Michael Morell, Former Deputy Director and Acting Director, CIA
During his 33-year career at CIA, Michael served as Deputy Director for three-and-a-half years, a job in which he managed the Agency’s day-to-day operations and analysis, represented the Agency at the White House and Congress, and maintained the Agency’s relationships with intelligence services and foreign leaders around the world. Michael also served twice as Acting Director, leading CIA when Leon Panetta was confirmed as Secretary of Defense and again after David Petraeus left government.
Mike Vickers
Former Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
Dr. Michael Vickers served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence from 2011 to 2015, the Chief Executive Officer of the Defense Intelligence Enterprise, an $80 billion, 180,000-person, global operation that includes the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Defense Security Service, and the intelligence components of the Military Services and Combatant Commands. He played a major policy and planning role in the operation that killed Usama bin Ladin. From 2007 to 2011, he served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, Low-Intensity Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities. Earlier in his career, he served in the Special Forces and in the CIA’s Clandestine Service, and had operational and combat experience in Central America and the Caribbean, the Middle East, and Central Asia.
Morell: As former intelligence officers, we’ve spent a lifetime thinking about the national security threats and challenges facing the United States and therefore we’re able to judge whether we are safer today than we were three-and-a-half years ago. Let’s go issue-by-issue.
Vickers: We should also make sure we say a word about how the tools of national security that we use to keep us safe are faring.
Morell: You and I worked most closely on the issue of internatonal terrorism during our time together on the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee. How do you see that threat today and how has it evolved since January 2017?
Vickers: The global jihadist threat - al-Qa’ida and ISIS - has been significantly reduced. Core al-Qa’ida in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region was largely dismantled during the Obama administration. Under the Trump administration, core ISIS in Syria-Iraq has been dismantled, and al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been severely degraded.
I would make two cautionary points, however: these groups will reconstitute if we don’t keep pressure on them. I worry about the negative effects of a withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria and DoD’s almost exclusive focus on the growing threat from China. Second, as the Pensacola shooting shows, our homeland is still vulnerable to attacks by global jihadists.
Morell: The Trump Administration has so far, as you point out, made us safer from terrorists. I think it is fair to say, though, that on core ISIS and AQAP the Trump Administration has followed the Obama Administration’s playbook on counterterrorism. It is one of the few areas of policy continuity. And, it should be no surprise that what was successful under Obama would likewise be successful under Trump. Afghanistan has always been a focus of yours; how do you see what is happening there, particularly with respect to the terrorist threat that could emanate from the country?
Vickers: The paradox of Afghanistan is that while we couldn’t win with 150,000 US and coalition troops in the time allotted, the Taliban can’t win with us down to only a few thousand troops as long as we continue to support the Afghan government and remain willing to use our airpower to prevent a Taliban victory and the reconstitution of global jihadist groups. A peace deal with the Taliban is fine as long as they abide by its terms. A Taliban hostile takeover of Afghanistan would be seen as a defeat for the US and would greatly embolden the global jihadist movement.
Let’s turn to North Korea. Are we better off or worse off than we were four years ago?
Morell: The North Koreans have advanced their strategic weapons program under every US president since the Intelligence Community first discovered it under Bush 41, and the Trump Administration is and will be no different. North Korea has more nuclear devices and more long-range ballistic missiles today than it did in January 2017 and it has demonstrated greater sophistication as well (a submarine-launched missile less than a year ago, for example). Trump’s tweet, after the Singapore Summit, that “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat” from North Korea” was not accurate. In fact, the opposite is true; if Vice President Biden wins the election, he will face a more significant nuclear threat from the North than when he left office.
I must say that I worry much less about the deliberate use of nuclear weapons by the North — Kim Chong-un is rational and he knows that the use of nuclear weapons against the United States would mean the end of him and his regime — I worry much more about a deliberate sale or the theft of a weapon, particularly at a time of political instability in the North.
Vickers: North Korea not only has more nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems than they did four years ago, it has far more deadly and capable ones. The North Koreans have successfully detonated a bomb with a thermonuclear yield - equivalent to hundreds of kilotons of TNT. They have also developed far more reliable delivery systems. This puts the US in much greater danger.
Moving on to where things stand with Russia, we are clearly worse off than we were four years ago. To be sure, we were not in a good place with Russia at the end of the Obama administration – the annexation of Crimea, covert and overt intervention in eastern Ukraine and massive interference in the 2016 US presidential election - but the situation has deteriorated further under Trump. We supported the opposition in Syria, and Putin and Iran backed Assad. Putin won and the US lost. Russian-backed separatists continue to occupy eastern Ukraine. Russia is intervening again in the 2020 US presidential election in favor of Trump. I think that says it all. It seems like we’re also in worse shape with Iran, don’t you agree?
Morell: Yes, we are, but let me add one point on Russia. Their attack on our democracy in 2016, which, as you pointed out is happening again, was really the first time in American history that we have been attacked by an outside power and not come together as a nation. Rather, we have come apart, largely because of the President’s strange refusal to acknowledge Russia’s activities here.
On Iran, at the end of the Obama Administration, the Iranians were in a box on their nuclear weapons program, thanks to the 2015 nuclear deal, even while their destabilizing behavior in the region continued unabated. Now, with the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, we have the worst of both worlds — the Iranians are in violation of the nuclear deal, with the consequence that the levels of enriched uranium are again rising to dangerous levels, along with an even more aggressive Iranian approach to the region. We are also now split from our allies on Iran policy, and we have driven the Iranians to a long-term economic deal with the Chinese, which will make it more difficult in the future to put pressure on Iran.
What about China? “The” issue, right?
Vickers: It is indeed “the” issue. China is the only actor comprehensively challenging American power - economically, technologically in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing and synthetic biology, and militarily. We can’t ignore the other threats, particularly, the immediate threat to our democracy posed by Russia, but China is our primary national security challenge over the long term. Xi has become more assertive and confident that things are going his way. As with Russia, Iran and North Korea, it’s hard to see how we’re better off than we were four years ago. Am I missing something?
Morell: No, President Trump deserves credit for calling out the Chinese on all their activities that are inconsistent with international norms, such as stealing intellectual property, forcing technology transfer from those firms that want to sell in the Chinese market, solving territorial disputes through military rather than diplomatic means, and committing significant human rights abuses against parts of their non-ethnic Chinese populations. But, the President’s approach — focused on tough rhetoric and tariffs — has not paid off at all. Chinese misbehavior has not slowed one iota.
Mike, you said we should talk about the tools of foreign policy. What are you thinking about and why are you concerned?
Vickers: I’m concerned about the state of our traditional tools - our diplomatic, intelligence and military capabilities - and about the tools we will need for new national security challenges that we haven’t really developed yet. Our diplomatic capabilities have been decimated by the Trump administration and our allies have been denigrated and undermined. Intelligence is being ignored, suppressed and politicized. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has been severely weakened and politicized. While our intelligence agencies and military have received substantial increases in funding, there is much that needs to be done to transform our intelligence and military capabilities for the new national security challenges we face.
We face new threats to our ability to clandestinely collect intelligence. We need to realign our analytic resources to address the new challenges below and modernize our covert action capabilities. On the military side, I’m increasingly concerned about space and cyber threats and our ability to deter Chinese and Russian aggression. With domestic threats rising from armed militia groups, I’m also concerned about the sustained assault on the FBI.
We haven’t deterred Russia from conducting covert influence attacks to sow division in the US and interfere in the 2020 presidential election. We have not organized ourselves to compete with China in the innovation race in AI and other emerging technologies. And we have yet to successfully posture ourselves for pandemics and other biological threats. It’s a long list.
What are you concerned about?
Morell: All of that. It is a very good list. I would just add a couple of thoughts. Your point about winning the technology race is vitally important. I think of it as both DoD and the IC getting to the edge of technology and staying there. That is a hard problem.
I could not agree with you more on diplomacy. For reasons that have to do with the CT fight and the fact that we were the world’s sole superpower for a period of time, we have come to rely too much on military power. Diplomacy must be the primary tool of our foreign and national security policy.
On US military capabilities, we need new operational concepts, not necessarily more “stuff,” to deal with the threats we face around the world. The Chinese, for example, have found a way to keep us from quickly moving forces into East Asia if necessary in a military conflict. How do we change that equation without having to move forces into theater now?
Finally, you did not put this on your list, but I know you agree with it. We need to do a much better job of using our economic power as a foreign policy tool, in particular to compete with China for influence around the world. Right now, we use economic power primarily as a stick in the form of sanctions. We need to use it as a carrot as well, perhaps moving from “development assistance” to “development investment,” whereby a relatively small amount of USG money can leverage a much larger amount of US private sector capital. We would aim this investment at countries that are key to our competition with China.
And, as last point, all of this has to be done with less overall money for the foreign policy and national security community. The issues that need attention here at home are substantial and must be addressed if we are going to be able to compete with the likes of China.
Mike, what’s your bottom line out of all of this? Mine is that the threats in the world are worse today than they were four years ago, and our tools to deal with them are either eroding or not keeping pace with the times. There is a lot of work to do.
Vickers: My bottom line is the same as yours. Rebuilding and transforming our national security instruments can’t come soon enough.
Michael Morell is the former Deputy Director and twice Acting Director of the CIA. Mike Vickers is the former Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. Both are career intelligence officers and served presidents from both political parties.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief
