A potential structural change to the US surveillance apparatus has thrown the tenure of the National Security Agency director, Michael Rogers, into doubt and increased the likelihood that Donald Trump will have a chance to substantially reshape the US intelligence agencies.
Even before Trump’s presidential victory, which Rogers last week said followed efforts by “a nation-state” to influence the electoral outcome, US intelligence was roiled by FBI director James Comey’s unprecedented interference in the election. US intelligence is experiencing internal turmoil just as Trump is placing hardliners in key national security roles.
Sources confirmed to the Guardian on Saturday that Rogers’ job as head of the NSA was in jeopardy, as his superiors ponder a decision that would divorce the surveillance giant from its adjunct military command, the US Cyber Command (Cybercom).
Since its 2010 inception, Cybercom, a cybersecurity and digital-attack entity, has been a conjoined twin with the surveillance and cryptographic specialists of the NSA. While the NSA collects vast communications and digital data and performs acts of subterfuge, Cybercom is charged with protecting US military networks and attacking the digital networks of foreign adversaries. Also since Cybercom’s inception, critics have fretted that the two missions – espionage and military operations in cyberspace – are not a natural fit.
A resolution to that debate has long been deferred, since the NSA’s technical expertise was considered essential to creating Cybercom. Rogers testified to Congress in 2015 that he “strongly recommend[s]” keeping both entities united.
But in recent years, splitting the so-called “dual hat” arrangement, whereby a single military officer runs both enterprises, has taken on momentum. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence (DNI), has recommended the divorce.
“I do think that we’ve reached the point where each of these responsibilities, as, you know, the Cybercom commander and director of NSA, are large enough and of sufficient magnitude that they should be separate,” Clapper told a New York audience last month.
That's a statement of either magnificent stupidity or epic malignancy. It would leave one collecting to no particular point and the other operating blindly. The two are dependent on each other, with the tasking chains driving each other in a feedback loop.
Should the split go forward, Rogers would be a casualty. Sources said Ashton Carter, the US defense secretary, would replace Rogers at Cybercom. Carter has lost confidence in Rogers following high-profile security breaches at the NSA – precisely the situation Rogers was tapped in 2014 to prevent after whistleblower Edward Snowden’s disclosures. With a post-divorce NSA run by a civilian, instead of a general or flag officer, Rogers would be out of a job.
It is unclear whether Barack Obama will resolve the NSA-Cybercom future before leaving office. Clapper this week announced he would resign once Trump took office, a move likely to limit his influence over what is sure to be a contentious reshuffling – and one that Obama cannot make unilaterally. The chairman of the Senate armed services committee, John McCain of Arizona, has vowed to reject the next NSA director if Obama “prematurely” separates the NSA and Cybercom.
The precariousness of Rogers’ directorship was first reported by the Washington Post. NSA representatives did not immediately return a request for comment.
Rogers may end up having a stabilizing force in Trump. The Post reported that Rogers, without notifying his superiors, met with Trump on Thursday in New York. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Rogers was Trump’s leading candidate to replace Clapper as DNI, though the Intercept reported the Trump team was considering abolishing the position altogether.
Should Rogers leave the NSA, Trump would have a freer hand to remake the surveillance giant in his image than supporters or critics expected. The NSA directorship is not tied to the presidential calendar, and Rogers’ predecessor, army Gen Keith Alexander, for example, served for nine years. |
Harvested yesterday from a comment from our own CLEM.