AMU Homeland Security Opinion

Future US National Security Leaks and International Fallout

Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security

US efforts to pursue national security leakers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have thus far resulted in making it appear weak and incompetent. The apprehension, mishandling and mitigated sentence of Chelsea Manning (formerly Private Bradley Manning) for releasing classified information and thousands of damaging documents to the public was also no final victory. Unfortunately it is not the end of dealing with these characters and the problem goes beyond the uncharted ends and means of traditional counterintelligence and law enforcement measures. The real damage in these types of cases is being neglected in the counter-threat or post-threat process.

Once the information is exposed- what is often unintended by these leakers happens. The nature of the abuse or scandal is immediately and radically exploited by other state and non-state actors to leverage a diplomatic advantage over the US and its interests abroad. While it rallies the American people, it does not appear able to end a large standing military conflict or national security policy. Nor does it expose “sources and methods” as badly as prosecutors say. The real damage is America’s national interests and foreign relations. It makes America look real stupid too. And lastly, it does this because the “traitors” are humanists before they are loyalists.

Unlike other “traitors” the three recent personages above see themselves as heroes for exposing a grave “international” concern of interest, not a national or secret one. The timing of the leaks, the audience(s), the intensity of the exposure and the commitment of various international actors play the most critical role in damaging the America’s overseas freedom of action and general instruments of statecraft. The objective of the new “traitor” is not to harm the Us or its people directly by enhancing the success of another particular national or non-state group- these “traitors” are led by their narrow field of vision and not the consequences that it will have.

One potential important lesson here is simple: the DoD and the intelligence community could use their own version of a “Wikipedia” that is favorable to them [versus the rest of the world]. This ‘friendly’ set-up would be a third-party whose task is to release classified information of foreign governments or non-state actors [that includes some of their dirty laundry] when such US abuses are exposed abroad. Such a strategic information operation would be diversionary. Then at least the issue becomes one of truly humanitarian concern and not ‘national’ loss and negative image. Or at least, America’s ability to function abroad is not severely restricted or impeded. Strategic thinking is more than just the playing on diversion but the search for opportunities in a grave situation where the tables appear to be turned against us.

If a select group of Americans are found in some random abuse, information against other countries or non-state actors committing a similar or far worse atrocity will generate more attention and American leaks should fade away or rapidly disappear from view and news. But this is largely a tactic in and of itself on grand scale and not a strategy. Strategic thinking would still be required in conducting its proper execution.

If there is a program of national security that is questionable to American principles, the third-party(ies) would leak reports and documents showing far worse programs of rival or enemy actors and like dogs on the trail of justice seek the most evil monster of the day and not the one that was only wounded by a minor offense. This may put out fires in an extreme situation but does not solve the problem of contradicting policies and values and actions.

Nevertheless, nothing is taken away accept the target of hatred and condemnation directed at the USA. The target now either becomes another rival or the issue itself, which becomes a war of ideas rather than the diplomatic sparring of national actors.

The issue contention and controversy will be raised with or without a pro-US third-party leaker organization; only now the attention is taken off the most critical damage to the US image. Such maneuvers can be accomplished well if done strategically or utterly fail if used as simple techniques. The methods must follow a diversionary operations strategy of public information defense and radical damage control procedures if and when they threaten active operations and national security.

Ultimately, the real game must not be about ‘criminal procedures of the accused and apprehended,’ but about positive US political power projection and the freedom to act and shape the world around in its image and values.

Another option is to utilize the skills and abilities of the leakers themselves by employing them in these third-party organizations for justice, all the while harnessing them as assets for pro-American values. They are far more willing to spend more attention on the biggest human rights violations and violators than they are with the minor ones. While convincing them that the US is the lesser evil should not be difficult, many are prone to see otherwise, as the issue of the immediate day may reflect the poorest in American institutional abuse, political or security scandals. Such technological ‘defectors’ are far more willing to work with USA, once they know more about the plethora of greater evil abroad. If even a fraction of these types can be recruited and turned on international actors that carry out subversive or diplomatic operations against the US and its interests, it would be worth some effort.

At the same time, such diversionary information strategic planning should constantly help to promote and keep the notion of American values enshrined within all facets of government and for the duty and service of the American people. All genuine abuses should be handed internally through reformed procedure and by US law and never suppressed, ignored or passed down. People involved should be punished according to law.

It is possible, however, to delay criminal action if such immediate action jeopardizes America’s national security and on-going civil or security operations. However, eventually, such crimes must be punished by law and reforms made to plug the holes. A suspension of law could still be used in the case of immediate threat or handled more quietly by closed panel American leadership and elected officials.

Essentially, Edward Snowden was a ‘turn coat’ who chose to go to an even more repressive regime than the USA- contradicting his stated libertarian aims and providing many rival states with a greater understanding of domestic intelligence that those countries will soon learn to master themselves and do far worse than America ever will- going beyond domestic surveillance and into political abductions, etc. While he claims that his knowledge of Chinese and Russian capabilities gave him the advantage of securing the information so as not to fall into their hands, they know have the man in Moscow. Perhaps they do not need the information if they can won the PR and PD battles which then gave them greater legitimacy, and the overall diplomatic tension in foreign affairs. As long as they hold Snowden, they encourage others like him. Additionally, they will likely keep a close eye on him and either contact him directly through security services or indirectly using plants and informant neighbors. He has expressed that he was not in contact with Russian intelligence, but that is hard to believe. Even if it is true, he may not even realize who he’s in contact with. He may just be pillow talking and singing in an intoxicated state every night, still proud of what he has done and accomplished.

People are calling a non-US Australian citizen named “Assange” a traitor. Well, he may be an similar international activist but his agenda is really an impassioned broader universal transparency- not a threat of the USA or American principles. The problem was not his agenda but his target of opportunity and as importantly his timing- homing in on the USA during its war on terrorism and particularly the Iraq War. Assange assumed, like Snowden and Manley- an all new breed of technical beta male warriors- that China, Russia and the rest of the world were not worse than the US- that the US was the biggest monsters. This could not be farther from the truth. While he should have targeted the most restrictive countries to open them up, they chose to attack their own. So treasonous, yes, but of a new type and from a new breed that is praised by many, at least initially.

Once leakers in the US national security apparatus realize that the US is the villain; they will then cause the most harm. Even here, perception is key and it is influence by experiences that they encounter within their own units or professions. Their leaks are often based on the internal abuses that could not be exposed any other way, but what really might happen is that they could expose the abuses in other countries to raise awareness of the issue- generate the discussion here and let the American people decide what political additions they are willing to accept.

Unless the leakers can be reached or their efforts diverted, they will arbitrarily decide what information and who should be exposed and who will eventually be exploited by other actors to be eaten alive on the international stage.

Ultimately, if America is to be vitally scrutinized, it should scrutinize itself by its own people, its laws and its own procedures in-country. It must not produce itself cannon fodder for subsequent enemy information operations but have a better means of defense to counter them all.

Comments are closed.