US President-elect Donald Trump can ill-afford frosty ties with his intelligence agencies. He must trust the system if the US has to successfully battle terrorism
United States' President-elect Donald Trump has dismissed the conclusion reached by American intelligence agencies, with “high confidence”, that Russia had interfered in the later stages of the American election campaign to promote his prospects and damage Hillary Clinton's. He could hardly have been expected to endorse the conclusion which, if confirmed, would cast a shadow not only over his election but the functioning of his presidency. If nothing else, it may put — if it has not already — his dealings with Moscow under powerful Congressional surveillance. This is because it is difficult to brush aside the findings of the agencies, which had claimed, even during the campaign, that the Russians had hacked into the computer systems of both the Democratic and Republican national committees but had made available to Wikileaks documents pertaining only to the former. In so doing, they clearly did not accept the claim, repeatedly made by the Republican National Committee, that its computer system was never compromised.
The agencies had further claimed that their findings about the hacking of the Democratic and Republican national committees' systems had been presented to President Barack Obama. Not only that, while briefing him, their officials, including those from the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, had even identified Russian officials who, they believed, were responsible.
Much would doubtless depend on the contents of the detailed report on ‘lessons learned’, which President Obama has ordered the agencies to prepare before he demits office on January 20, next year. It seeks to assemble a comprehensive account of Russian interference in the election before Trump takes over as President.
Meanwhile, Trump's response to the intelligence findings, typified by the dismissive observation in a statement issued on his behalf by his transition team— “These are the same people who said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction” — raises questions. It increasingly seems that he has little time for them. Unlike other Presidents-elect, who looked forward to briefing sessions with them and soaked in the information they provided, he has been meeting them only sporadically and questioning their analytical constructs and prognoses.
This does not augur well either for the future of his presidency or America's war against global terrorism, which has become all the more sinister because it has come to encompass three frightening dimensions: Biological, nuclear and cyber. The US had a taste of former when, a week after 9/11, anthrax powder was mailed to a number of persons including Senators and important journalists. As for the second, the explosion of even a low-yield ‘dirty’ nuclear device in a city like New York or Washington, DC, could have serious consequences. lastly, the US is no stranger to cyber attacks. In a remarkable parallel to what its intelligence agencies have accused the Russians of doing, the Chinese had hacked into the computer systems of both Obama and his Republican rival for presidency, John McCain, in the summer of 2008. The cyber attack, that Google suffered in December 2009, was traced to China, though its perpetrators could not be precisely identified.
In a computer era, cyber attacks can paralyse a country's military, economy, Government, transport — indeed, every aspect of its life. To prevent such an eventuality, Washington set up a US Cyber Command in May 2010. Run by the NSA and the Pentagon, it is the over-arching institution operating America's offensive and defensive cyber capability. Huge funds have been committed and infrastructure created. Nevertheless, as the alleged hackings by the Russians suggest, much remains to be done. Besides, organisations like the Islamic State of Iraq and the levant, and the Al Qaeda and its spawns, will increasingly target the US as they continue to lose ground in West Asia and North Africa.
To foil these, America would require its President and intelligence agencies to work in harmony. The latter have doubtless blundered — as on the issue of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and the Bay of Pigs debacle in Cuba in 1961, for which the CIA was responsible. But there have also been successes, such as Osama bin laden's killing in 2011.
(The writer is Consultant Editor, The Pioneer, and an author)