New York Post

The Wrong War

Why Trump’s intel attacks are misplaced

- RALPH PETERS Ralph Peters is Fox News’ strategic analyst and a retired Military Intelligen­ce officer.

THURSDAY’S Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on cyber-warfare threats — particular­ly those from Russia — was a welcome moment for grown-ups. Frank, honest and bipartisan, the consensus from our legislator­s and our intelligen­cecommunit­y leadership was that we face multiple grave and growing dangers, but the most-immediate and only existentia­l threat comes from Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

And yes, the Russians did attack our elections with cyber-weapons and informatio­n warfare. All our intelligen­ce agencies agree. Which is rare.

Republican or Democrat, the senators praised the patriotism and accomplish­ments of those who serve in our intelligen­ce agencies. That was welcome, too, given the political fashion of the moment to denigrate our intelligen­ce profession­als while turning backflips to excuse Putin’s strategic subversion and condone the actions of an America-hating alleged rapist, Julian Assange.

What have we come to when even a former governor, interviewe­d on cable news, brushes off Putin’s assault on our country with the suggestion that “everybody does it.” Well, no. Not everybody pulls out all the stops to shatter the integrity of a US presidenti­al election.

Putin’s multi-pronged attack targeted all Americans by striking the fundamenta­l tool of our democracy, our free elections. Right or left, we all should be equally outraged — if we give a damn about our country.

Instead, we’ve heard no end of political henchmen insist we should listen to Assange (whom they previously loathed) and be quiet about Putin (whom they previously condemned) because of “all the intelligen­ce failures” in the past.

Yet, when pressed, such critics always cite the same, sole “intelligen­ce failure,” the weapons-ofmass-destructio­n call prior to the invasion of Iraq. They neglect to mention that the intelligen­ce community was divided on that conclusion, but neoconserv­atives in the Bush administra­tion pushed the WMD argument to the fore. That was a political failure.

As an intelligen­ce-world veteran myself, I’m more likely to credit the 9/11 attack as a genuine intelligen­ce failure, but the core problems were our unwillingn­ess to think as big as the terrorists did and the lack of informatio­n-sharing between rival intelligen­ce agencies. The Office of the Director of National Intelligen­ce was created to address that problem, and there has been remarkable progress in intelligen­ce-sharing.

Now the incoming administra­tion has floated a trial balloon about reducing the power of, or even eliminatin­g, the DNI position. Why? Because one influentia­l advisor to the president-elect has a personal grudge against the incumbent director. Reversing our intelligen­ce progress would thrill Putin.

What strikes those in the know is how much more capable our intelligen­ce system is today, how really good we’ve become. When I retired two decades ago, we were primitive compared to today’s level of tech expertise and analytical depth.

Instead of cheering on partisan attacks on our nonpartisa­n intelligen­ce community (the majority of intel personnel are military members or veterans, by the way), let’s take a look at what the “intel hands” have done for us lately:

Since 9/11, there hasn’t been another strategic terror attack on our homeland, despite the determinat­ion of our enemies.

Only superb intelligen­ce work allowed us to break al Qaeda’s back and, now, to turn the tide against ISIS (elements within the intelligen­ce community tried to warn the president about ISIS, but he didn’t want to hear it). It wasn’t Obama who “got” bin Laden, it was great intelligen­ce plus the Navy SEALs.

Our intel networks monitor nuke developmen­ts in North Korea and Iran — and elsewhere — to prevent strategic surprises.

In the absence of updated legislatio­n, the intelligen­ce agencies do their best in our daily battle with cyber-intruders. But they’re hamstrung by antiquated regulation­s.

Only our intelligen­ce capabiliti­es enable us to monitor the military, political and economic conditions of potential enemies and provide the president with timely warnings of hostile activity. There’s far more going on in the world than ever makes the news.

Don’t like intelligen­ce because the conclusion­s don’t always match your world view? Try defending our country and interests without it.

The next time a political hack derides our intelligen­ce personnel and defends Julian Assange or Vladimir Putin, ask him or her exactly what he or she has done to protect this country — while intelligen­ce profession­als were laying their lives on the line.

 ??  ?? I spy: National Intelligen­ce Director James Clapper, whose position Trump might eliminate, testified Thursday on Capitol Hill.
I spy: National Intelligen­ce Director James Clapper, whose position Trump might eliminate, testified Thursday on Capitol Hill.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States