Expert Commentary

Fmr. CIA Acting Dir. Michael Morell: "This Is the Political Equivalent of 9/11"

December 11, 2016 | Michael Morell and Suzanne Kelly
 

The Washington Post report on a secret CIA assessment concluding that Russia intervened in the U.S. Presidential election with the intention of helping President-elect Donald Trump win is only part of a deeply concerning and incredibly significant risk to national security.  It would be bad enough if the Russians were able to influence a democratic election, but the reaction of President-elect Trump and his team is causing equal alarm within the intelligence community. 

The President-elect called the allegations “laughable,” alarming intelligence experts, regardless of political background.  Alarming, because the comments indicate a deep distrust between the President-elect and the nation’s premiere intelligence agency charged with providing non-partisan intelligence that the President must depend on to keep all Americans safe. 

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell made no bones about his support of Hillary Clinton during the campaign.  But he was also President George W. Bush’s CIA Briefer on 9/11.  I spoke with him about the significance and potential effects of a deep lack of trust between the President and the CIA.

Does the President-elect’s response indicate that there is an open feud between the CIA and Donald Trump?

This is not a good sign, obviously.  In a world with so many threats and challenges facing the United States and in a city where politics and policy disputes color so many views, a President, if they’re going to be able to protect the country, they need someone to provide them with an objective, unbiased view of what’s going on in the world, and why it matters to them, and why it matters to the country.  That job falls to the Intelligence Community led by the CIA, and that’s why the relationship between a President and the Intelligence Community and the CIA is so special, and the President and the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) and the Director of the Agency need to nurture that special relationship.   And right now that special relationship is being undermined. 

When you say special relationship, I think you’re talking about trust.  There has to be trust there, right?

Yes, absolutely, and I’m not talking about a President coddling the CIA.  A President needs to be demanding of the Agency.  He needs to demand its best performance; he should ask tough questions about Agency judgments.  A President does not need to agree with everything the Agency says, but a President does need to listen and to do so with an open mind.  He or she should not be publicly critical of the institution because it undermines that relationship, it undermines that trust you were talking about, it undermines the Agency’s ability to do its job.  But on the flip side, and this is part of the trust too, is a President also needs to expect and demand the Agency’s discretion.  So, no leaks about controversial judgments, no leaks about what a President says in a meeting with the Agency—that behavior is as unacceptable as a President not listening. 

So this information was leaked to The Washington Post…

I’m not just suggesting that the IC or the Agency leaked that information, but if you go back to some of those original intelligence community briefings of Trump right after the convention, boy, there were a lot of stories out there about what happened in that meeting.  I don’t think they came from the Trump side, because they were negative stories.   Maybe that got this off on the wrong foot. 

I do think, going back to what you said earlier, I do think it is really important for the Trump team to understand that the Intelligence Community and the Agency are not political.  There is simply not a political bone in their body.  In fact, if anything, they are politically naïve, and politicians have a tendency to look at the Intelligence Community and the Agency the way they look at everybody else, and everybody else is political, so they tend to think that of the Intelligence Community until they really understand it, and its not, its just not. 

I really hope that the position that Mike Hayden has taken with regard to the President-elect, the position that I’ve taken with regard to the President-elect, hasn’t in any way colored his or his team’s views of the Agency and what its trying to do here.  When it says that it believes Russia was meddling in the election, that is not a political judgment, that is an objective, unbiased judgment, its not based on politics or policy or anything else.  It’s really important for them to understand that.

How can they understand then, when someone who has led the Agency as you have, does make a political statement and a political decision, as you did, when you came out in The New York Times and decided to support Hillary Clinton?  How should people be thinking about that as the separation between Michael Morell, private citizen speaking, which he’s now allowed to do because he’s out of government, versus the opinion of a person who spent their entire career in the Intelligence Community.  How do you make that separation?  How should people think about that?

I think that’s exactly what they have to do.  This is Michael Morell, private citizen and this is Michael Hayden, private citizen who are talking about what we think is best for the country.  It’s completely divorced from what the job of the CIA is, and it’s a pretty simple line: we don’t work there anymore, we don’t work for the government anymore.  We’re not bound by that same responsibility that anybody who works for the Agency has, which is you gotta call it like you see it, irregardless of the politics or irregardless of the policy.  Both what Mike did and what I did was calling it like we see it but from a much broader perspective than just saying what’s happening in the world.  We’re talking about our own country for once in our lives. That’s the distinction, and people shouldn’t be confused by that. 

If Kellyanne Conway says Trump is going to put his own people in there, do you fear that if he does perceive the Agency as being political, that he’s going to continue that track and put people in there who will also be political? If he is in that mindset and that’s his thinking, what damage can that do to the Agency and its ability to perform its core function?

When she said that, there are two possibilities.  One is that she believes its political now in some way, and its judgments are being politicized in some way, and they’re going to fix that, they’re going to return it to what it should be, which is non-political, so that’s one possibility.  The other is that she thinks exactly what you said, which is she wants to politicize it in a different direction.  I don’t think Mike Pompeo is going to allow that to happen.  I think because he served on the Intelligence Committee, I think he understands the critically important role of having an organization that provides unbiased, objective assessments of what’s going on in the world.   I don’t think he’s going to do that.   He is going to have a responsibility to have that conversation with seniors in the White House about the role of the Agency if they try to push in that direction. 

You were with President Bush on 9/11, and you understand more than most, how important that relationship is with the President.  President-elect Trump has already started getting intelligence briefings.  How important is that relationship between his briefer and him going to be, how do you see that working out, and how much time does it take before that trust is built up?

That relationship between briefer and President is really important.  There’s got to be a level of trust there.  You want the President to give you direct feedback about what he is reading and what he is being briefed on, and whether he agrees with it or not, whether he’s got a different perspective, and whether he thinks it answers the right question, or whether he thinks it missed the mark.  You want the President to be able to feel like he can say those things and it's not going to end up in The Washington Post.  That’s part of that trust. 

The President also wants the briefer, and this is important with regard to the President-elect, it's up to the briefer to figure out how the President best absorbs information, how to best brief him, how to best present information in a way that he may find more effective.  You have to figure that out.  It’s not their job.  You've got to adjust to them, and that’s something that the Intelligence Community has always struggled with during transitions.   The briefer has to figure that out. 

The President also has to create an environment in that room where the briefer feels 100 percent comfortable saying whatever the briefer thinks.  The President wants the briefer to be able to say, ‘Mr. President, I disagree with you on that, and we have a different perspective, let me explain it to you.’  The President has to be able to create the environment for discussion and debate so that relationship with the President is kind of a microcosm of the broader relationship between the Agency and the Presidency, and the Intelligence Community and the Presidency. They all kind of fit together like Russian Dolls.

Let’s get back to the allegations that the Washington Post reported, which is that the CIA has evidence that Russia intended to influence the outcome of the U.S. election in Trump’s favor.  One technical question, and then I want to talk about the larger significance of that if it’s true.  The technical question being, President-elect Trump is now privy to CIA briefings, so wouldn’t he be able to ask the question of where this information came from?

Sure, once he became President-elect, he gets to see everything, so my reading of The Washington Post story was that they (the CIA) have more here than just inference.  They’ve got sources and methods, and he would have access to all of that.  They would be able to say all of that.  They would be able to explain to him exactly where that came from.  They would be able to explain to him the degree of the influence that they see. 

It sounds to me, when I read the Post article, that the Russian Information Operations were much broader than just stealing information from the DNC and from John Podesta and giving it to Wikileaks.   That’s my sense from reading that article.  I don’t know, I don’t have any inside information here.  I haven’t been briefed by the Agency, I don’t know what they know but that’s just my sense reading the Post story.  But he would have access to all of that and could ask any question he wants about it.  In my view, he’s just rejecting this because of the implication of what this means for the legitimacy of his election.  It’s just a natural instinct on his part to reject, because it doesn’t fit his world view.  But he would have access to all of that.

So instead of making a statement like, ‘These are the same people who said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,’ there could have been a much more delicate and thoughtful way for him responding to that report?

He shouldn’t be responding publicly.  The Obama Administration should not be leaking, whether that’s the White House, or the Intelligence Community or whoever, right?  The Obama Administration should not be leaking and he should not be criticizing publicly.  They’ve got to get this discussion out of the public domain.  It doesn’t belong there.  It belongs in the room between the President and the briefer, between the President and his CIA-designate, that’s where it belongs. 

You know, the other thing I’d say and this is important too, I think the argument that the Agency has missed things in the past and has gotten things wrong, so why pay attention to them now on this, why trust them?  I’d say of course the Agency has gotten things wrong.  Iraq WMD, that’s the best-known example.  No organization is perfect and the Agency’s work is difficult.  As one of our great Directors Mike Hayden once said, the Agency only deals with tough questions, it does not do easy, right?  So that’s hard.  But even as it deals with those hardest problems, the Agency gets most judgments right.  One of the things that most people don’t know is that the Agency actually tracks how well its judgments stand up over time.  And the numbers look like fielding percentages in baseball, not batting averages.  They are that high, the Agency is that good, so to criticize them and say they get things wrong all the time is just not reality. 

Is that because they can’t really go public with the things they get right without exposing sources and methods?

Right, or some of the things they get wrong that don’t ever end up in the public domain, you just can’t.  Now the President has access to all of that, so he could actually ask his briefer, ‘tell me how often you guys get things right?” and the next day the briefer could come back and say here’s how we do that, and here’s how often we get things right, and here’s how we try to learn from the things we get wrong.  That’s the kind of conversation that should be happening.

Tell me about the significance of these allegations if they are true, what’s the overall significance to national security if Russia was successful in doing something like this?

I think the first point is it’s really interesting, and you said this earlier, this is not a new story.  We knew back in October that Russia was meddling in the election.  In October, the Obama Administration said publicly that Russia was interfering with the election and that the knowledge and direction of that went to the highest levels of the Russian government.  This was, in my mind, the first time in American history that our government has accused another government of meddling in our election.  This is huge.  What was new in The Washington Post story, if its right—we still don’t know whether its right, and whether the rest of the IC agrees or not—but that the CIA believes the intent of the meddling was to help Mr. Trump and hurt Mrs. Clinton’s chances.   That meddling went way beyond just stealing the DNC and Podesta information and giving it to WikiLeaks, that’s what’s new.  

But what’s important to me is, it’s less important that they had picked the winner and loser, which I thought all along they had done.  What’s most important is that they did indeed meddle.  I think the implications of that are just absolutely huge, and I think there are three of them:

The first is, we need to see this for what it is.  It is an attack on our very democracy.  It’s an attack on who we are as a people.   A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life.  To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11.  It is huge and the fact that it hasn’t gotten more attention from the Obama Administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me.   

The second is that I agree with a whole bunch of people on the Hill, Democrats and Republicans, Sen. John McCain, that we need a bi-partisan commission to look into exactly what the Russians did and what we can do here at home to make sure that no foreign government can ever do this again to us.  That’s why that commission is so important.  The commission shouldn’t look into what is an unknowable thing - which is: did they affect the outcome or not - we’ll never know that.  We’ll never know what the Russians did, whether it affected a single vote or not.  But what we can do is figure out exactly what they did and make changes here at home as to how information is handled, how we protect information, and make sure they never do this again. 

The third implication is we need to respond to the Russian attack.  We need to deter the Russians and anyone else who is watching this—and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iranians are all watching.  We need to deter all of those folks from even thinking about doing something like this in the future.

I think that our response needs to have two key pieces to it.  One is it’s got to be overt.  It needs to be seen.  A covert response would significantly limit the deterrence effect.  If you can’t see it, it's not going to deter the Chinese and North Koreans and Iranians and others, so it’s got to be seen. 

The second, is that it’s got to be significant from Putin’s perspective.  He has to feel some pain, he has to pay a price here or again, there will be no deterrence, and it has to be seen by the rest of the world as being significant to Mr. Putin so that it can be a deterrent. 

Would it be the CIA who would lead an offensive cyber response to something like this?

This would be broad policy.  It could be broad-based sanctions, it could be delivering weapons, offensive weapons to the Ukrainians.  It just needs to be something that he does not like that makes him pay a price for what he’s done here, so that he doesn’t do it again.   In my view, there is so much criticism of the President-elect here and how he’s responded to this allegation.  In my view, the Obama Administration should have already responded to what the Russians did. We knew back in October that they were doing this.  The DNI and the Director of DHS couldn’t have said it more clearly.  We should have responded to this.  Now I’m deeply concerned that a response to what the Russians did here is going to fall through the cracks of the transition, and a lack of a response will only embolden Putin.

The Author is Michael J. Morell

Michael Morell, the former Acting Director and Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, is one of our nation’s leading national security professionals, with extensive experience in intelligence and foreign policy.

The Coauthor is Suzanne Kelly

Suzanne Kelly is CEO & Publisher of The Cipher Brief and most recently served as CNN’s Intelligence Correspondent before spending two years in the private sector. She also worked as an Executive Producer for CNN and as a news anchor at CNN International based in Berlin and Atlanta. In Berlin, she anchored a morning news program that was broadcast live in Europe, the Middle East and Africa and from Atlanta, she anchored a number of world news programs. She covered the NATO campaign in 1999... Read More

Learn more about The Cipher's Network here

Next Steps in U.S.-Cuba Relations
Strengthening U.S. Cyber Defenses
Russia Sanctions: The New Normal
Corruption in China: The Party’s Over
Change in the Kingdom: Three Big Shifts
Managing Information & Risk in the Digital Age
Endgame in Afghanistan
The Convergence of Crime and Terror
Strengthening the Public-Private Partnership
The Billion Dollar Spy: An Interview with Author David Hoffman
The New Battlefield
North Africa: Instability Increasing
The Kidnapping Capital of the World
Homegrown Terror in the Age of ISIS
The Refugee Crisis: Europe on the Brink
The Future of Mexican Oil
Cracks in the System
Embassy Security Three Years After Benghazi
Fourteen Years Later
Can Congress Solve the Cybersecurity Problem?
Arctic Game Changer?
Where They Stand on National Security
The First 100 Days
Worthy of Fleming: Anthony Horowitz's "Trigger Mortis"
At the Crossroads
Eye in the Sky
Rough Road Ahead for Rousseff
Leveling the Playing Field: Tech Access in China
The Dead Drop
Top of Mind for Chief Security Officers
Protecting Your Business
The Future of Oil
Chinese Expansion in Latin America
American Involvement in Syria
The Future of Geospatial Intelligence
The Umbrella Movement: One Year Later
Ebola: An End in Sight?
The Pakistan Problem
The Dead Drop
The Encryption Debate
Going Dark
The US-Mexico Relationship
The Rise of Mobile Technology in Africa
The Dead Drop
Construction Boom in the Gulf
Cybersecurity: The Human Factor
Beijing and the South China Sea
Will Peace Talks Succeed in Colombia?
Social Media and Terrorism
The Rise of Israel’s Tech Sector
Securing the Border
Red Sun Rising
The Dead Drop
Adopting the Iran Deal
Stability on the Peninsula
Crime in South Africa
Combatting Terrorist Financing
The Dead Drop
Recovering from a Cyber Attack
Stability in South Asia
Veterans Day
Israel’s Wave of Violence
The Dead Drop
Protecting Critical Infrastructure
ISIS on the March
The Paris Attacks
Rethinking U.S. Security Assistance
The War on Terror 2.0
Putting Mali in Context
Will Russia Ever Change?
Will Canada Pull Back?
Understanding Putin’s Popularity
Chinese Expansion in Africa
Terrorism Finance and Wildlife Poaching
Illicit Trafficking in Latin America
Climate Change and Security
Preventing Another San Bernardino
Supply Chain Security
Negotiating a New Safe Harbor Agreement
The Battle for Yemen
Foreign Tech Access in China
The Dead Drop
Offensive Cyber Operations
Travel Security in the Age of ISIS
Iran: A Rising Cyber Power?
The Future of Cybersecurity
The Arab Spring Five Years Later
Preparing Today’s Military for Tomorrow’s Wars
Cybersecurity for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Maritime Security in the Gulf of Guinea
Improving Aviation Security
The Dead Drop
Terrorism in 2016
Cybersecurity in 2016
The World in 2016: Opportunities and Risks
China in 2016
Russia in 2016
Moscow’s Cyber Buildup
The China-India Relationship
Russian Influence in Latin America
The Future of Homegrown Terrorism
Stability in Sub-Saharan Africa
Protecting Your Digital Identity
Elections in Taiwan: A Turning Point?
The Caliphate of Crime
Biotechnology’s Dark Side
Rethinking U.S. Strategy Toward China
The Evolution of Weapons of Mass Destruction
A New Era in US-Iranian Relations?
Will Information Sharing Improve Cybersecurity?
Evaluating China's New Silk Road
Tech in Latin America: Opportunities and Challenges
The Destruction of Libyan Oil
Ransomware: Protecting Yourself from Cyber Extortion
The US and India: Strengthening Security Cooperation
Security and Stability in Afghanistan
Combatting the Al Shabaab Threat
Sports Security: Protecting Your Venue
Israel’s Arab Alliance: A Counter to ISIS and Iran?
The End of U.S. Space Supremacy
The Caucasus: Instability Increasing
Stabilizing Iraq
The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Deepening U.S. Commitment to Asia
Securing Industrial Control Systems
The Battle for Ukraine
Defeating Boko Haram
Jordan: The Indispensable Ally
China’s Military Modernization
The Cybersecurity Skills Shortage
Solving Mexico’s Violence Problem
The Northern Triangle: The Most Violent Region in the World
The Future of the Middle East
Terrorism in the World’s Largest Muslim Country
The Rise of Quantum Computing
Europe’s Terrorism Problem
Stability in the East China Sea
The Rise of Counter-Drone Technology
The ISIS WMD Threat
Healthcare and the Cyber Threat
Security in the Indo-Pacific: Australia’s New Role
Countering ISIS' Message
Containing the ISIS Cancer
Security, Privacy, and the Fight Over Encryption
Taking Aim at Smart Guns
Losing Patience with North Korea
The Difficult Road Ahead for Colombia
The Taliban Resurgence
ISIS: The New Face of Global Jihad?
Connecting with Latin America
Russia and China: Mutually Assured Detachment
The Scourge of Terrorism
The Security Challenge of Terror
European Unity in the Face of Crises
Developing Enhanced Cybersecurity Systems
Pakistan: Friend and Foe?
Egypt’s Economy on the Brink
Tehran’s Balancing Act
Russia Makes Moves in the Middle East
Kenya’s Battle with al-Shabaab
Missile Defense in the Korean Peninsula
Are America's Ports Secure?
The Human Factor Behind the Panama Papers Leak
Russian Military Modernization
APTs: The Boogeymen of Cybersecurity
Vietnam: Guns and Butter
Syria: Power-sharing, Partitioning, and the Fight Against ISIS
Turbulence in Turkey
The U.S. and the Philippines: Shoulder to Shoulder in the South China Sea
The Darker Side of the Internet of Things
Cybersecurity Challenges in Asia
Taliban on the Offensive
Quagmire in Yemen
Cocaine and Conflict in Colombia
The Cloud: Nebulous, but Nimble
Censorship in China
An Emerging Crime-Terror Nexus in Europe
IRGC: Iran's Power Player
Latin America: The New Frontier for Cyber Attacks
The Hydra and the Snake: The Death of Osama Bin Laden
Nuclear Deterrence and Assurance in East Asia
Vehicle Cybersecurity: Running in Place
What Drives ISIS
Tensions Simmer in the South China Sea
Managing the Mobile Phone Malware Threat
Leaving the Oil Spigot Open
Burundi: A Path Toward Civil War?
The Value of Special Operations Forces
ISIS in the Balkans
The Tech Must Flow
North Korea’s Party Congress: What was all the fuss about?
Argentina: A Smoother Ride
Libya: Obama’s “Worst Mistake”
Tsai Ing-Wen’s Balancing Act
The North Korea Workers’ Party Congress and Kim Jong-un’s Legitimacy
Flying the Unfriendly Skies: Airline Security
Nuclear Standoff in South Asia
How to Read Riyadh
Even in Defeat, Austria’s Far-right Emulates Populist Growth in Europe
More Effective, Less Secure: The Cyber-Threat to Medical Devices
A New Era in the U.S.-Japan Security Partnership
Passing the Torch to the Next Generation of Saudi Leaders
U.S. Military Aid to Egypt Continues Despite Democratic Struggle
How Secure are Radiological Materials?
Roadblocks on the Path to Normality in Iran
Caracas in Crisis
Algeria: Exporting Stability
The Push for Kurdish Independence
U.S. and China: Strategic Cooperation at Arm’s Length
City Life: Living Smarter, Not Harder
Homegrown Terror in Orlando
A Rough Patch in U.S.-Saudi Relations
Japan’s “Abenomics”
A Tale of Two Bears: The DNC Hack
The Origins of Brexit
The Chinese Communist Party Under Xi Jinping
The Arctic: Technology and Infrastructure on Earth and in Space
Jordan: Stability Amidst Chaos
Exporting Jihad: Bosnia and Kosovo
Changing World Order: The Effects of Brexit
Navigating Uncharted Waters
Iraq after ISIS: Divide it or Fix it?
Terrorism in Istanbul: Severe Implications
North Korea as a Cyber Threat
One If By Air, Two If By Sea: Unmanned Surface Vehicles
The FBI’s Intelligence Mission
Does NATO Need a New Ideology?
Philippines v. China: Laying Down the Law of the Sea
Is Turkey Returning to a Policy of “Zero Problems?”
Federal Cybersecurity One Year After the OPM Breach
NATO: Weathering the Storms
The Rise of the Fringe: A Threat to Democracy?
Hezbollah's Many Faces
Trans-Pacific Trade Deal Remains in Limbo
The Aftermath of the Nice Attack: Is ISIS’ “Prestige” on the Rise?
Crossing the Line: A Failed Coup in Turkey
France’s Vulnerabilities in a Changing Terror Landscape
The Problem with Proxies
Water Security in South Asia: Running Dry and Running Out of Options
The Clash over Social Media Data
Extremist Groups Target Diversity in Bangladesh
Kenya: Private Sector and Government Coordinate on National Security
The ISIS-Al Qaeda Rivalry
Will Syria’s Most Productive Citizens Ever Return Home?
Trust but Verify: The United States, China & Economic Espionage
The World is Watching: The American Election and China
The Status Quo Will Not Work in South Sudan
Kurdistan as a Geopolitical Playground
Rio Olympic Games: A Missed Opportunity
Spinning Silk: Asia and the GCC
China-Japan Relations: Trading Goods While Exchanging Words
Climate Change in Ethiopia: Managing the Risks
Mounting Security Challenges in Afghanistan
Is There a Future for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?
Niger Delta Militants Compound Nigeria’s Security Crises
Thailand Under the Junta
Brazil: Getting its House Back in Order Post Olympics
Indicators of Political Instability
Finding Water in the Desert: Water Security in the Middle East
The Blurring Line Between Cyber and Physical Threats
The World is Watching: The American Election and Russia
NATO’s Ambiguity on the Red Line for Russia
Boko Haram: The Plague Affecting Nigeria and Beyond
Tunisia: From Revolution to Governance
Russia, China, and Cyber Espionage
Best Of: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Game-Changer or Procurement Nightmare?
Climate Change Jeopardizes National Security
Algeria: A Bulwark Against ISIS
Venezuela's Military: Both a Stabilizing and Destabilizing Force
Will Theresa May's Britain Stay Committed to European Defense?
America and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
What’s at Stake in the South China Sea?
Fifteen Years After 9/11: Much Accomplished, Much to be Done
The Post-9/11 U.S. Military
The Post-9/11 U.S. Intelligence Community
South Africa: ANC Losing Its Grip on Power
The World is Watching: The American Election and Saudi Arabia
Turkish Leverage Over the United States and European Union
Nuclear North Korea: A No-Win Scenario?
Insider Cyber Threats: A Pressing Problem Facing Business
Al Shabaab: A Persistent Threat
Unease, Uncertainty, and Strife: Global Inequality and Instability
Europe Bears a Big Burden in the World's Migration Crisis
Malicious Cyber-Actors in the Financial Services Industry
China's Ongoing Struggle to Clamp Down on Terrorism
Growing Instability in Africa’s Top Two Oil Producers
The World is Watching: The American Election and Iran
Dollars and Sense: Military Spending During an Economic Downturn
Forewarned is Forearmed: Confronting Adversaries in Cyberspace
Is Peace Possible in Colombia?
The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
Nuclear No First Use: Ambiguity vs. Clarity
Al Qaeda Growing Stronger By the Minute
Cyber and the Law
The DRC: Strong Grip on Power, Weak Handle on Governance
Combatting Haqqani Network is Key to Afghan Strategy
War and Peace: Syria and the Question of American Intervention
The F35: A 21st Century Coalition Asset
Objective: Mosul
Where is Duterte Leading the Philippines?
Great Power Politics in Latin America
In the Strait of Hormuz, Little has Changed with Iran
Corralling the Cartel: OPEC and Oil Prices
Russian Hacking: The Difficult Path Between Inaction and Escalation
Philippines' Duterte Leaves U.S. Policymakers "Baffled"
The World is Watching: The American Election and Germany
Can Hamas Elections Shift the Status Quo?
What is the Future of U.S. Policy in Latin America?
Conflict and Common Goals: the Government and Silicon Valley
Kashmir in Crisis—Again
Al Qaeda in Syria: The Split That Wasn't
EU and U.S. Interests in Hungary in Jeopardy
The Price of Turkish Posturing in Iraq
Is it Possible to Hack the Vote?
Decision Day in the U.S.: Daunting Security Challenges Ahead
The State of Play in Syria
Modi: Modernizing India
Trump's Win Creates Uncertainty in Europe
The Powers and Pitfalls of Drone Warfare
Insurgent Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems: A Cat-and-Mouse Game
The African Migrant Crisis: The EU Takes Action
The U.S. Military: Ready or Not?
Sisi, the IMF, and Egypt's Crumbling Economy
Can Robots Fight Wars? The Future of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
The Global Debate Over the Legality of Drones Continues
Agility and Innovation in the Third Offset Strategy
China's Economy: Great Power, Great Responsibility
Identity in Cyberspace: The Advent of Biometrics Authentication
Obama's Legacy on Russia and China: Making the Grade
Sweden, Finland & Norway Deepen Defense Ties with the West
Developing and Sticking With a Clear Strategy in Afghanistan
Italy’s Choice: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t
Predicting the Future: Anticipating Security Events with Data Analytics
Russia’s Energy Leverage Wanes in Parts of Europe
The U.S.-Japan Alliance: A Safe Harbor
President Obama's Counterterrorism Legacy
Dialing Up Controversy with China
China Officially Ties Internet Restrictions to its own National Security
Trumping Trade: Alternatives to TPP
The International Criminal Court, Under Pressure, Turns Eyes on U.S.
Egyptian and Israeli Cold Peace Has Never Been Warmer
Trump, Russia, and the CIA: Allies and Adversaries Confused
Hacking Against Cybercrime: The FBI's New Approach
Trumping Trade: The Future of NAFTA
Violence in Mexico Surges
Directed-Energy Weapons: Time to Focus
At the Crossroads Between East and West: Turkey and the World in 2016
The Perils of Connectivity: Cyber Insecurity in 2016
The Party Endures: China and the World in 2016
Cracks in the Union: Europe and the World in 2016
Eyes on the Kremlin: Russia and the World in 2016
Terrorists Don't Have to Win - They Just Have to Survive: Counterterrorism in 2016
A Perennial Task with No Finish Line: U.S. Defense Planning and Procurement in 2016
A Changing of the Guard: U.S. Counterterrorism Policy
Poland: Strong Defense Partner But Taking Undemocratic Steps
Land, Sea, and Air: U.S. Military Readiness in the Navy and Marine Corps
Syria's Tangled Trilateral Road to Peace
The UK’s New Surveillance Law: Security Necessity or Snoopers’ Charter?
South Korea’s Foreign Policy: Leaderless, but Not Rudderless
Jammeh to Cede Power, Leave The Gambia
Mali’s Instability: Advantage, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
Railguns: The Fast, the Furious—and the Future?
Swarming the Battlefield: Combat Evolves Toward Lethal Autonomous Weapons
Mixed Signals to Moscow: The Trump Administration's Russia Policy Puzzle
NATO’s Changing Face Under the Trump Administration
South Korea’s Presidential Crisis: Is Democracy Stuck in Park?
Power and the U.S. Presidency
Trump's Hour of Action: Recommendations for Cyber Policy
Passing the ‘Football’: The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy
The Baltics Up the Ante in Defense
Take It or Leave It: The Future of the Two-State Solution
Trump and Trudeau: Fire and Ice
Cybersecurity in the Gulf: The Middle East's Virtual Frontline
Little Margin for Error in South China Sea Policy
Eritrea: A Potential U.S. Counterterror Partner
Trump Administration Faces Daunting Challenges in Afghanistan
The New Space Race
Autonomous Hacking Bots: Menace or Savior?
Myanmar’s Rohingya Crisis – Fertile Ground for Jihadis in Southeast Asia?
Cuba Lingers in Limbo
Designating the Muslim Brotherhood As Terrorists Is Complicated
Trump and the New Map of the Middle East
The New Technology of Humanitarian Assistance
Missile Defense: Blocking Threats or Blocking Diplomacy?
Flynn Controversy Raises New Questions
Doubling Down Against the Jihadist Message
Civilians and the Military Under Trump
The Gulf Cooperation Council Operates in a Tumultuous Region
DIY Defense Tech: More Countries Seek Advanced Homegrown Weaponry
The Vice Closes on Mosul: What Next?
U.S. Marines Head to Norway and Australia
Cyber Proxies: A Central Tenet of Russia’s Hybrid Warfare
The Future of Transatlantic Defense: More Europe
Trump’s NSC: A Bureaucratic Balancing Act
Tallinn Manual 2.0: Stepping Out of the Fog in Cyberspace
Defining Objectives for the U.S.-Iran Relationship
The U.S.-Japan Alliance: Reform and Uncertainty
India’s Cyber Potential: A Bridge Between East and West
Missile Defense: Targeting a Technological Solution
NATO Zeros In on Black Sea Security
Vying for Power in Iran
The TPP Without America
Disentangling the NSA and Cyber Command
The United Nations at a Tipping Point
Developing Special Operations Forces in China and Russia
Hawala Networks: The Paperless Trail of Terrorist Transactions
Objective: Raqqa
The Baltics: Veterans of Russian Cyber Operations
Security Concerns Complicate Investment Opportunities in Mozambique
What Is the “Deep State”?
Al Qaeda Takes Advantage in Syria
The War of Words Between Europe and Turkey
Jumping the Air Gap: How to Breach Isolated Networks
Sizing Up the Trump Defense Budget
Brexit Begins: Hurdles to a UK-EU Deal
India-Israel Relations: An Opportunity That Can’t Be Missed
Why Syria’s Kurds Are America’s Key Ally
China Pivots its Hackers from Industrial Spies to Cyber Warriors
Putin vs. The Unknown
Germany, Japan Strengthen Defensive Capabilities
The Long-Goodbye to Afghanistan – Should It Get Longer?
Turkey’s Referendum: The Dangerous Road to “Yes”
Trump Draws the Line in Syria
EU Economic and Military Investments in Africa Increase
Trump-Xi Summit: No Real Progress Yet, but Stay Tuned
The Zero-Day Dilemma: Should Government Disclose Company Cyber Security Gaps?
Stepping into the Void of Trump’s Global Retreat
Al Qaeda Quietly Expands in South Asia
Chinese Firms Surge into Africa in Search of Customers, Contracts, Jobs
How Spy Agency Hackers Pose As – Anybody
Does Moderate Political Islam Exist?
The Call to Radicalism, Both at Home and Abroad
Instability Casts a Shadow Over French Presidential Election
The Problem of Siloed Cyber Warriors