It’s been a busy national security week in DC. Congressional lawmakers and the President managed to reach a deal that would fund the government but leaves the issue of border security open for further action. On Thursday, President Trump announced he would sign the deal, but that he would also declare a national emergency over the immigration issue, setting up a future fight with congress. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi responded by saying that Democrats could seek legal action to prevent the President from funding a border security wall using Executive Authority.
Also on Thursday, Special Operations Commander (SOCOM) Gen. Raymond Thomas and United States Cyber Command’s (USCYBERCOM) Gen. Paul Nakasone, along with Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations Owen West, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The testimony, covering the strategy and priorities of SOCOM and Cyber Command, was wide-ranging and covered election systems, critical infrastructure security, counterterrorism, the Middle East, combating foreign adversaries in cyberspace and prioritizing SOF to combat the rise of near peer adversaries both in the realm of armed conflict, but also, in particular gray zone competition.
Cipher Select caught up with former navy SEAL turned Congressman, Dan Crenshaw, a Republican from Texas’s 2nd Congressional District, in the midst of a very busy schedule. Crenshaw was medically retired from the Navy in 2016 after serving nearly ten years in the SEALS, and was elected to the Congress in November 2018. He has spoken out recently on a range of security issues such as border security, terrorism and rebuilding the military.
Christian: You are on the Homeland Security Committee. What are you going to be most focused on in the first year in terms of emerging threats to the homeland?
Crenshaw: Well, we’re coming out of an intense focus on the border and that will actually continue to be an intense focus. I am from a border state, and this isn't just about threats to the homeland, it’s about sustainability for the homeland. And what's not sustainable is that 400,000 people are apprehended every year at the border, and those are just the ones apprehended. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) estimates that they only get about one in three, so it's a sustainability problem, and it is also a national security problem, so I'll continue to be heavily focused on that.
My other sub-committee on homeland security is disaster preparedness, so on a more bipartisan front, we all want to be prepared for disasters. We want to make sure that our system is working as efficiently as possible and we are properly working with state and local entities to prepare for future disasters and recover from future disasters. This is a huge priority of mine because I live in Houston.
The cyber threat will continue to be extremely important as we try to ensure that our infrastructure is protected from our near peer competitors like Russia and China. We know that they are constantly testing our systems, and we need to be working with private industry to ensure that we are well protected against those threats. Also, we definitely need to make sure that our research and development is up to par and maintains an edge over those competitors.
Christian: On that part in particular, are you optimistic that the U.S. is trending in the right direction?
Crenshaw: Well, we can always do better, but I will say that politically, cyber security is not a very divisive issue so from that perspective, I'm optimistic about it. But I will never say ‘no, we can't do better’. I'll never say, ‘Hey, mission accomplished. We've got everything we need on cyber security.’ It’s going to be an ever-evolving threat.
Christian: Let’s talk about Special Operations. There’s a report that's due to Congress from DOD in March that seeks to assess the culture and ethics of SOCOM, among other things. What are you going to be watching for, and what do you expect that we could see from the report that may impact special operations?
Crenshaw: I have to see the report first. It's hard to comment on something that I haven't seen and I've not been involved in drafting. Generally speaking, I know that SOF or SOCOM is going to begin transitioning from our training and capabilities focused on non-state actors, the Al Qaeda and ISIS of the world, the Taliban, and transitioning into orienting against near peer competitors, the state actors like Russia and China. I think that will be the natural transition, which is in some sense a transition back to normalcy prior to 9/11. What does that mean? For the SEAL teams it means getting back into the water. We've been fighting in the deserts for over 17 years, so part of the transition is getting back to our roots as a maritime special operations force, which we’ve actually been focused on for a while. I think we'll also see some new ideas on the kind of capabilities that we (SEALS) want, such as close air support or SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) capabilities. But again, I haven't seen the report, nor have I been involved in drafting it, but I look forward to reading it and being part of that conversation.
Christian: Afghanistan is in the news almost every day. You have experience there. I personally have experience there. It seems to me that, even within the military and veteran community there can be significant disagreements about how and when we should exit, and what the ramifications of an agreement with the Taliban might be. We’ve seen the results of withdrawing from places like Iraq, only to witness the re-emergence of threats. General Tony Thomas, in his testimony said speaking of Afghanistan, "So how we finish that threat or at least contain it going forward is a critical concern." It’s obvious that the U.S. is approaching some type of an agreement with the Taliban. What are your thoughts on how Afghanistan plays out both near term and over the next five years or 10 years?
Crenshaw: The way I described this to voters is simple. We go there so that they don't come here. We need to be more honest with the American people about what ‘mission accomplished’ looks like, and I think politicians for a long time have not really grasped the idea of what that means. What mission accomplished means is that there are no more 9/11s, and the reality that we need to help the American people understand is that it requires a presence, and a prolonged pressure on the enemy as long as that enemy still exists, which it certainly still does. What we can't allow is for there to be a vacuum of power in places like Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen or Iraq. Guys like you and me go there so that they don't come here and, we're proud to do it. We understand the mission, and I think it's time for politicians to help the American people understand that mission a little bit better. That doesn't mean we need endless nation building. The American people are tired of that, but we do need to maintain a presence that is counter terrorism focused, and intelligence collection focus, and focused on building capacity gradually with our Afghan partners.
Christian: Rebuilding the military is something that you’ve spoken about. Are you optimistic that the U.S. is on the right trend line in terms of rebuilding the military?
Crenshaw: It seems to me that we are. My perspective is of course very SOF centric, and as SOF we didn't suffer the same cuts that the rest of the military did throughout the years. What I did learn from my conventional navy counterparts however, was that there was a severe lack of funding for things like maintenance and personnel. They've been driving their people very hard, and I really want to see a change in that and therefore a change in morale among our surface Navy, because it's a very important part of U.S. national security. I think there has been some welcome changes towards strengthening the force, and part of that strengthening is improving morale and helping the surface navy do their jobs better. So, I think we are going in the right direction, and I'll continue to be in close contact with the Pentagon to make sure that we continue in the right direction, and that we're getting our military what they need in order to complete the missions we ask them to do.
Christian: Is there anything that I haven't asked that you feel important to share with The Cipher Brief readers in terms of emerging threats, global security, innovation, or perhaps something that you've seen in your transition into your new role that's critical?
Crenshaw: We talked about cyber, and we touched on the need for America to continue to compete on the R&D front, especially as it pertains to technology and artificial intelligence. We hit upon the need to rebuild our military and continue to invest in new platforms that maintain our edge, and we talked about the need for American leadership abroad. I’d only add that the world is a very small place, and it's not what it was once. The entire globe is shrinking constantly due to the ease of transportation and the ease with which information flows. Once we allow operational freedom for an enemy, they don't even have to come to our homeland to attack us. They can tweet, or use secure messaging apps that we can't access to communicate and extend their propaganda influence to radicalize our own citizens, which we know happens. Luckily, we have some amazing people in the FBI and DHS who monitor this very closely, but it's a constant threat, and it requires a whole of government approach.
Read other Cipher Select columns on Special Operations...
