Academics and Practitioners Give Open Advice to President Trump on ‘Eradicating’ Terrorism

The video for all four panels and the two keynotes (Michael Vickers and Richard English) can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHPN6YFZQHs6VLbFJITxg6A

We intend to have the conference proceedings published in a special report of the Georgetown Security Studies Review by around the end of the month and I will of course forward that when it is published.

Conclusion:

There were several clear themes and suggestions for the new administration. Most panels emphasized a need to be aware of the global picture and the presence of multiple terrorist threats. The panelists stressed a need to understand the context of terrorist incidents and the value of striving for proportional responses to such incidents. Moreover, the importance of learning from other countries’ and regions’ experiences, particularly the EU, was a clear trend of the discussions. On a different note, a focus on the increased technological threat both in terms of cyber-attacks and the power of new media for recruitment and propaganda also permeated the conference. According to Professor Arsenault, “The recent conference helped to create new knowledge at the intersection of counterterrorism theory and practice,” a sentiment echoed by Richard English who remarked, “It focused on an utterly contemporary event but with an eye to historical depth and background; and it involved high-grade scholarship, but with an eye to policy seriousness.”

Academics and Practitioners Give Open Advice to President Trump on ‘Eradicating’ Terrorism

 Feb 06, 2017  GSSR  Cyber Security, In The News, Intelligence, International Security, Nuclear and Unconventional Weapons, Terrorism, US National Security  0

http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2017/02/06/academics-and-practitioners-give-open-advice-to-president-trump-on-eradicating-terrorism/

---

By: Antonia Ward, Reporter

Photo Credit: Georgetown University Center for Security Studies (CSS)

January 26th-27th witnessed a convergence of academics and practitioners from across the world descend upon Georgetown University to offer policy lessons and advice to the new administration of President Donald Trump on the pressing issue of terrorism and counterterrorism in a seminal conference co-hosted by Georgetown University and the University of St Andrews-Scotland, “What the New Administration Needs to Know About Terrorism and Counterterrorism.” Comprising four panels across two days and two keynote speeches, the conference engendered lively and thorough discussion driven by a number of seasoned experts. Academics from farther afield such as Jytte Klausen and Audrey Kurth Cronin sat alongside prominent scholars from both Georgetown and St. Andrews, two universities that have enjoyed close partnership since Professor Bruce Hoffman co-founded the Handa Centre at St. Andrews (CSTPV) with the late Professor Paul Wilkinson in 1994. Additionally, the conference welcomed pivotal practitioners including Gary Ermutlu of the UN and career US Intelligence Community public servants Paula Doyle and Paul Pillar.

The conference began with a light breakfast followed by a brief introduction by Bruce Hoffman. The first panel, ‘What Next? Global Trends and Threats,’ was moderated by Professor Richard English, Pro-Vice Chancellor of Queen’s University Belfast. Hoffman’s assessment focused upon the resilience of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the danger of foreign fighters, and the prospect of al Qaeda absorbing ISIS and the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat, thoughts that were similarly echoed by CSTPV Director Tim Wilson. Hanin Ghaddar, editor of the Lebanon’s NOW news website, warned of the threat Iranian-backed Hezbollah poses to the United States and the group’s growing power and consolidation within Iraq and Syria. Sir David Veness, a former UN official and CSTPV professor, warned of the major gap between identifying threats and collective response, highlighting the issues of Russia and Aleppo, Lebanon and Turkey; Veness also discussed the social media threat, extremist recruitment, and the difficulty of combatting lone wolf terrorism.

Following a lunch break, the keynote speech from The Honorable Michael Vickers, former Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, kicked off the afternoon. In his speech, Mr. Vickers identified four failed strategies that the new administration should take valuable lessons from: containment; regional catalysts for regime change; strategic myopia; and placing hope in unreliable international partners. Mr. Vickers focused upon the importance of building strong and lasting alliances, conducting aggressive and sustained counterterrorism campaigns, and utilizing covert action. In response to a question asking if drones create more terrorism than they remove and their fodder for terrorist propaganda, Mr. Vickers firmly advocated for their use citing them as “the most precise instrument in the history of warfare.”

The last panel of the day, ‘What Next? Regional Trends and Threats,’ was chaired by Colonel David Maxwell, Associate Director of the Center for Security Studies and the Security Studies Program. Terrorism scholar Daveed Gartenstein-Ross focused on the importance of understanding the organizational structures and histories of Al Qaeda and ISIS for any effective counterterrorism strategy. Dr. Christine Fair, professor at Georgetown University, highlighted the increasing threat emanating from Pakistan and the links between their intelligence agency ISI and ISIS. The last two panelists, Professors Jytte Klausen and Diego Muro of the University of St Andrews-Scotland focused on the threats posed by terrorists within Europe specifically, discussing the complex networks at work in Europe and the supply and demand nature of terrorism recruiting, an understanding of which are crucial to an effective counter-radicalization strategy on the continent.

Friday morning began with a panel on ‘Global Counterterrorism and Regional Structures.’ Gary Ermutlu of the UN discussed terrorism as a living system, thus making it predictable; according to Ermutlu, rather than simply targeting leadership, counterterrorism strategies ought to focus on critical training, logistics, weapons and IED programs, and counter-messaging. Mary Habeck of Johns Hopkins University and Audrey Kurth Cronin of American University further discussed Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and ISIS, discussing the nature of the entity itself and tracing its roots back to the Iraqi government under Maliki. Fernando Reinares, professor at Georgetown University, focused on the EU, arguing that second and third generations of Muslim populations were the largest threat, subsequently making terrorism the EU’S number one threat; according to Reinares, effective conglomeration of databases was one of the most effective weapons against this threat.

The keynote speech from Richard English, formerly Director of St Andrew’s Handa Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV), focused upon five foundations of success for the new administration in countering terrorism: distinguishing between ‘terrorisms’ and ‘terrorism’; setting realistic goals; coordinated domestic and international responses; maintaining a credible message; and appropriately measuring the size of the threat and response. In particular, English emphasized President Trump’s goal of eradicating terrorism as mentioned in his inaugural speech, and highlighted that completely eradicating a centuries old phenomenon would be virtually impossible.

The final panel of the Conference was concerned with ‘Intelligence Challenges.’ Georgetown professor Elizabeth Arsenault made an impassioned speech regarding morality and firmly argued against the reopening of CIA black sites or using torture in interrogations. She also expressed concern about the relationship between the President and the Intelligence Community, warning of the dangers of politicization and the erosion of public faith. Professor Mark Currie focused upon the importance of learning from historical experiences and identifying to root source of grievances that fuel terrorism, emphasizing coordination and cooperation with partners as potential counterterrorism strategy. Paula Doyle spoke of the importance of resources, stressing that an increased threat from cyber-attacks should also take precedence in an age of digital counterterrorism. Paul Pillar’s discussion centered around honesty with the public about what counterterrorism can do and the inherent tension between security measures and the values of liberal democracy.

There were several clear themes and suggestions for the new administration. Most panels emphasized a need to be aware of the global picture and the presence of multiple terrorist threats. The panelists stressed a need to understand the context of terrorist incidents and the value of striving for proportional responses to such incidents. Moreover, the importance of learning from other countries’ and regions’ experiences, particularly the EU, was a clear trend of the discussions. On a different note, a focus on the increased technological threat both in terms of cyber-attacks and the power of new media for recruitment and propaganda also permeated the conference. According to Professor Arsenault, “The recent conference helped to create new knowledge at the intersection of counterterrorism theory and practice,” a sentiment echoed by Richard English who remarked, “It focused on an utterly contemporary event but with an eye to historical depth and background; and it involved high-grade scholarship, but with an eye to policy seriousness.”

What the New Administration needs to Know About Terrorism & Counterterrorism

I strongly recommend watching this video if you have 2 and 1/2 hours. The remarks by each speaker are very important and very much worth considering and the Q&A is excellent.   Also we will be publishing their remarks in a special edition of the Georgetown Security Studies Review hopefully by the end of the month. http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/

Moderator: Richard English – Queen’s University, Belfast

Speakers

Bruce Hoffman – Georgetown University

Hanin Ghaddar – The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Sir David Veness – University of St. Andrews

Tim Wilson – University of St. Andrews

Panels 1 and 2 and the Key Note from Michael VIckers can be accessed here. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHPN6YFZQHs6VLbFJITxg6A

Moderator: David Maxwell – Georgetown University
Speakers:
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross – Georgetown University/ Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
Christine Fair – Georgetown University
Jytte Klausen – Brandeis University/ Woodrow Wilson Center
Diego Muro – University of St. Andrews

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: YouTube <noreply@youtube.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:19 PM
Subject: Georgetown University Center for Security Studies just uploaded a video
To: David Maxwell <david.maxwell161@gmail.com>

Georgetown University Center for Security Studies has uploaded What the New Administration needs to Know About Terrorism & Counterterrorism – Panel 1 What the New Administration needs to Know About Terrorism & Counter... Georgetown University Center for Security Studies What the New Administration needs to Know About Terrorism & Counterterrorism Panel 1 – What Next? Global Trends and Threats Opening Remarks: Bruce Hoffman – Georgetown University Tim Wilson – University of St. Andrews Moderator: Richard English – Queen’s University, Belfast Speakers: Bruce Hoffman – Georgetown University Hanin Ghaddar – The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Sir David Veness – University of St. Andrews Tim Wilson – University of St. Andrews © 2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 You were sent this email because you chose to receive updates from Georgetown University Center for Security Studies. If you don't want these updates anymore, you can unsubscribe here.

SSP Podcast - Episode 7 - Col. (Ret.) David Maxwell- discuss unconventional warfare (UW), the “gray zone,” and strategy

In case anyone is bored on election day or needs a sleep aid.

Thanks to SSP Alum Jeff Palmer for putting together the SSP Podcast program.  I was honored to join the members of our distinguished SSP faculty and friends of SSP (Professor Richard English) and participating in Jeff's latest podcast episode.  All the podcast episodes can be accessed through iTunes at the link below or from the Center for Security Studies Web page at this link: https://css.georgetown.edu/podcast  These include Bruce Hoffman, Richard English, Elizabeth Grimm Arsenault, Ariane Tabatabai, Elizabeth Stanley, and Dan Byman.

Security Studies Podcast - Episode 7 - Col. (Ret.) David Maxwell

ReleasedNov 08, 2016

Episode 7 of the Security Studies Podcast features Col. David Maxwell (Ret.), Associate Director of Georgetown’s Security Studies Program, to discuss unconventional warfare (UW), the “gray zone,” and strategy. We define and conceptualize these terms, cover current examples of the use of UW, discuss the need for the U.S. to develop counter-UW capabilities, and talk about his inspiration to do strategy. Col. Maxwell also shares stories of how his blog came to be (www.maxoki161.blogspot.com) and of a special memento in his office. The Security Studies Podcast is produced by Jeffrey Palmer. Music: www.bensound.com/royalty-free-music

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/security-studies-podcast-episode/id1110393903?i=1000377620329&mt=2

THE SECURITY STUDIES PODCAST

The Security Studies Podcast invites SSP faculty to discuss the most pressing and complex global security issues of today.

Subscribe to The Security Studies Podcast on iTunes here.

Produced by Jeffrey Palmer

​
​

​

Georgetown Security Studies Review Volume 4, Number 1 January 2016

The latest edition of our student run peer-reviewed security studies review can be downloaded at this link:  http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/GSSR-Vol.-4-Iss.-1.pdf
The home page for the review is at this link: http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/

Georgetown Security Studies Review

Volume 4, Number 1

January 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Why Greater American-Russian Counter-ISIL Cooperation is
Needed ................................................................................................. 4
Blake Bassett

Secret Evidence and its Legalities in an Evolving World of
Intelligence and Cybersecurity ....................................................... 36
Donna Artusy

Realism, World War I, and the US-China Relationship .............. 51
Abigail Casey

The Russian Counterinsurgency Campaign in Chechnya During
the Second War and Chechenizatsia .............................................. 69
David Sidamonidze

Atlanticist Drift: French Security Policy After de Gaulle ............ 93
Daniel Lim

The Islamic State’s Social Media and Recruitment Strategy:
Papering Over a Flimsy Caliphate ............................................... 120
Ryan Pereira

Report: Lone Wolf Terrorism Prepared by the Security Studies Program National Security Critical Issue Task Force

The entire report can be downloaded from the Georgetown Security Studies Review web site at this link: http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NCITF-Final-Paper.pdf

Seventeen Security Studies studies and two professors did a deep dive on Lone Wolf Terrorism in June.  I was able to participate in their final briefing of the report as they presented it to a number of senior US leaders.  I think the report with its eight findings and three recommendations is very much worth reading.  The EXSUM and the Methodology and Scope are pasted below.

Report:  Lone Wolf Terrorism

Prepared by the Security Studies Program National Security Critical Issue Task Force

Executive Summary 

The United States (US) is the primary target among western states for lone wolf terrorist (LWT) attacks, and the frequency of attacks continues to increase. Even though LWT attacks remain less common and precipitate fewer casualties than terrorist attacks conducted by organizations, the US must continue to focus counterterrorism resources and encourage further research to combat this threat to national security. In this assessment, the Georgetown National Security Critical Issue Task Force (NSCITF) hopes to inform key stakeholders about the most critical lone wolf terrorism issues and spark new policy discussions on how to address the problem. 

The NSCITF articulates eight findings that inform the collective understanding of lone wolf terrorism and offers three actionable recommendations to address those findings. First, the NSCITF finds that no single USG definition on lone wolf terrorism exists. Second, the NSCITF identifies the following four current trends in domestic LWT attacks, each of which highlight multiple issues that US policymakers must consider when drafting counterterrorism policies directed at LWTs: 

1) Increased targeting of law enforcement (LE) and military personnel; 

2) Overwhelming use firearms to conduct attacks, compared to LWTs in other western countries who rely on hijackings or bombs; 

3) Increased radicalization via the Internet, extremist media, and the civilian workplace; and, 

4) Proclamation of an individual ideology instead of claiming affinity to specific, organized extremist groups. 

Third, despite the presence of overarching trends among domestic LWTs, the NSCITF determines that profiling fails to target potential LWTs effectively. Consequently, in the fourth finding, the NSCITF provides a framework to understand how an individual becomes a LWT and to identify possible intervention points. Fifth, the NSCITF develops a typology that organizes lone wolves in terms of their ideological autonomy and social competence to explicate why lone wolves operate alone, a key gap in the extant literature on terrorism. 

The final three findings address US federal and local law enforcement policies to prevent LWT attacks. In the sixth finding, the NSCITF identifies the challenges of using traditional law 7 enforcement tactics to identify and stop LWTs. Specifically, the NSCITF highlights how the expansion of the Internet and social media offers individuals an ability to become radicalized without physically interacting with others and research various attack methodologies undetected. The seventh finding demonstrates that aggressive law enforcement tactics—namely, surveillance and monitoring of targeted individuals—risk community mistrust because of perceived infringements on civil liberties and privacy rights. In the final finding, the NSCITF notes that the US lacks a comprehensive, “whole of government” approach that coherently and systematically organizes the federal, local, and state efforts to combat lone wolfterrorism. 

Based on the above findings, the NSCITF offers three recommendations. First, the USG should adopt a standard definition of lone wolf terrorism. Second, the USG should appoint clear leadership over the problem of lone wolf terrorism to streamline future policy responses and improve governmental coordination at the federal, state, and local levels. Finally, the USG should emphasize the prevention and short-circuiting of the radicalization process. Each recommendation will help the USG streamline future policy responses and improve governmental coordination at the federal, state, and local levels to prevent future LWT attacks.

Methodology and Scope 

The NSCITF developed the findings and recommendations outlined in this report through substantial research into the existing open source literature on LWTs. The NSCITF supplemented this research by conducting interviews with subject matter experts, USG policymakers, attorneys, and academics. 

This assessment relies extensively on two datasets (Spaaij 2012 and Hamm & Spaaij 2015) to analyze the scope of the problem and the trends in domestic attacks. The authors in both datasets require that an individual threaten or commit violence alone to constitute “lone wolf terrorism,” as opposed to violence committed by pairs or trios. Thus, the datasets remain consistent with the NSCITF’s definition of lone wolf terrorism. 

In addition, although recent academic literature and open source reports have addressed the possible threat of lone wolf cyber terrorists, this assessment will not address the use of computer network attacks as a methodology for terrorist attacks.1 The NSCITF believes that the most immediate and concerning method used by LWTs as it relates to US national security is the use of violence targeting human lives and property; currently, there are no examples of domestic lone wolf terrorists launching cyber terrorist attacks that precipitate casualties or property destruction. However, the definition does not exclude the possibility that lone wolf cyber attacks could constitute terrorism, and the potential of lone wolf cyber terrorism warrants future study.

Conference: China and the Middle East February 17

RSVP:  https://www.eventbrite.com/e/china-in-the-middle-east-tickets-15537134989 

 China and the Middle East 
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Carlucci Auditorium, U.S. Institute of Peace
Washington, DC

 China in the Middle East is a daylong conference designed to explore China’s emerging role in the Middle East and its implications for regional stability, U.S. policy and Chinese grand strategy.


 China’s role in the region is expanding in accordance with Beijing’s burgeoning economic, political, and to a lesser extent, military interests there. China is expected to surpass the United States as the world’s largest oil importer this year, making energy security the top issue in Beijing. China is also becoming financially invested in the future of the region; last year 22 percent of Chinese companies’ global investment was directed towards the region. While the number of Chinese nationals working and traveling in the region is still modest, Chinese tourism in the Middle East and North Africa increased more than fivefold from 2000 to 2012. Beijing has also become a marginal arms seller in the region and is the leading proliferator of small arms in the world, with Middle Eastern countries as top recipients.


 Some U.S. leaders and scholars have voiced concerns about the implications of enhanced Chinese influence in the region while others have welcomed China’s increased presence and called on China to make a greater contribution to regional stability. China could leverage its significant soft power to help resolve conflicts - according to a recent Pew global poll, China's favorability in the region was higher than that of the United States. Beijing also maintains working relationships with a number of important governments in the region that the United States shuns, such as Syria and Iran. Given these unique channels, China may be able to make a positive contribution to a number of regional security issues, such as combatting Islamic terrorism. Beijing may also play a greater role in the Middle East peace process in the future, as the Palestinians view China as a more impartial actor.
This conference will evaluate China’s nascent regional role, implications for regional security, the reactions of other regional actors, and implications for U.S. policy.

This conference is co-sponsored by the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Georgetown University Center for Security Studies and made possible in part through the generosity of the Philip and Patricia Bilden Asian Security Studies Fund.
0830-0930: Registration 
0930-0945: Welcome 
Jim Reardon-Anderson, Interim Dean, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University 
Nancy Lindborg, President, United States Institute of Peace (USIP) 
0945-1045: What is China’s Role in the Middle East? 
Degang Sun, Professor, Middle East Studies Institute, Shanghai International Studies University 
Dan Blumenthal, Director of Asian Studies, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) 
Dawn Murphy, Assistant Professor, Air War College 
Moderator: Oriana Skylar Mastro, Assistant Professor, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University 
1045-1100: Break 
1100-1200: Does China Enhance Stability in the Middle East? 
Steve Levine, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University 
Paul Sullivan, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University 
Mikkal Herberg, Senior Lecturer, University of California, San Diego 
Moderator: Sarhang Hamasaeed, Senior Program Officer, Center for Middle East and Africa, USIP 
1200-1230: Break 
1230-1345: Lunch Keynote 
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.), President Emeritus, Middle East Policy Council & U.S. China Policy Council 
1345-1400: Break 
1400-1500: How Do Different Players in the Region See China’s Expanding Role? 
Jon Alterman, Senior Vice President, Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, and Director of Middle East Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) 
John Garver, Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Tech 
Sam Chester, Analyst, Clarity Capital 
Moderator: Daniel Byman, Professor, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University 
1500-1515: Break 
1515-1615: How Should U.S. Policy Adapt to These Changes? 
Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow and Co-Director, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, The Brookings Institution 
Patrick Cronin, Senior Advisor and Senior Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program, Center for New American Security (CNAS) 
Moderator: Thomas McNaugher, Director of Studies, Georgetown University Center for Security Studies 
1615-1630: Concluding Remarks: What are Important Areas for Future Inquiry? 
Oriana Skylar Mastro, Assistant Professor, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University 
Manal Omar, Acting Vice President, Center for Middle East and Africa, USIP 
David Maxwell, Associate Director, Georgetown University Center for Security Studies 

1630-1800: Reception for speakers, select students 

Georgetown Security Studies Review 3:1 !3

The new issue of the Georgetown Security Studies Review has just been posted on line.

The PDF can be downloaded at this link.  http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/GSSR-Vol.-3-Iss.-1.pdf

The Table of Contents is below.

This is the link to the GSSR main web site with other features:  http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/

Georgetown Security Studies Review 3:1 !3

North Korea, ASEAN, and Denuclearization 4
Martin J. Cool
This paper explores the history of relations between North Korea and Southeast Asian nations
then seeks to find a synthesis between ASEAN’s preference for engagement and the United
States’ policy of isolation given the unique problem set that North Korean denuclearization
presents.

Shifting Opinions: Israel & the International Community 20
Michael Donovan
American and international opinions are shifting away from unconditionally backing Israel.
Perception of the conflict is evolving in terms of international legal norms, human rights, and the
morality of foreign occupation. This article explores that shift and outlines an opportunity for
American policymakers to harness this change of opinion, and perhaps bring Israeli
policymakers to the negotiating table.

Technology Domain Awareness: Building the Defense Innovation Base 33
Adam Jay Harrison, Jawad Rachami, & Christopher Zember
This article outlines the innovation imperative facing the U.S. Department of Defense and details
current and future plans pursued by the DOD Information Analysis Centers to develop a defense
innovation operating system that sustains the United States’ military-technology edge in the face
of persistent operational, technological, and fiscal volatility and uncertainty.

The Resilience of Profit-seeking Illicit Networks: The Case of the Arellano-
Félix Organization 49
Barbara Cedillo Lopez
It is important to understand why some profit seeking illicit networks have chosen to evade, coopt,
or confront government forces; and why the states choose to target some illicit networks
through repression, while they tolerate and even colluded with others. This paper presents a
typology of resilience for illicit networks, and uses an historical case study to test this typology.
Moroccan Jihadism in Europe: A Quantitative Analysis of Migration and

Terror Plots by Individuals of Moroccan Origin in Western Europe 71
Jeffrey D. Palmer
This essay provides an analysis of the quantitative properties of Moroccan migration patterns and
incidents of jihadist terrorism, whether disrupted, failed, or executed, by individuals of Moroccan
origin (i.e. first- and second-generation migrants) in Western Europe from 2001 to 2013.

The Sino-American Airpower Competition: A Net Assessment 82
James Nolan
This article seeks to determine where the U.S. stands vis-à-vis China’s airpower capabilities over
the next 15 to 20 years. It employs the net assessment framework, drawing from open source
data and existing literature currently available on both militaries. This analysis concludes the
United States will continue to hold an advantage in the air for the next 15 to 20 years.

From the CIA Book reviews: Moles, Defectors, and Deceptions: James Angleton and His Influence on US Counterintelligence

Excerpt:

This is the best assessment of James Angleton and his career ever produced.

You can watch the entire conference at this link:http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/moles-defectors-and-deceptions-james-angleton-and-his-influence-us-counterintelligence

 (I moderated the third panel :-))

You can download the book at this link: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/moles_defectors_and_deceptions_james_angleton_conference_report_0.pdf

We also have hard copies of the book at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown since we sponsored this conference and co-hosted it with the Wilson Center.

Moles, Defectors, and Deceptions: James Angleton and His Influence on US Counterintelligence, edited by Bruce Hoffman and Christian Ostermann (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2014), 116 pp., photos, no index.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/intelligence-officer2019s-bookshelf.html

On 29 March 2012, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars sponsored a seminar on James Angleton, his legacy, and his influence on counterintelligence. It was cochaired by the editors of this volume, which is a transcript of the proceedings. The 12 contributors were Tennent Bagley (CIA retired); Barry Royden (CIA retired); Carl Colby 

(Producer/Director and William Colby’s son); journalist/authors Edward Epstein, Ronald Kessler, David Martin and David Wise; historians Christopher Andrew (Cambridge), Loch Johnson (University of Georgia), John Prados (National Security Archive), and David Robarge (CIA); and Oleg Kalugin (KGB retired).

Each contributor made a presentation, and the overall result was an unusual summary view of Angleton and his CIA career. Only Bagley had had prolonged professional contact with Angleton. Johnson had interviewed him several times while on the Church Committee staff, and Epstein had interviewed him for 85 hours; both of these encounters occurred after Angleton had retired. The other journalists, authors, and historians had written books or articles about Angleton based on documents and interviews.

The varied views presented reflect the origins and functions of CIA counterintelligence as well as Angleton’s molehunt and other controversial elements of his career. There were brisk exchanges among the presenters and the audience. (36–37) Questions from the audience and the panelists’ answers are also included. This is the best assessment of James Angleton and his career ever produced.

The Warrior Ethos at Risk: H.R. McMaster's Remarkable Veterans Day Speech (at Georgetown)

Yes this was a remarkable speech.  One of the best I have ever heard. We were very fortunate to have LTG McMaster give this speech at Georgetown on Veteran's Day.  I have to add that both Joel Meredith's (President of the Georgetown Student Veterans of America) and President DeGioia's speeches were excellent and complementary to the General's as well.  I am glad that Janine Davidson was able to get this and publish it because this needs to have wide distribution.

​  This is a foundational speech for anyone who studies war.​

The Warrior Ethos at Risk: H.R. McMaster’s Remarkable Veterans Day Speech

http://blogs.cfr.org/davidson/2014/11/18/the-warrior-ethos-at-risk-h-r-mcmasters-remarkable-veterans-day-speech/

by Janine Davidson
November 18, 2014

Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, director of the Army Capabilities an Integration Center and deputy commanding general of futures for the U.S. Army Training Doctrine Command, speaks at Georgetown University's Veterans Day ceremony. (Georgetown University Office of Communications)

Dr. Degioia, faculty, administrators, students, guests—and especially veterans.On November 11, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, Director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, gave the keynote address at Georgetown University’s Veterans Day ceremony. His message was simple and powerful: the study of war should not be confused with its advocacy; today’s stakes are higher than ever; the warrior ethos is threatened by both tech evangelists (who believe all conflict might be resolved at a safe distance) and a growing gap between the U.S. military and civil society. It’s a remarkably lucid speech by one of the Army’s most energetic leaders. You can read the whole text below:

Good afternoon. It is a great honor for me to participate in this celebration. My thanks to Georgetown University and the Student Veterans Association and the Hoya ROTC battalion. It is a particular privilege to celebrate Veterans Day at an elite university that has both educated and been shaped by our nation’s veterans. I would like to begin by thanking, on behalf of all veterans, the university leadership for making Georgetown the top-rated college for veterans.

Our military is a living historical community and those of us serving today are determined to preserve the legacy of courageous, selfless service that we have inherited from the veterans who have gone before us. We might remember that we are commemorating Veterans Day in the year marking the 100th anniversary of the beginning of The Great War. We celebrate on this day because on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, World War I ended. Though much has changed in the character of armed conflict since the early twentieth century, there are also clear continuities in the nature of war and especially in the character, commitment, and ethos of those who have served in our Armed Forces.  I thought that we might consider two ways of honoring our veterans for which those connected to Georgetown University are particularly qualified. First, to study war as the best means of preventing it; and second, to help the American military preserve our warrior ethos while remaining connected to those in whose name we fight.

There is a tendency in the United States to confuse the study of war and warfare with militarism. Thinking clearly about the problem of war and warfare, however, is both an unfortunate necessity and the best way to prevent it. As the English theologian, writer, and philosopher G.K. Chesterton observed, “War is not the best way of settling differences, but it is the only way of preventing them being settled for you.” As George Washington, who addressed Georgetown students in August 1797 observed, “To be prepared for war is the most effectual means to promote peace.” One of the patterns of American military history is to be unprepared for war either because of wishful thinking or a failure to consider continuities in the nature of war—especially war’s political and human dimensions.

In Europe, Jan Bloch, Norman Angell and others believed in 1914 that war had become so irrational a means of settling disputes that sensible people would never again fight one. Orville and Wilbur Wright believed that the invention of the aeroplane would bring an end to war. Even Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the machine gun when asked if his invention would increase the human cost of war, replied that the weapon will “make war impossible.”

The experience of World War I, a conflict that took the lives of over sixteen million people, highlighted the need to understand the political and historical basis for violent conflict as critical both to preserving peace and ending wars. It was no coincidence that Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service opened in February 1919 with Edmund A. Walsh, the Jesuit priest for whom it is now named, serving as regent. Its charter was to help create and sustain lasting peace among nations. As we know, however, the “war that was to end all wars” was instead the first of two world wars that marked the bloodiest century in world history.

Constantine McGuire’s vision for the Walsh School was to promote peace through commerce and diplomacy. This vision was consistent with Immanuel Kant’s idea of humanity reaching ‘moral maturity,’ as international institutions helped to prevent war.

World War II highlighted that institutions inconsistent with the cultural dispositions or historical experiences of its members are doomed to failure. After Pearl Harbor, our nation mobilized. Georgetown was the first elite university to be incorporated into the Army’s plan to establish training centers on campus. As they had during World War I, Georgetown students and faculty answered the call to service. World War II involved all of America. The U.S. Army grew from an army of 190,000 to an army of almost 8.5 million—a 44 fold increase. A total of 16 million Americans served in uniform in WWII; virtually every family had someone in harm’s way, every American had an emotional investment in our armed forces.

As the historian Rick Atkinson has observed, the wars of the twentieth century also teach us that victory in war is only possible through sacrifice. In World War II alone, the U.S. military sustained almost 300,000 battle deaths and about 100,000 deaths from other causes. The war lasted 2,174 days and claimed an average of 27,600 lives every day, or 1,150 an hour, or nineteen a minute, or one death every three seconds.

After World War II, the U.S. accepted that military power was necessary not only to the establishment, but also to the preservation of peace. However, many thought that strategic bombing capability and the atomic bomb was all that was needed to deter and, if necessary, prevail in war. The U.S. Army was unprepared to respond effectively to the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950, anther bloody war in that bloodiest of centuries.

Georgetown graduates continued to serve our nation in the Korean War, the Vietnam War and across the Cold War. Prominent among them is Joseph Mark Lauinger for whom the library is named and who made the supreme sacrifice and received the Silver Star Medal for gallantry in action.

It was during the divisive Vietnam War that many universities confused the study of war with advocacy of it and tended to view military forces and weapons as propagators of violence rather than protectors of peace. Some saw war as the cause rather than the result of international tensions and competitions.

As the new world order associated with the end of the Cold War was thought to usher in an era of peace, the U.S. military and many Georgetown graduates were again in armed conflicts in Panama, the Persian Gulf and the Balkans. I had the great privilege of serving in the 1991 Persian Gulf War with Lieutenant Mike Petschek who served with great distinction and received the Silver Star Medal for gallantry in action at the Battle of 73 Easting.

The American military experience of the twentieth century was consistent with President Barack Obama’s observation, “To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason…”

It was Aristotle who first said that it is only worth discussing what is in our power. So we might discuss how to prevent particular conflicts rather than eliminate all conflict, and when conflict is necessary, how to win. And in the pursuit of victory, how to preserve our values and make war less inhumane.

And we might discuss war to understand continuities its nature and changes in its character. It was a misinterpretation of the lopsided military victory in the 1991 Gulf war that gave rise to what would become the orthodoxy of the Revolution in Military Affairs, the belief that American military technological advantages would shift war fundamentally from the realm of uncertainty to the realm of certainty. The language was hubristic. The United States would use dominant battlespace knowledge to achieve full spectrum dominance over any opponent. The U.S. military would shock and awe opponents in the conduct of rapid decisive operations. War would be fast, cheap, and efficient. The thinking betrayed what Elting Morison warned against in 1967 when he wrote the following in Men, Machines, and Modern Times.

What I want to suggest here is the persistent human temptation to make life more explicable by making it more calculable; to put experience into some logical scheme that by its order and niceness will make what happens seem more understandable, analysis more bearable, decision simpler….

The orthodoxy of the Revolution in Military Affairs aimed to make war more explicable and calculable. This fundamentally flawed thinking about future war set us up for many of the difficulties we would encounter in the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So we should discuss war in places like this great university because we have much to learn and because the stakes are high.

The stakes are high because we are engaged today, as previous generations were engaged, against enemies that pose a great threat to all civilized peoples. As previous generations defeated Nazi facism, Japanese imperialism, and communist totalitarianism and oppression, we will defeat these enemies who cynically use a perverted interpretation of religion to incite hatred and violence.

The murder of more than 3,000 of our fellow Americans on September 11, 2001 is etched indelibly in all of our memories. Since those attacks, our nation has been at war with modern day barbarians. It is our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have volunteered for military service in time of war who will continue to stand between us and these terrorists who rape women, abuse children and commit mass murder of innocents.

The stakes are high because what see in the Greater Middle East is a humanitarian catastrophe of colossal scale. And battlegrounds overseas are inexorably connected to our own security. As the historian Margaret MacMillan has observed, “new technologies and social media platforms provide new rallying points for fanatics.” Enemy organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIL seek to perpetuate ignorance, foment hatred, and use that hatred as justification for the murder of innocents. They entice masses of undereducated, disaffected young men with a sophisticated campaign of propaganda, disinformation, and brainwashing.

As President Obama observed “a non violent movement could not have stopped Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.” America, he observed has used its military power, “Because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.”  Ultimately, it will fall today, as it fell then, on the shoulders of American servicemen and women to stop mass murderers who threaten all of us, our children, and our grandchildren.

It is for this reason that American veterans are both warriors and humanitarians.

And because the stakes today are high as they were then, we must preserve our warrior ethos while remaining connected to those in whose name we fight.

The warrior ethos is a covenant between the members of our profession comprised of values such as honor, duty, courage, loyalty, and self-sacrifice. But our warrior ethos also depends on our military’s connection to our society. That is because when we are valued by others we value ourselves. Ultimately, as Christopher Coker has observed, it is the warrior ethos that permits servicemen and women to see themselves as part of a community that sustains itself through “sacred trust” and a covenant that binds us to one another and to the society we serve. The warrior ethos is important because it is what makes military units effective. It is also important because it is what makes war “less inhumane.”

The warrior ethos is at risk because fewer and fewer Americans are connected to our professional military. Separation from our society is consequential because warriors depend on respect for what they do to maintain their self-respect.

The warrior ethos is at risk because fewer and fewer Americans understand what is at stake in the wars in which we are engaged. How many Americans could, for example, name the three main Taliban organizations we are fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

The warrior ethos is at risk because some argue that victory over an enemy or winning in war is an old idea that is no longer relevant in today’s complex world.

The warrior ethos is at risk because some continue to advocate simple, mainly technologically based solutions to the problem of future war, ignoring war’s very nature as a human and political activity that is fundamentally a contest of wills.

The warrior ethos is at risk because popular culture waters down and coarsens the warrior ethos. Warriors are most often portrayed as fragile traumatized human beings. Hollywood tells us little about the warrior’s calling or commitment to his or her fellow warriors or what compels him or her to act courageously, endure hardships, take risks, or make sacrifices.

So I suggest, in honor of our veterans, that we build on the work of Georgetown University and embark on a renewed effort to understand war and warriors. And we might ensure that we do not take for granted the important role that Georgetown and other universities play in keeping our military connected to those in whose name we fight.

Understanding war and warriors is necessary if societies and governments are to make sound judgments concerning military policy. It is our society’s expectations that allow our military to set expectations for ourselves and our fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.  And in our democracy, if society is disconnected from an understanding of war or is unsympathetic to the warrior ethos, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain the fundamental requirements of military effectiveness and to recruit young men and women into military service.

I would like to end with a quotation from George Washington’s speech to Connecticut Troops before their enlistment ran out during the Siege of Boston in 1775. It is apt in connection with the service of our men and women today as well as the relationship between them and our society in time of war.

 Your exertions in the cause of freedom, guided by wisdom and animated by zeal and courage, have gained you the love and confidence of your grateful countrymen; and they look to you, who are experienced veterans, and trust that you will still be the guardians of America. More human glory and happiness may depend upon your exertions than ever yet depended upon any sons of men. He that is a soldier in defense of such a cause, needs not title; his post is a post of honor, and although not an emperor, yet he shall wear a crown—of glory—and blessed will be his memory!

Veterans. Blessed will be your memory. Thank you.

Hoya Saxa and God Bless the United States of America.