US intelligence head takes center stage, sounds off
There was a time when successful intelligence agents were neither seen nor heard, at least in the media. The point of the game was to keep operations secret, both while they were underway and after their conclusion.
But times have changed. Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, now the Director of National Intelligence, is aggressively and publicly accusing the Obama administration of a criminal conspiracy, with President Donald Trump cheering her on.
In November 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.”
Gabbard charges that after the 2016 election, Obama administration officials, including Obama himself, conspired to undermine the newly elected Trump by spreading falsehoods about Russian interference in the campaign — especially that the Republican candidate and campaign had colluded with the Russian government.
Gabbard is trumpeting these charges in the media, and even quotes herself on her agency’s website. She is also hardly unique today in discussing intel matters publicly.
Soon after the 2016 election, the heads of the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and the Director of National Intelligence launched a public relations offensive highlighting how Russia, including President Vladimir Putin, meddled in the 2016 elections, including hacking the Hillary Clinton campaign's email.
With great fanfare, they met with Trump to present evidence behind the conclusions. With equal hype, the top spooks testified before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.
There is no denying that Russian hackers meddled in the 2016 elections, but serious analysts doubt this had any serious impact. The fact of that interference also is not news. Obama publicly revealed these developments in October 2016, just before voting took place. After the election, he ordered a review and analysis of the interference.
There is no evidence that Obama directed or tried to influence the conclusions of this review.
Why did the intelligence officials go public with lights, cameras and melodrama after the 2016 election? They could have briefed Trump in private, which is standard intelligence practice.
Because they wanted to protect themselves in the contemporary political warfare of Washington. This was an effort to create a shield from political retribution, and that worked to a degree. Nonetheless, Trump's efforts to promote hostile conspiracies began and continue.
During Trump’s first term, Democrats in Congress seized on the topic of alleged Russian collusion to launch a massive two-year investigation. Millions of dollars were spent on a demonstrably biased effort that nonetheless concluded there was no persuasive evidence that the Republican campaign collaborated with Moscow.
The Robert Mueller investigation, along with a separate investigation by Special Counsel John Durham drew attention to a controversial “dossier” prepared for Clinton’s presidential campaign. Both efforts underscore the partisanship that was going on then.
Eisenhower’s statement about the distinctive and very thankless nature of intelligence work reflected direct, disciplined and continuous engagement with security matters at the very top, over many years.
Eisenhower was in the White House during the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and that nation’s numerous allies. Earlier, he led the largest, most challenging military alliance in history against Nazi Germany.
Failure would have been catastrophic.
Officials then regularly replied “No comment” when asked about particularly sensitive matters.
Today’s pervasive partisanship and nonstop media reflect our security and self-indulgence. We may yet pay dearly.
Arthur I. Cyr (acyr@carthage.eduh) is the author of “After the Cold War – American Foreign Policy, Europe and Asia.” (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan).