FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Wrong Way to Share Intelligence

Photo by thierry ehrmann | CC BY 2.0

There is nothing unusual about sharing intelligence, even sensitive intelligence.  The United States does regular intelligence sharing with the English-speaking countries, and the United States and UK are particularly generous in the process of sharing.  The CIA shares intelligence with key NATO, and conducts semi-annual meetings to share intelligence with Israel and Egypt.  But it is most unusual for the president of the United States to take the lead role in sharing intelligence.

It is extremely unlikely that the president, particularly the current occupant of the White House, would have an in-depth understanding of the sources and methods involved in a particular piece of intelligence.  National security adviser H.R. McMaster even acknowledged that President Trump was never briefed on the sources and methods for the shared information or even understood the sensitivity of the report.  This alone is an indictment of the president’s national security staff and particularly the National Security Council, which failed to bring the president up-to-speed regarding  sensitive details.  Twenty-four hours after we learned about Trump’s unusual exchange with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, McMaster had still not discussed the matter with Tom Bossert, the president’s advisor on intelligence matters that concern homeland security, who took it upon himself to warn the CIA and the NSA about the obvious breach.

Of course, there are times when the case can be made for the sharing of intelligence.  But this can only be done in the context of exchanges between policy and intelligence advisers so that the former can testify to the utility of sharing intelligence for the interests of the United States, and the latter can properly conceal information that would compromise the provenance of the report as well as provide strategic warning of the consequences of possibly compromising sensitive intelligence.

The risks associated with President Trump’s sharing of information, which McMaster curiously labeled “routine,” are great.  If the source is an agent then his life is at risk.  If the source is a communications channel, then it’s possible that ISIS in this case will find other ways to broadcast sensitive information.  If the intelligence community were to lose a sensitive channel, then the likelihood of stopping future ISIS operations becomes more difficult and many lives could be lost at home and abroad.

The fact that the president had never been briefed on the report, according to McMaster, and had no idea of the provenance of the report points to the dysfunctional state of the entire national security team.  We already have too many generals serving in sensitive positions in the national security arena, and McMaster’s recent appearance before the press corps revealed a serious level of unsophistication on his part.  Any sharing of sensitive intelligence with any nation, let alone an adversary such as Russia, usually follows an intense vetting process, which McMaster obviously didn’t conduct.

Any high-level meeting with Russian leaders, moreover, would require an intense discussion among key policymakers in order to make sure that the United States effectively presented its negotiating position and knew exactly what it wanted from its negotiating partner. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, a foreign policy neophyte, has not taken control of the Department of State, and there is no indication that the department’s Russian experts played a role in the run-up to the meeting.  It is particularly worrisome that, on the eve of serious U.S. negotiations in the Middle East and Europe, U.S. diplomacy is in the hands of a president, a national security adviser, and a secretary of state who don’t have a firm grip on U.S. policy or the decision making process.

In a bizarre attempt to explain the president’s actions, McMaster said that it was “wholly appropriate for the president to share the intelligence” because he had not been briefed on the origin of the report or any of the sources and methods that were involved.  Actually, it is the president’s ignorance on these issues that makes the entire episode very problematic.  And sharing with the Russians, who don’t share U.S. interests and objectives in Syria, makes the matter wholly inappropriate. If the president and the secretary of state had taken the time to discuss former secretary of state John Kerry’s frustrations in dealing with Lavrov on Syria, then perhaps they would not have been so sanguine.

U.S. intelligence agencies will not face immediate problems in their liaison relations with foreign intelligence services because Israel, the source of the sensitive report, will not want to harm its relations with President Trump, and as a result Mossad will not cut back on sharing with the United States.  But other foreign intelligence services will have to think twice before sharing sensitive information with a government headed by a loose-lipped president.

More articles by:

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His forthcoming book is American Carnage: Donald Trump’s War on Intelligence” (City Lights Publishers, 2019).  Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savoir
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
John Kendall Hawkins
Boning Up on Eternal Recurrence, Kubrick-style: “2001,” Revisited
Haydar Khan
Set Theory of the Left
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail