter arrived early, and Beijing is about to see its first snow of the season. China’s efforts will be put to the test in a winter that many expect to be colder than 2020.

Longer-term, China still must work through the causes of this crisis. If the global economy continues to surge demand for Chinese products, its energy requirements will grow. Weather problems cut wind production; floods shut mines. We shouldn’t be surprised if such problems continue. Inevitably, China can only meet its climate goals by shifting from coal to natural gas, raising prices for other consumers.

The Cipher Brief: Let’s shift to North Africa.  Algeria recently closed a long-established pipeline that transited Morocco to deliver gas to Spain.  Will this impact Europe’s already tight gas situation? What’s the story here? 

Roule: Over the past year, Algerian relations with Morocco have steadily deteriorated.  In addition to their traditional disagreement over the status of Western Sahara and the Polisario, Algiers criticized Morocco’s renewed ties with Israel and accused Rabat of supporting an opposition group that Algeria claims ignited forest fires. Algiers closed its airspace to Moroccan flights and accused Morocco of killing several Algerian citizens in the Sahara region.

Here’s how it touches the energy picture. On 31 October, Algiers closed an 800-mile pipeline that carried Algerian gas to Spain via Morocco and the Strait of Gibraltar.  The closure cost Morocco a portion of the gas it used from the pipeline. Morocco used this gas to produce about a tenth of its electricity. Rabat claims it can use other energy sources for this purpose. However, Spain has little gas and derives a significant portion of its electricity from that which it must import. Algiers claims it will make up the loss through a secondary pipeline, but the loss of gas will compound the energy problems of Spain and Europe in general.

The Cipher Brief: Any other issues on the horizon we should consider?

Roule: A growing number of aging refineries in the West will be closed in the coming years.  However, Asia is the new center for refinery construction. This expansion will draw even more crude to the region for processing with the inherent impact on local economies and global consumers.

The Cipher Brief: Last, let’s touch on wild cards. What are the grey swans that might impact markets in 2022?

Roule: With low stockpiles and supplies, the energy topography is ill-prepared to sudden shocks to its production or distribution architecture. Yet, it faces three threats that have grown in the last decade.

First, we have climate change issues.  Increasingly harsh weather events have shut down large portions of the production and refinery sectors in the United States and Mexico, sometimes taking weeks to restore normal production. Second, we have the universe of cyber threats.  State and non-state cyber actors routinely probe or attack every aspect of the energy industry. Last, we have new geopolitical pressures.  Tensions are rising with China as well as Iran and its proxies. Three of the world’s six most significant shipping channels are in the Middle East and a fourth in Asia.

Join us for a Members Only Brief with Norm Roule on Thursday, November 18 at 1:30p.  Cipher Brief Members receive invitations via email.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief

The post Winter is Coming: Global Energy Markets and the Impact on National Security appeared first on The Cipher Brief.

find more fun & mates at SoShow now !

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE — Winston Churchill’s 04 June 1940 speech in which he vowed that he and his countrymen would “fight on the beaches “and would “never surrender” in the face of a seemingly inevitable Nazi invasion is rightly renowned as perhaps history’s most famous address by a wartime leader.  Less well known, however, is the cautionary tone the new Prime Minister struck in that same appearance before the House of Commons, as he sought to temper the joy and relief engendered by the seemingly miraculous extraction of the British army from the beaches of Dunkirk.  “We must,” Churchill warned, “be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory.”  “Wars” he admonished, “are not won by evacuations.”

Shortly before the 2011 Abbottabad operation that killed Osama bin Laden, I was asked by my HQ, my views on mounting an assault on the target we knew as Abbottabad Compound 1, (AC1) given that we were not sure it sheltered the terrorist leader.  After expressing my 95% confidence that the Al Qaeda (AQ) leader was in fact, there, I allegorically added that we must strike as ‘you cannot leave Hitler in his bunker and end the war’.  I was fortuitously, right in my assessment that the murderer of so many innocents was present within AC1.  Sadly, however, his death did not bring our war with radical Islamic terrorism to a conclusion.  As was the case after Dunkirk, our enemy was unwilling to quit the field or to limit his unbounded war aims.

Likewise, we should have no expectation that the withdrawal of our forces from the Afghan theater of combat signals an end to the conflict with terrorists who started that war by attacking us on September 11, 2001.  We cannot unilaterally declare an end to the War on Terror by leaving Afghanistan – however much we might wish to do so – for the very simple reason that our enemies do not share that desire.  As former Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta put it, “I understand that we’re trying to get our troops out of there, but the bottom line is, we can leave a battlefield, but we can’t leave the war on terrorism, which still is a threat to our security.”

The Taliban parading of the American-made weapons and accoutrements of their defeated foes was, in a manner akin to that of ancient Rome, intended not only to celebrate victory.  It was also meant to humiliate the vanquished.   Such triumphal demonstrations – and what will be a galling celebration of the anniversary of 9/11 as their own holiday to follow – will evoke enthusiastic responses from Islamic extremists and will draw many new adherents to the cause that lies at the core of Taliban legitimacy and belief.

As was the case when we left Iraq and later had to go back into the region to crush the ISIS Caliphate that metastasized in the wake of our departure, there is every prospect that the Taliban’s success will breathe new life into Islamic extremist groups.  And there is no reason to believe that the “new” and now much more heavily armed Taliban – an organization that refused to break with AQ over the course of a brutal twenty-year battle, will be any less receptive to working with Islamic terror groups than were their pre-9/11 forebears.

---

The Cipher Brief hosts private briefings with the world’s most experienced national and global security experts.  Become a member today.

---

“We are going to have to maintain very, very intense  levels of indicators and warnings and observstion and ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance] over that entire region to monitor potential terrorist threats”, said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley in a recent interview, adding it will not be easy.

As CIA Director William Burns said during Senate testimony in April, “Our ability to keep (the) threat…in check in Afghanistan from either al Qaeda or ISIS…has benefited greatly from the presence of U.S. and coalition militaries on the ground and in the air fueled by intelligence provided by the CIA and our other intelligence partners.” With the withdrawal of the American military, Burns said, “the U.S. government’s ability to collect and act on threats will diminish.”

Much discussed ‘over the horizon’ intelligence collection against Afghan terror targets will not fill the void left by the loss of our ability to monitor and attack terrorist targets from in-country bases.  With Afghanistan bordered by countries unlikely to be willing to host a significant US presence, intelligence collection missions will now have to be launched from bases well beyond the horizon with all that implies for the quantity, quality and timeliness of intelligence collected.  Such operations will also be commensurately more expensive and difficult to mount.  Moreover, the intimate knowledge of our adversaries that we have painstakingly built over the course of nearly 20 years on the ground, began aging the moment we departed Afghanistan.  Absent an intelligence presence on the ground, our ability to collect on terrorist groups operating in and from that country will only degrade further as time goes on.

After acknowledging that we “could see a resurgence of terrorism out of the region in the coming 12-36 months”, Milley went on that we will, “as opportunities present themselves… have to continue to conduct strike operations if there’s a threat to the United States.”  However, as our pre-9/11 experience showed, such remote strikes can delay our terrorist enemies’ plans, but will not deter them from their intent to strike the US homeland.

As such, Secretary Panetta is undoubtedly correct in his conclusion that US involvement in Afghanistan is not over.  “We’re going to have to go back in to get ISIS,” Panetta said.  “We’re probably going to have to go back in when al-Qaeda resurrects itself, as they will, with this Taliban.”  And, as was the case with our operations to destroy ISIS’s so-called Caliphate after we precipitously left Iraq, there can be no doubt that should we have to go back into Afghanistan, our task will be greatly complicated by the manner in which we left that country, abandoning our allies and bases there.

---

Go beyond the headlines with expert perspectives on today’s news with The Cipher Brief’s Daily Open-Source Podcast.  Listen here or wherever you listen to podcasts.

---

The US withdrawal from Afghanistan will have profound geo-strategic implications for America’s position in the region and in the world.  Our Chinese, Russian and Iranian adversaries will seize the opportunity to fill the void left in the wake of our departure.

The Taliban has already indicated it will engage with China, which covets Afghanistan’s mineral wealth.  Entry into a transactional relationship with the cash-strapped Taliban regime and granting access to Afghan mineral resources – and possibly use of Bagram Air Base – in exchange for financial aid and Chinese support for the Taliban in international organizations would suit Beijing, which would evince no concerns about human rights and the like.

For their part, Central Asian countries will look away from Washington and ever more towards their old masters in Moscow and a rising China to ensure their security and economic well-being.   Islamabad, while publicly celebrating the victory of their Taliban proxies and its role in guiding it, must at the same time worry that the extremism embodied by the victors will gain renewed traction beyond its frontier provinces with all that implies for the security of the Pakistani state.

Caught by surprise by Washington’s decision to leave and the conduct of the withdrawal, even our closest and oldest allies are questioning US resolve.  They will surely think twice before acceding to any future US request to join in joint operations.  Our decision to quit Afghanistan, and its messy execution, will also evoke questions about the validity of American assurances to other nations under threat from aggressors.  It will not have been lost on them that the withdrawal of American air, intelligence, planning expertise and logistical support ensured the collapse of an Afghan Army that was dependent on the US.

Our adversaries, too, will see the chaotic nature of our departure as well as the abandonment of Americans, allied citizens and Afghans to uncertain fates as signs of weakness and enfeeblement.   This possibility is particularly dangerous in that they could seize this moment of US distraction to engage in opportunistic adventurism that could include movement by China against Taiwan; a Russian attempt to resolve its impasse with Ukraine forcibly; stepped-up Iranian prosecution of its proxy war with Israel; or a further ramping up by North Korea of its nuclear program.  Any such eventuality would force the US to respond vigorously or risk further erosion of its international credibility.

Finally, the costs involved in remotely monitoring and trying to deter threats emanating from a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan mean that we will be unable to shift intelligence and military resources away from the War on Terror to confront the threat posed by peer competitors to the degree we had hoped.

Aristotle is said to have pronounced, “You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honor.”  Likewise, the courage shown by so many – and the heroic conduct of US military and CIA personnel in particular – in seeking to extract American citizens from Afghanistan and to honor our obligations to Afghans who worked and fought alongside us for so long, cannot obviate the dishonor attendant to having left so many behind.  Bloody Taliban outrages and reprisals against the latter are a certainty.

It will not be long before Kabul’s new rulers recognize that the Americans now under their control, are potentially useful pawns in trying to extract diplomatic, financial and other concessions in exchange for their freedom.  The effectiveness of our efforts hereafter to extract our own people and our Afghan allies from the clutches of the Taliban and how we respond to any attempts to use them as leverage against us, will determine the depth of the stain on our national honor already attendant to the disastrous end of our Afghan campaign.

In that same famous speech, Churchill solemnly told his countrymen that: ‘The Battle of France is over: The Battle of Britain is about to begin.”  He went on that “we would be well advised to gird our loins for the continued warfare to come.”

As we approach the 20^th anniversary of 9/11, we should honor our sacred dead from that horrible day.  But we should likewise prepare ourselves for the battles with Al Qaeda and its murderous kindred of Cain that will surely come.

Recent polls would indicate that Americans support the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, if not the way in which it was conducted.  One wonders how those polled would have responded if the question had been ‘Do you support a withdrawal from Afghanistan even if it markedly increases the chance of terror attacks and atrocities directed at your fellow citizens at home and abroad?’  I fear we will find out soon enough.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief

The post Wars are not Won by Evacuations appeared first on The Cipher Brief.

find more fun & mates at SoShow now !

A stream literally flowing with booze emitting a strong beery odor has been discovered in one of the tropical islands of Hawaii. Its waters have been apparently contaminated with alcohol after a leak at a beverage warehouse.

A small river with a distinctive alcoholic smell was recently found on the island of Oahu, some 15 miles (24 kilometers) away from Honolulu, Hawaiian capital. Its waters have been flowing through the Waipio valley and even turned into a 100-foot (30 meters) waterfall on their way.  

Read more

The stream caught the attention of local environmental activists, who noticed the smell in the area.

“The other day we came here you would think it was a beer pub that hadn’t opened its doors for three or four days,” activist Carroll Cox told local Hawaii News Now. She also contacted the Department of Health about the issue.

Local media took samples from the unusual stream and had them checked at a private laboratory. It tested positive for alcohol, containing 1.2% percent of the substance in its waters – nearly a quarter the content in regular beer and strong enough to cause a buzz.

Local health authorities got involved, and an investigation into the source of contamination was launched. It was learned that the stream was coming from a drain pipe that was traced back to a warehouse of Hawaii’s largest liquor distributor, Paradise Beverages. Its representatives told local media they were working with officials to eliminate a possible spill, with the booze river apparently closing its free drinks service.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

find more fun & mates at SoShow now !

When the PRC decides to move on Taiwan, it is unlikely to move in a manner that makes a US decision on intervention clear cut.  Should China decide, initially at least, against a full-scale invasion of that island nation, it could instead opt to try to “win without fighting.” Beijing might do so by using its large, state-controlled fishing fleet to cut smaller Taipei-controlled islands off from Taiwan itself much as the PRC is now massing fishing boats to expand Chinese-controlled seas to press claims on the Japanese Senkakus and Whitsun Reef in Philippine waters. Chinese state-owned fisheries companies – part of the so-called ‘Maritime Militia’ – serve as fronts for PLA intelligence. Using their fleets to operate in a manner somewhere between peace and conflict in the gray zone of contested control around Taiwan would allow Beijing to test whether the US and its allies are willing to help defend the island’s independence without being seen to initiate open conflict.

“The Cipher Brief has become the most popular outlet for former intelligence officers; no media outlet is even a close second to The Cipher Brief in terms of the number of articles published by formers.” – Sept. 2018, Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 62 No.

Access all of The Cipher Brief’s national-security focused expert insight by becoming a  Cipher Brief Level I Member .  

 

 

The post Why the China – Russia Relationship Should Worry You – Part Two appeared first on The Cipher Brief.

find more fun & mates at SoShow now !

Greece will soon prohibit unvaccinated residents from entering a litany of public spaces, the country’s prime minister has announced, claiming its current Covid outbreak is largely fueled by those who haven’t received the jab.

Starting next week, the unvaccinated will be barred from entry to restaurants, cafes, theaters, bars, gyms and museums, among other indoor public places, PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis said on Thursday, noting that a negative Covid-19 test will no longer be accepted as an alternative to proof of vaccination.

“This is indeed a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” he said as he announced the move in a televised address, adding “Greece is mourning unnecessary losses because it simply does not have the vaccination rates of other European countries.”

The new rules are set to take effect on Monday, and will require Greeks to present vaccine certificates to businesses and other indoor establishments to be allowed inside. Those attending religious services mark a rare exception, however, as they will only be asked to present a negative test in order to enter a church or other place of worship.

Read more

In a bid to encourage booster vaccinations among the elderly – a population much more vulnerable to Covid-19 – citizens over the age of 60 will be made to renew their certificate after a period of seven months.

While officials had hoped to hit a full vaccination figure of 70% for Greece’s population of 11 million by autumn, the number currently stands at about 62%, according to Reuters. As its weekly case counts continue to soar to record highs, the country reported 7,317 new Covid-19 infections and 63 deaths on Thursday, bringing the totals to more than 860,000 cases and some 17,000 fatalities since the pandemic kicked off in late 2019.

The new restrictions in Greece mirror similar policies implemented elsewhere in Europe, with Austria, Germany, Italy, France, the Czech Republic and Slovakia each imposing limits on public life for the unvaccinated. Though the Austrian government recently imposed a full lockdown for millions of residents who have not received the shot, some officials in that country are pushing for even harsher policies, including a national stay-at-home order on the jabbed and non-jabbed alike.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

find more fun & mates at SoShow now !

The EU must quickly seal its external borders to stem the flow of migrants who are no longer welcome in the 27-member bloc, according to Slovenia’s interior minister, whose country currently holds the presidency of the EU Council.

Speaking at the ‘Sarajevo Migration Dialogue’ on Thursday, Interior Minister Ales Hojs said EU countries were preoccupied recently with the coronavirus pandemic, the fall of the government in Afghanistan, and now a migrant crisis on the Poland-Belarus border, which he said was a hybrid war waged by Minsk against the EU.

Read more

“All three have additionally contributed to the increase in numbers of illegal migrants moving towards Europe and the Balkans, destabilizing the European Union,” Hojs told reporters.

The Slovenian minister said the current situation was similar to the 2015 influx of refugees and migrants from the Middle East and North Africa, when the EU admitted over one million people across its borders.

This time the situation is different, Hojs said, warning that “there is no more ‘refugees welcome.’”

“I believe that external borders must be secured, even with fences if necessary,” Hojs said, saying that he supported a plan for Brussels to finance the building of fences to reinforce the bloc’s borders.

He said it was important to strengthen cooperation and partnership across the EU in order to better manage migration and maintain security.

Thousands of migrants have been trying to cross the Belarus-Poland border in an attempt to reach the EU. They have been stranded at barbed-wire fencing with Polish border guards repelling their attempts to cross. Warsaw has accused Belarus of orchestrating the crisis to destabilize the EU and “weaponize” migration in an effort to have sanctions lifted.

A spokesperson for Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko claimed on Thursday that Germany agreed to open a humanitarian corridor for 2,000 refugees on the border.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

find more fun & mates at SoShow now !

(Editor’s Note: This article was first published by our friends at Just Security and is the third in a series that is diving into the foundational barriers to the broad integration of AI in the IC – culture, budget, acquisition, risk, and oversight.)

OPINION — As I have written earlier, there is widespread bipartisan support for radically improving the nation’s ability to take advantage of artificial intelligence (AI). For the Intelligence Community (IC), that means using AI to more quickly, easily, and accurately analyze increasing volumes of data to produce critical foreign intelligence that can warn of and help defuse national security threats, among other things. To do that, the IC will have to partner closely with the private sector, where significant AI development occurs. But despite the billions of dollars that may ultimately flow toward this goal, there are basic hurdles the IC still must overcome to successfully transition and integrate AI into the community at speed and scale.

Among the top hurdles are the U.S. government’s slow, inflexible, and complex budget and acquisition processes. The IC’s rigid budget process follows the standard three-year cycle for the government, which means it takes years to incorporate a new program and requires confident forecasting of the future. Once a program overcomes the necessary hurdles to be included in a budget, it must follow a complex sequence of regulations to issue and manage a contract for the actual goods or services needed. These budget and acquisition processes are often considered separately as they are distinct, but I treat them together because they are closely related and inextricably intertwined in terms of the government’s purchasing of technology.

Importantly, these processes were not intended to obstruct progress; they were designed to ensure cautious and responsible spending, and for good reason. Congress, with its power of the purse, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as the executive branch’s chief budget authority, have the solemn duty to ensure wise and careful use of taxpayer dollars. And their roles in this regard are vital to the U.S. government’s ability to function.

Unfortunately, despite the best of intentions, as noted by some in Congress itself, the budget process has become so “cumbersome, frustrating, and ineffective” that it has weakened the power of the purse and Congress’ capacity to govern. And when complicated acquisition processes are layered on top of the budget process, the result is a spider web of confusion and difficulty for anyone trying to navigate them.

The Need for Speed … and Flexibility and Simplicity

As currently constructed, government budget and acquisition processes cause numerous inefficiencies for the purchase of AI capabilities, negatively impacting three critical areas in particular: speed, flexibility, and simplicity. When it comes to speed and flexibility, the following difficulties jump out:

• The executive branch has a methodical and deliberate three-year budget cycle that calls for defined and steady requirements at the beginning of the cycle. Changing the requirements at any point along the way is difficult and time-consuming.
• The IC’s budgeting processes require that IC spending fit into a series of discrete sequential steps, represented by budget categories like research, development, procurement, or sustainment. Funds are not quickly or easily spent across these categories.
• Most appropriations expire at the end of each fiscal year, which means programs must develop early on, and precisely execute, detailed spending plans or lose the unspent funds at the end of one year.
• Government agencies expend significant time creating detailed Statements of Work (SOWs) that describe contract requirements. Standard contract vehicles do not support evolving requirements, and companies are evaluated over the life of the contract based on strict compliance with the original SOW created years earlier.

These rules make sense in the abstract and result from well-intentioned attempts to buy down the risk of loss or failure and promote accountability and transparency. They require the customer to know with clarity and certainty the solution it seeks in advance of investment and they narrowly limit the customer’s ability to change the plan or hastily implement it. These rules are not unreasonably problematic for the purchase of items like satellites or airplanes, the requirements for which probably should not and will not significantly change over the course of many years.

However, because AI technology is still maturing and the capabilities themselves are always adapting, developing, and adding new functionality, the rules above have become major obstacles to the quick integration of AI across the IC. First, AI requirements defined with specificity years in advance of acquisition – whether in the budget or in a statement of work – are obsolete by the time the technology is delivered. Second, as AI evolves there is often not a clear delineation between research, development, procurement, and sustainment of the technology – it continuously flows back and forth across these categories in very compressed timelines. Third, it is difficult to predict the timing of AI breakthroughs, related new requirements, and funding impacts, so money might not be spent as quickly as expected and could be lost at the end of the fiscal year. Taken together, these processes are inefficient and disruptive, cause confusion and delay, and discourage engagement from small businesses, which have neither the time nor the resources to wait years to complete a contract or to navigate laborious, uncertain processes.

---

Engage personally with experts on Artificial Intelligence and national security  at The Cipher Brief Threat Conference October 24-26.  If you are an actively working in the national security field, we invite you to apply to attend.  Seats are limited.  

---

Simply put, modern practices for fielding AI have outpaced the IC’s decades-old approach to budgeting and acquisition. That AI solutions are constantly evolving, learning, and improving both undermines the IC’s ability to prescribe a specific solution and, in fact, incentivizes the IC to allow the solution to evolve with the technology. The lack of flexibility and speed in how the IC manages and spends money and acquires goods and services is a core problem when it comes to fully incorporating AI into the IC’s toolkit.

Even while we introduce more speed and agility into these processes, however, the government must continue to ensure careful, intentional, and appropriate spending of taxpayer dollars. The adoption of an IC risk framework and modest changes to congressional oversight engagements, which I address in upcoming articles, will help regulate these AI activities in the spirit of the original intent of the budget and acquisition rules.

As for the lack of simplicity, the individually complex budget and acquisition rules are together a labyrinth of requirements, regulations, and processes that even long-time professionals have trouble navigating. In addition:

• There is no quick or simple way for practitioners to keep current with frequent changes in acquisition rules.
• The IC has a distributed approach that allows each element to use its various acquisition authorities independently rather than cohesively, increasing confusion across agency lines.
• Despite the many federal acquisition courses aimed at demystifying the process, there is little connection among educational programs, no clear path for IC officers to participate, and no reward for doing so.

The complexity of the budget and acquisition rules compounds the problems with speed and flexibility, and as more flexibility is introduced to support AI integration, it is even more critical that acquisition professionals be knowledgeable and comfortable with the tools and levers they must use to appropriately manage and oversee contracts.

Impactful Solutions: A Target Rich Environment

Many of these problems are not new; indeed, they have been highlighted and studied often over the past few years in an effort to enable the Department of Defense (DOD) and the IC to more quickly and easily take advantage of emerging technology. But to date, DOD has made only modest gains and the IC is even further behind. While there are hundreds of reforms that could ease these difficulties, narrowing and prioritizing proposed solutions will have a more immediate impact. Moreover, significant change is more likely to be broadly embraced if the IC first proves its ability to successfully implement needed reforms on a smaller scale. The following actions by the executive and legislative branches – some tactical and some strategic – would be powerful steps to ease and speed the transition of AI capabilities into the IC.

Statements of Objectives

A small but important first step to deal with the slow and rigid acquisition process is to encourage the use of Statements of Objectives (SOO) instead of SOWs, when appropriate. As mentioned, SOWs set forth defined project activities, deliverables, requirements, and timelines, which are used to measure contractor progress and success. SOWs make sense when the government understands with precision exactly what is needed from the contractor and how it should be achieved.

SOOs, on the other hand, are more appropriate when the strategic outcome and objectives are clear, but the steps to achieve them are less so. They describe “what” without dictating “how,” thereby encouraging and empowering industry to propose innovative solutions. SOOs also create clarity about what is important to the government, leading companies to focus less on aggressively low pricing of specific requirements and more on meeting the ultimate outcomes in creative ways that align with a company’s strengths. This approach requires knowledgeable acquisition officers as part of the government team, as described below, to ensure the contract includes reasonable milestones and decision points to keep the budget within acceptable levels.

---

The Cipher Brief hosts private briefings with the world’s most experienced national and global security experts.  Become a member today.

---

New Authorities for the IC

Two new authorities would help the IC speed and scale its use of AI capabilities: Other Transaction Authority (OTA)  and Commercial Solutions Openings (CSO). Other Transaction Authority allows specific types of transactions to be completed outside of the traditional federal laws and regulations that apply to standard government procurement contracts, providing significantly more speed, flexibility, and accessibility than traditional contracts. While OTA is limited in scope and not a silver bullet for all acquisition problems, OTA has been used to good effect since 1990 by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Activity (DARPA), DOD’s over-the-horizon research and development organization, among others.

CSOs are a simplified and relatively quick solicitation method to award firm fixed price contracts up to $100 million. CSOs can be used to acquire innovative commercial items, technologies, or services that close capability gaps or provide technological advances through an open call for proposals that provide offerors the opportunity to respond with technical solutions of their own choosing to a broadly defined area of government interest. CSOs are considered competitively awarded regardless of how many offerors respond.

Both OTA and CSO authority should be immediately granted to the IC to improve the speed and flexibility with which the IC can acquire and transition AI into the IC.

Unclassified Sandbox

The predictive nature of the IC’s work and the need to forecast outcomes means the IC must be able to acquire AI at the point of need, aligned to the threat. Waiting several years to acquire AI undermines the IC’s ability to fulfill its purpose. But with speed comes added risk that new capabilities might fail. Therefore, the IC should create an isolated unclassified sandbox, not connected to operational systems, in which potential IC customers could test and evaluate new capabilities alongside developers in weeks-to-months, rather than years. Congress should provide the IC with the ability to purchase software quickly for test and evaluation purposes only to buy down the risk that a rapid acquisition would result in total failure. The sandbox process would allow the IC to test products, consider adjustments, and engage with developers early on, increasing the likelihood of success.

Single Appropriation for Software

DOD has a pilot program that funds software as a single budget item – allowing the same money to be used for research, production, operations, and sustainment – to improve and speed software’s unique development cycle. AI, being largely software, is an important beneficiary of this pilot. Despite much of the IC also being part of DOD, IC-specific activities do not fall within this pilot. Extending DOD’s pilot to the IC would not only speed the IC’s acquisition of AI, but it would also increase interoperability and compatibility of IC and DOD projects.

No-Year Funds

Congress should reconsider the annual expiration of funds as a control lever for AI. Congress already routinely provides no-year funding when it makes sense to do so. In the case of AI, no-year funds would allow the evolution of capabilities without arbitrary deadlines, drive more thoughtful spending throughout the lifecycle of the project, and eliminate the additional overhead required to manage the expiration of funds annually. Recognizing the longer-term nature of this proposal, however, the executive branch also must seek shorter-term solutions in the interim.

A less-preferable alternative is to seek two-year funding for AI. Congress has a long history of proposing biennial budgeting for all government activities. Even without a biennial budget, Congress has already provided nearly a quarter of the federal budget with two-year funding. While two-year funding is not a perfect answer in the context of AI, it would at a minimum discourage parties from rushing to outcomes or artificially burning through money at the end of the first fiscal year and would provide additional time to fulfill the contract. This is presumably why DOD recently created a new budget activity under their Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) category, which is typically available for two years, for “software and digital technology pilot programs.”

AI Technology Fund

Congress should establish an IC AI Technology Fund (AITF) to provide kick-starter funds for priority community AI efforts and enable more flexibility to get those projects off the ground. To be successful, the AITF must have no-year funds, appropriated as a single appropriation, without limits on usage throughout the acquisition lifecycle. The AITF’s flexibility and simplicity would incentivize increased engagement by small businesses, better allowing the IC to tap into the diversity of the marketplace, and would support and speed the delivery of priority AI capabilities to IC mission users.

---

Go beyond the headlines with expert perspectives on today’s news with The Cipher Brief’s Daily Open-Source Podcast.  Listen here or wherever you listen to podcasts.

---

ICWERX  

To quickly take advantage of private sector AI efforts at scale, the IC must better understand the market and more easily engage directly with the private sector. To do so, the IC should create an ICWERX, modeled after AFWERX, an Air Force innovation organization that drives agile public-private sector collaboration to quickly leverage and develop cutting-edge technology for the Air Force. AFWERX aggressively uses innovative, flexible, and speedy procurement mechanisms like OTA and the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs (SBIR/STTR) to improve the acquisition process and encourage engagement from small businesses. AFWERX is staffed by acquisition and market research experts who are comfortable using those authorities and understand the market. While the IC’s needs are not identical, an ICWERX could serve as an accessible “front door” for prospective partners and vendors, and enable the IC to more quickly leverage and scale cutting-edge AI.

De-mystify Current Authorities

While there is much complaining about a lack of flexible authorities in the IC (and a real need for legal reform), there is flexibility in existing rules that has not been fully utilized. The IC has not prioritized the development or hiring of people with the necessary government acquisition and contracts expertise, so there are insufficient officers who know how to use the existing authorities and those who do are overworked and undervalued. The IC must redouble its efforts to increase its expertise in, and support the use of, these flexibilities in several ways.

First, the IC should create formal partnerships and increase engagement with existing U.S. government experts. The General Services Administration’s Technology Transformation Services (TTS) and FEDSIM, for example, work across the federal government to build innovative acquisition solutions and help agencies more quickly adopt AI. In addition, DOD’s Joint AI Center has built significant acquisition expertise that the IC must better leverage. The IC also should increase joint duty rotations in this area to better integrate and impart acquisition expertise across the IC.

Second, the IC must prioritize training and education of acquisition professionals. And while deep acquisition expertise is not necessary for everyone, it is important for lawyers, operators, technologists, and innovators to have a reasonable understanding of the acquisition rules, and the role they each play in getting to successful outcomes throughout the process. Collaboration and understanding across these professions and up and down the chain of command will result in more cohesive, speedy, and effective outcomes.

To that end, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) should work with the many existing government acquisition education programs, as well as the National Intelligence University, to develop paths for IC officers to grow their understanding of and ability to navigate and successfully use acquisition rules. The ODNI also should strengthen continuing education requirements and create incentive pay for acquisition professionals.

Third, the IC should prioritize and use direct hire authority to recruit experts in government acquisition, to include a mix of senior term-limited hires and junior permanent employees with room to grow and the opportunity for a long career in the IC. Such a strategy would allow the IC to quickly tackle the current AI acquisition challenges and build a bench of in-house expertise.

Finally, practitioners should have an easily accessible reference book to more quickly discover relevant authorities, understand how to use them, and find community experts. A few years ago, the ODNI led the creation of an IC Acquisition Playbook, which describes common IC acquisition authorities, practices, and usages. The ODNI should further develop and disseminate this Playbook as a quick win for the IC.

Incentivize Behavior

To encourage creative and innovative acquisition practices, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration, the IC must align incentives with desired outcomes and create in acquisition professionals a vested interest in the success of the contract. Acquisition officers today are often brought into projects only in transactional ways, when contracts must be completed or money must be obligated, for example. They are rarely engaged early as part of a project team, so they are not part of developing the solutions and have minimal investment in the project’s success. Reinforcing this, acquisition professionals are evaluated primarily on the amount of money they obligate by the end of the fiscal year, rather than on the success of a project.

Therefore, to start, project teams should be required to engage acquisition officers early and often, both to seek their advice and to ensure they have a good understanding of the project’s goals. In addition, evaluation standards for acquisition officers should incorporate effective engagement and collaboration with stakeholders, consideration of creative alternatives and options, and delivery of mission outcomes. If an officer uses innovative practices that fail, that officer also should be evaluated on what they learned from the experience that may inform future success.

Lastly, the ODNI should reinvigorate and highlight the IC acquisition awards to publicly reward desired behavior, and acquisition professionals should be included in IC mission team awards as a recognition of their impact on the ultimate success of the mission.

Conclusion

Between the government’s rigid budget and acquisition processes and confusion about how to apply them, there is very little ability for the IC to take advantage of a fast-moving field that produces new and updated technology daily. Tackling these issues through the handful of priority actions set forth above will begin to drive the critical shift away from the IC’s traditional, linear processes to the more dynamic approaches the IC needs to speed and transform the way it purchases, integrates, and manages the use of AI.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief

 

The post AI and the IC: The Tangled Web of Budget and Acquisition appeared first on The Cipher Brief.

find more fun & mates at SoShow now !

Instagram is looking to channel the anger of its users by introducing a new feature that allows them to report various problems with the app by shaking their phones.

“Have you ever used Instagram and it wasn’t working like it was supposed to? It was just really getting you… really just pissing you off?” Instagram’s head Adam Mosseri asked his followers in a clip uploaded to Twitter on Wednesday.

Well, precisely for infuriating situations like that, the platform has developed a feature it’s calling “rage shake,” he announced.

Covering ✌️ this week:
– Carousel Deletion (finally!)
– Rage Shake

Did you know about these 💎s? Any other features you’d like me to cover? Let me know 👇 pic.twitter.com/Yx0q4UGFfb

— Adam Mosseri 😷 (@mosseri) November 17, 2021

Shaking your phone will, from now on, cause a special form to pop up on screen, allowing you to instantly report issues such as photos not uploading or audio not playing.

Read more

The form is also the perfect place to let out “all the emotions and feels you’ve got going on,” Mosseri insisted, assuring Instagrammers that these reports would be promptly dealt with.

Thanks to their feedback, Instagram will be able to optimize its bug-fixing process, he said. The option, which he described as a “hidden gem,” is so far available only in the US, on both iOS and Android.  

The Instagram boss gently shook his own cellphone in the clip to demonstrate the feature in action. However, it’s likely upset users may well end up rage-shaking with a good deal more passion, which could increase the risk of a gadget being damaged, or their owner or even a passerby being struck should the phone fly out of their hand.

Mosseri also didn’t advise the public what to do with their rage over media revelations about alleged shady practices by Instagram and the platform’s owner, Facebook.

Among the trove of papers recently leaked by former Facebook employee Frances Haugen was an internal study from 2020 reporting that Instagram was causing many of its young users, particularly teen girls, to suffer mental health issues and suicidal thoughts. However, the platform kept operating in the same manner despite this finding, with changes being promised only after the study made headlines this September.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

find more fun & mates at SoShow now !

We’re starting a new segment on The Cipher Brief’s Open-Source Collection Podcast and adding to the line-up of curated headlines we bring you from around the world with expert insights on today’s news. 

The Cipher Brief’s Brad Christian talked with former CIA Officer Marc Polymeropoulos this week about what’s next for the US Government when it comes to investigating ‘Havana Syndrome’, making sure Afghan interpreters aren’t left behind and why a White House visit by Jordan’s King Abdullah was a bigger deal than some may realize.  

Cipher Brief Expert Marc Polymeropoulos served 26 years in the CIA before retiring from the Senior Intelligence Service in June 2019.  His positions included field and headquarters operational assignments covering the Middle East, Europe, Eurasia and Counterterrorism. 

Christian: What’s top of mind for you this week in the world of national security?

Polymeropoulos:  Havana Syndrome, CIA’s response to the Afghan withdrawal, and the visit of Jordan’s King Abdullah to D.C. Let’s start with Havana Syndrome.

You saw in the press the last couple of days, the notion that the CIA’s inspector general is conducting a review of CIA’s handling of healthcare, of how officers were coming to them starting in 2016 after these attacks started in Cuba. I think that’s a good thing. It’s a necessary evil. I think a lot of your listeners and readers know that I was affected by this in December of 2017. It caused my retirement in July of 2019. I’ve been very vocal on the need for healthcare for our officers.  We have to think about Havana Syndrome in three bins.

The first, is accountability and that’s good. It’s a necessary evil, but we have to look at how the agency responded to officers because that’s critical. The agency workforce is watching. I think the IG review by the CIA is good as well as a look at what’s happening in the House and Senate oversight committees as well.

The second, is continued healthcare for officers, the officers getting to Walter Reed’s National Intrepid Center of Excellence. CIA Director Bill Burns is doing that, so that’s positive.

And then the last piece is culpability. I think you also saw recently in the press, that a senior intelligence service officer who was integral in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, has been named to the task force. So, a lot of stuff is happening on Havana Syndrome, I think all of it is moving in a positive direction. I applaud Director Burns. This is something that I think is going to be at the top of the news cycle for days, weeks, and months to come.

Christian: Do you feel like now there’s a unified awareness at the entire government level outside of CIA?  Is Congress focused on this? Is the White House focused on this in the ways that you think they need to be?

Polymeropoulos: What a great question. The White House for sure. Congress has been absolutely integral both in the Senate and the House. They’re about to pass the Havana Act, which is going to provide financial relief for officers affected, but in all US government agencies. I will say that the Department of State has been woefully behind and that’s a big concern of mine. I feel for my State colleagues. There are 41 State Department officers who have been affected by this. Secretary of State Blinken has not even met with them while Director Burns has met with nearly all of the CIA victims, so State’s got a long way to go. I think we’ll look to the White House and to Congress to keep the pressure on.

Christian: These are events that are still occurring, even as they’re being investigated. Tell us a little bit about the latest that’s happened on the attack front.

Polymeropoulos: I think you see what the press reports of what can only be considered a kind of slow-rolling mass casualty event in Vienna, Austria. There were numerous State Department and intelligence officers affected at our Embassy there. Again, this is coming out in the press, so it’s important to note that. But these things are still happening and I think that we have to look back to the old counter-terrorism model that CIA employed so effectively of detect, disrupt, and deter attacks by our terrorist adversaries. We have to apply that same type of mindset to this problem set.

---

Go beyond the headlines with expert perspectives on today’s news with The Cipher Brief’s Daily Open-Source Podcast.  Listen here or wherever you listen to podcasts.

---

Christian: The Afghanistan withdrawal, there’s a lot going on there. We’ve seen reports of US airstrikes supporting Afghan forces in Kandahar. This week, it was reported that just under 50 Afghan troops requested refuge in Pakistan when their border posts near Chitral, which is a Pakistani city, was overrun. The Pakistani government let them in. And we’re seeing now an Afghan strategy focusing on protecting the capital regions and maybe ceding some of those provincial capitals.

Polymeropoulos: I look at this from a narrow optic. As a former CIA officer who was the base chief in Afghanistan between 2011 and 2012, I ran one of our paramilitary bases in eastern Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan. What is unique about life as a CIA officer out in the field, particularly in the bases, was that there were only a few of us. We had a very small number of Americans, yet we had hundreds, if not over 1,000 Afghanistan indigenous personnel, whether they were troops who were fighting with us or whether they were support personnel.  We lived with them. I think this is a little bit different than perhaps big US military’s experience with the Afghan national army.

I trusted my life to these guys. They were armed in front of us all the time. We ate together at the mess hall. We sat around the fire pit together, certainly went on patrols together. So, it’s really personal for me. I remember our Afghan interpreters. I remember our indigenous personnel and I really worry about them. The future, I think is one that certainly is bleak. I don’t support the administration’s decision for a full withdrawal. I don’t understand why we couldn’t have left a residual force, but that policy decision has been made.  I think that the things I’m looking to in the near future are even after the end of August, will the US military still conduct airstrikes in support of Afghan forces?  There is something about betraying those who really made that pact with us. That’s just something as a CIA officer that’s ingrained in us that we don’t want to do that. So, this is something I really worry about. I remember the faces of our interpreters and indigenous personnel every day. These were great heroes. I think a lot of us at CIA wouldn’t be alive today without their heroism.

---

 The Cipher Brief hosts private briefings with the world’s most experienced national and global security experts.  Become a member today.

---

Christian: The third issue you raised was interesting, the visit to D.C. by Jordan’s King Abdullah. It didn’t get a lot of press.  But you say it’s a significant story.  Tell us why.

Polymeropoulos: President Biden has had a long-standing relationship with King Abdullah. It’s a sign that Jordan is back. We call Jordan the lily pad for the United States for a lot of reasons. I mean, when you think back to 2006 and Jordan’s integral role in the Anbar Awakening, that’s when we were rallying the tribes in Iraq to fight terrorism. When you think about how the US has access to strategic bases in Jordan and when you think about the Jordanian General Intelligence Directorate as one of the US Government’s most critical counter-terrorism partners. But the fact of the matter is that under the last administration, Jordan was not treated well, so it’s really significant that Abdullah was here. I think this is a really good thing. Don’t forget that CIA Director Bill Burns was ambassador in Amman quite some time ago. I think this is a really positive development, not only for the United States going back to an old strategic partner, but also for Jordan as well, which has been a steadfast ally not only during King Abdullah’s reign, but also of course, under King Hussein before him.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief

The post An Open-Source Brief: former CIA Officer Marc Polymeropoulos appeared first on The Cipher Brief.

find more fun & mates at SoShow now !