STATEMENT OF FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NEWT GINGRICH BEFORE THE

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.124 or greater is installed.

Please login or register to make a comment!

STATEMENT OF FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NEWT GINGRICH BEFORE THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2005 Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Cramer, and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about the nation 9s intelligence system and the absolute imperative for effective ongoing reform. It is now four years and one month since the 9/11 attack on America. The comparable date for World War II would have been January 19, 1946.

By that point the United States was largely demobilizing its forces after a victorious global war. During the comparable length of time that we have been responding to the 9/11 attacks on America, the World War II generation of Americans had rebounded from the attack on Pearl Harbor and defeated Germany, Japan and Italy, built a worldwide military and intelligence capability, built the atomic bomb, massed and organized industrial power, and laid the foundation for the worldwide network of alliances that has stabilized the world for the last sixty years. This difference in energy, intensity, and resolve should worry all of us.

The difference between allied success in breaking the German and Japanese codes and the level of surprise our ... more. less.

enemies routinely achieve against us today in London, Amsterdam, and Baghdad should worry all of us, as should each of the following failures: " the failure to dominate terrorists in Iraq; " the failure to penetrate North Korea after 55 years of trying; " the failure to penetrate Iran; and " the failure to have adequate intelligence about China. These failures are a problem for all of our instruments of national security. DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 1 - For today 9s purposes I will focus on intelligence. Put succinctly, the nation 9s intelligence system is broken and we cannot rest until we fix it. Everything we have done for the last four years must be put in the context of the Second World War because the time it took for America to win that war was shorter than the length of time since 9/11. There has been no urgency, no resolve, and no mobilization comparable to World War II. The creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was a start but it was only a start. At its core, intelligence reform has to be centered on performance and only then can we deal with organizational structures. In terms of structure, in order to develop the intelligence capabilities that America will require for the 21 st Century, the Congress should actively consider a combination of the National Defense Act of 1947 with the Goldwater-Nichols systemic reforms of 1986 because that is the level of change that we need. Anything short of this scale of analysis and thinking will fail. In this testimony, there are five themes that I urge this subcommittee to keep in the forefront of its thinking about intelligence reform. 1. America 9s Global Responsibilities Are Far More Complex Today than during the Cold War The scale, nature, and speed of national security challenges facing the United States in the early 21st century is far more complex than we faced during the Cold War and requires a new system of analysis, planning, and operations within the Intelligence Community. Between World War I and World War II there were a wide range of contingencies which national security planners had to take into account. Since they could not focus on any one threat and develop a plan for only a single contingency they had to develop a broad range of options. In retrospect, the process of planning for a multitude of threats was extraordinarily useful in helping American leaders think through contingencies and develop thinking for what became a world war, crucial months before war actually commenced, a lead time that many historians claim could very well have been the deciding factor between victory and defeat for America. This pre-planning and scenario building was crucial in such diverse elements as training schedules, logistical infrastructure development, staff training, and weapons procurements. Without this pre-planning and scenario building, our offensives in both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters, starting in 1943, would have DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 2 - been impossible, our timetable for ultimate victory would have been off by at least a year or more, with potentially disastrous results, both during the war and during the subsequent Cold War. This multiple contingency process went on throughout the interwar period without regard to budget cuts, immediate threats or the debates of any particular period. It was an ongoing evolution of strategic analysis and thinking that helped shape the entire system. In the process it helped produce some of the most sophisticated senior leaders in American history. During the Cold War the threat was so narrowly and decisively focused that strategic planners did not need to have a wide spectrum of options. Containing the Soviet Union until it collapsed was the overwhelming focus of American strategic planning from 1947 to 1991. Then in the 1990s we were so busy absorbing the collapse of the Soviet Union and trying to accommodate the extraordinary changes from a bipolar world to one with a single superpower that comprehensive planning was virtually impossible. Now the contingent threats and complexities of the 21st century national security world are beginning to emerge. It is possible to discern a range of challenges and a range of contingencies which need to be thought through and planned for by the Intelligence Community. Set forth in Appendix 1 to this statement is a list of several of the national security challenges for which the Intelligence Community must prepare in this new, complex national security environment. We must develop a national security and homeland security system, with intelligence as a core component, which can deal with this complexity in real time in an information age. 2. The Challenges to American National Security Are Far More Difficult Today than during the Cold War The challenges to America 9s national security today are far more difficult than what we confronted during the Cold War and it will be much harder to get good intelligence than it was during WWII and the Cold War. Each challenge will require an honest assessment of intelligence requirements and a plan to satisfy those requirements. While many of the national security challenges are outlined in Appendix 1 , it warrants particular mention here of the tremendous difficulty we face with our most visible national security challenge today, which we currently call the Global War on Terror. First, we continue to have difficulty in accurately identifying an adequate conceptual framework for this war, and the term cGlobal War on Terror d reflects this inadequate DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 3 - framework. With an inadequate conceptual framework of this war, we will be unable to determine an effective theory of victory, let alone an effective understanding of the intelligence requirements of that theory. Because this war is at its core an ideological war, it is more accurate to think of and identify this war as the cLong War d. It is stunningly hard to win a war of ideology where the enemy is religiously motivated to kill us. To put this into perspective, if the people of the United States were to suddenly decide that a particular concept was inherently wrong in our educational system, it could easily take 20 to 30 years to change that concept, rewrite all the text books, and retrain all the educators. That example is one completely within our culture. If one includes intercultural communication difficulties, the problem grows exponentially harder. If we use every tool at the disposal of the American people in support of a coherent theory of victory, the Long War might only last 50 3 70 years. Yet, it will probably last much longer. Second, unlike wars of the past, our enemy today in the Long War escapes a ready identification. As with the term cLong War d, we need to name our enemy accurately to help us properly conceptualize this war and develop the intelligence system required to win it. We can start to overcome this difficulty by identifying the enemy in the Long War as the cIrreconcilable Wing of Islam. d It is a war against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam because this enemy believes in a strikingly different world then the one we believe in, a world with which there can be no compromise. It is an uncivilized and barbaric world that cannot be reconciled to a civilized one. This wing of Islam, and its adherents and recruits, are irreconcilable because they cannot peacefully coexist with the civilized world. Their views on the role of women, on the application of medieval religious law (the Sha 9ria) and religious intolerance (prosecuting Christians) make them irreconcilable with civilization in the modern age. This is a societal war of identity so there are no holds barred, no rules, and no real accommodations (only tactical maneuvers) or potential for compromise solutions on their part that would be culturally acceptable to us, or to them. Given the existence of nuclear and biological weapons and the efforts of enemies to secure them, the Long War is potentially an existential threat to our survival as a free country. Four years after 9/11 and with active military operations first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, it is also difficult for the American public to appreciate that this war for civilization is still only in its early stages. And that it is at once a global military fight and a battle of ideas between those who would defend civilization and those who would destroy it. The DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 4 - startling fact that all of the London subway bombers were British citizens strongly implies that the Bush Doctrine is only partly right. In other words, spreading democracy may be essential to win this war, but by itself it may not be sufficient. This poses a new and extraordinarily difficult challenge for America 9s security. If the London bombings were not enough evidence, one need only look at the Netherlands, a fellow democracy. In the Netherlands, there is the case of a film-maker killed by a religiously motivated extremist. The murderer has vowed to kill again if he could. From his viewpoint, this is completely rational. After all, nothing the state can do to him in this world could possibly outweigh what God can do for him in the next. We must develop a reasonable means of internal intelligence to protect Americans from threats within our borders and in a way that protects civil rights. This is something that we have never really done, will find distasteful and unnatural, and we need to have a serious discussion about what this means and how to do it. I think in a few years time, the United States will have implemented many of Tony Blair 9s innovations dealing with cpreachers of hate d. The only question will be if we implement them as a result of adult discussion and debate or if we do it as a knee-jerk reaction because of another major terrorist attack. If it is the latter, it will, no doubt, involve greater loss of privacy and civil rights than a more reasoned approach can ensure. The Long War is 90% intellectual, communications, political, economic, diplomacy, and intelligence focused. It is at most 10% military. We have not yet developed the doctrine or structure capable of thinking through and implementing a Long War (30 to 70 years if we are lucky) on a societal scale. This challenge is compounded because it is fundamentally different from waging the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The Cold War was essentially a grand siege in which a defensive alliance could contain the Soviet Union until it collapsed. This is an inherently offensive war in which we have to actively defeat our opponents. Furthermore this war resembles the Reformation-era wars of religion in which fellow nationals may be traitors serving the other side (examine Elizabethan England and the origins of the English secret service as an example). Analyzing this societal reality, designing strategies that first avoid defeat and then achieve victory, communicating these strategies to the Congress and the American people so they understand and support them, and then communicating them to our allies and neutrals around the world in terms which they can support is a challenge dramatically more complex and difficult than the development of the containment strategy from 1947 to 1950. It is also central to our survival and to our ability to lead the world. Third, the Long War has a particular focus in the Middle East where Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are all potentially flash points of great danger. Within the Middle Eastern focus there are currently campaigns underway in Afghanistan and Iraq. DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 5 - The Iraq campaign is actually a regional campaign with enemy forces using sanctuaries in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf Emirates. The Afghan campaign clearly has a sanctuary in northern Pakistan. It is within this regional framework -- and with the understanding that many of the elements of financing, recruiting, arming, and planning occur outside of Iraq and Afghanistan -- which the American Intelligence Community has to operate. Trying to win or understand the two immediate campaigns without understanding that we are engaged in the Long War is simply hopeless. It would also be hopeless for the Intelligence Community to conceptualize these two campaigns without reference to the Long War and without identifying the enemy as the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam. 3. The Intelligence Community is Grotesquely Under Sourced for the Level of Achievement that Political Leaders Claim They Want The current intelligence system is too small, too under funded, too bureaucratic, too culturally inbred and too ineffective. A successful 21 st century American intelligence system will require much greater capabilities with much greater resourcing and much greater complexity of organization. One example of a national security challenge for which we are dramatically under resourced is with respect to the Gray World -- the ungoverned areas of the planet that provide sanctuary and resources to terrorists and criminals. Appendix 1 to this statement describes the Gray World. In addition, submitted as part of this testimony is a map generated by the CIA that graphically illustrates the location of these ungoverned areas. In an age of globalization, we are all effectively adjacent to these areas. The Intelligence Community will require more resources to penetrate and understand these areas. 4. Today 9s Level of Complexity and Difficulty Requires a Metric Based System of Accountability To be sure, perfect intelligence is impossible. Not knowing something is not always an intelligence failure. Notwithstanding all the efforts we will make, we must expect that we will experience surprise in painful and dangerous ways. That is why there has to be a Department of Defense and a Department of Homeland Security for the times when intelligence is inadequate and we are taken by surprise. Nevertheless, we are not optimized correctly to gather and exploit intelligence effectively in the 21 st Century. The intelligence system is, to a large extent, a product of the lessons learned from World War II and the challenges of a bureaucratic and largely monolithic Soviet DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 6 - opponent during the 44 years of the Cold War. The intelligence agencies are largely a collection of large industrial style bureaucracies. Those bureaucracies, as effective as they once were, are not capable of dealing with the world of the 21 st Century. If one looks at the organizations and tools that seem to be best adapted to the 21 st Century, UPS, FEDEX, GOOGLE, Automatic Teller Machines, cell phones with cameras, EBAY, Amazon.com, etc., one can easily see that the standard of the future reflects very flat hierarchies, very lean infrastructure, very rapid turn around, and responsiveness to change. It is clear that the great inherited industrial/agricultural systems are incapable of doing those things. These large bureaucracies do not work anymore. They do not work in defense. They do not work in border control. They certainly do not work in intelligence. We had a striking example of how poorly our large bureaucracies adapt to new challenges in the aftermath of Katrina. The images of suffering, death, and loss in New Orleans demonstrate that many of our bureaucracies are unable to adapt to the unplanned and the unexpected. It is dangerous to assume that our intelligence bureaucracies are any more adaptable or responsive. We have to reinvent our bureaucracies and transform our government anew to meet the challenges of the 21 st Century. Intelligence is simply one component of the development of a 21 st century effective intelligent government. The difference in orientation between what we are currently focused on and where we should be going can be illustrated vividly. Building 21 st Century Government Versus Marginally Reforming Current Ineffective Bureaucracies Failure to change will lead to decay Current Ineffective Bureaucracies Reforms within the current framework Vision of Desired Future 21 st Century Technology Society, Economy and Government Real Change Requires Real Change Rather than change, most bureaucracies prefer the comfortable routine of explaining failure. DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 7 - Of course, it is not possible to reach the desired future in one step. It will involve a series of transitions, which can also be illustrated. Transitioning to 21 st Century Government Will Necessarily Mix the Old and the New Current, ineffective bureaucracies New, 21 st Century systems (with thanks to Senator Bob Kerrey for developing this model) OLD -Discard NEEDED -Invent WORKING -Keep Compatible with a 21 st Century system; Preserve but improve We need a comprehensive review of the challenges to America, the requirements of American success, and the metrics by which that success could be measured. Then we need a thorough overhaul of the current system to achieve that success. The overhaul has to include the White House and the Congress as well as the traditional cintelligence community. d Every intelligence agency requires a reporting process comparable to the COMPSTAT and TEAMS reporting instituted by Mayor Giuliani and Chief of Police William Bratton in the New York City Police Department and the Prisons in the 1990s, and now by Chief Bratton with the Los Angeles Police Department. Giuliani 9s book Leadership is a superb introduction to the concept of COMPSTAT and similar reporting and managing tools. The key is for senior leadership to constantly (weekly in key areas, monthly in others) review the data and make changes in a collaborative way with the team charged with implementing the system. - 8 - Every significant intelligence strategy requires an Assessment Room in which the senior leadership can visibly see all the key data and review the totality of the strategy 9s implementation in one sweeping overview. Determining what metrics should be used to define success and maintaining those metrics with accuracy is a major part of this process. The absence of COMPSTAT systems, the absence of Assessment Rooms, and the absence of routine review is a major factor in the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the Federal Government in almost every department. cYou get what you DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications inspect not what you expect d is an old management rule. If no one knows what is going to be inspected and if no data is available for inspection it should not surprise us that the current system also does not function very well, including within the intelligence agencies. A simple metrics based example would be for the Congress to set targets for and measure the number of deep agents per country and the number of American agents for designated countries. In addition, this subcommittee can help develop measurements of core Intelligence Community values. As General Hayden testified in July, a major reason for creating the DNI was to make the Intelligence Community function as a community. General Hayden also testified that a core mantra of DNI leadership is to infuse cCommunity d into everything that it does. This subcommittee can play a role in advising what should be some of the animating core values that should be infused within the Intelligence Community. Set forth in Appendix 2 to this statement is a description of four such core values that should characterize the Intelligence Community. 5. Congress Needs To Be Prepared to Evolve as an Institution To Deal With the New Complexities of National Security and Homeland Security and the Corresponding Intelligence Requirements In the intelligence reform process the Congress should also take a hard look at itself Members of Congress should have an educational track which makes them much more sophisticated consumers of intelligence. The speed and complexity of the 21 st Century requires more of Congressional leadership. In order to effectively exercise oversight of the Intelligence Community, Congressional Leadership will need to participate in war gaming, metrics assessment, and academic training to an unprecedented extent. The congressional committees should develop a metrics based system with an assessment room capability to handle the scale of complexity and to ensure that metrics can be inspected. Congress should develop a much more self aware understanding of what it has done in the past and what has worked and what has failed. Congress should also have a little humility about the degree to which many of today 9s intelligence problems are a direct function of past congressional assaults on the process of intelligence, starvation of the community, micromanagement of operations and establishing of legalistic standards which cannot be employed in a genuine clandestine service. Some areas, however, demand further oversight and leadership. While it would be preferable for rules of interrogation and rules for detention to be published by the Executive Branch, such guidance is needed both to guide our young troops in the field and to send the message that, even in war, the United States adheres to the rule of law, including a bedrock respect for human rights. DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 9 - In addition to the foregoing suggestions, set forth in Appendix 3 to this statement is a list of 25 specific recommendations that this subcommittee can consider in its ongoing oversight of the Intelligence Community. In preparation for this testimony, input was solicited from a number of intelligence professionals for their unvarnished and confidential views about what is required to radically improve our nation 9s intelligence system. Set forth in Appendix 4 to this statement is four of the most insightful assessments that were received. Representative Harman had it exactly right when she stated in July that the only relevant measure of the DNI structure being put in place is whether it is keeping us safer. This subcommittee should consider itself duty bound to be absolutely ruthless in holding leaders of the Intelligence Community accountable for developing an American intelligence system that will keep us safer. The failure of our intelligence system at a time when American soldiers are being killed is scandalous. For example, the failure to adequately exploit for intelligence purposes the documentation of the Saddam Hussein regime during a time of war is a scandal without justification or excuse. A failure to act forcefully, swiftly, and repeatedly to fix such flaws in the system would be even more scandalous. This subcommittee should keep in mind that between June 1939 and June 1940, at a time when we were not yet at war, General George C. Marshall eliminated inadequate performers in the Army. During that time he retired 54 generals and 445 colonels in an Army numbering only about 225,000. By contrast, we are at war and this nation 9s leaders should uphold standards of accountability as firmly as General Marshall. If this subcommittee finds that something about the new Intelligence Community architecture is not working, then it should move the Congress to fix it. Fast. If this subcommittee finds that Intelligence Community personnel are not up to the task of rapidly implementing needed reforms, then such personnel should lose this subcommittee 9s and the public 9s trust and be asked to move on. Fast. In the global war in which we are engaged, speed of adaptation counts more than raw firepower. Creating an effective intelligence system is going to require real change of a wrenching sort. Yet we have no choice. The very survival of our way of life depends on it. DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 10 - Since the founding of the Republic, our country has been abundantly blessed by the courage of the American soldier. Each generation of Americans has been reminded that America depends on courage to be safe and free, as we do now at the start of the 21 st Century. We have seen in places like Fallujah and Tal Afar that this generation of American soldiers has the right stuff -- the courage to keep us safe. Not wanting for courage to win this war, America needs a dramatically more effective intelligence system to win this war. Let us not for a moment be confused about this 3 effective intelligence is the linchpin of our efforts to save American lives and defend American liberty. Appendices Appendix 1 - National Security Challenges.........................................................12 Appendix 2 - Core Values of the Intelligence Community...................................18 Appendix 3 3 Recommendations........................................................................22 Appendix 4 3 Four Inside Assessments of Intelligence Reform..........................28 DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 11 - Appendix 1 to Statement of Newt Gingrich National Security Challenges 1. The Long War against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam . Because what is currently referred to as the cGlobal War on Terror d is at its core an ideological war, it is more accurate to think of and identify this war as the cLong War d. It is stunningly hard to win a war of ideology where the enemy is religiously motivated to kill us. To put this into perspective, if the people of the United States were to suddenly decide that a particular concept was inherently wrong in our educational system, it could easily take 20 to 30 years to change that concept, rewrite all the text books, and retrain all the educators. That example is one completely within our culture. If one includes intercultural communication difficulties, the problem grows exponentially harder. If we use every tool at the disposal of the American people in support of a coherent theory of victory, the Long War might only last 50 3 70 years. Yet, it will probably last much longer. Second, unlike wars of the past, the enemy today in the Long War escapes a ready identification. As with the term cLong War d, we need to name the enemy accurately to help us properly conceptualize this war and develop the intelligence system required to win it. We can start to overcome this difficulty by identifying the enemy in the Long War as the cIrreconcilable Wing of Islam. d It is a war against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam because this enemy believes in a strikingly different world then the one we believe in, a world with which there can be no compromise. It is an uncivilized and barbaric world that cannot be reconciled to a civilized one. Their views on the role of women, on the application of medieval religious law (the Sha 9ria) and religious intolerance (prosecuting Christians) make them irreconcilable with civilization in the modern age. This is a societal war of identity so there are no holds barred, no rules, and no real accommodations (only tactical maneuvers) or potential for compromise solutions on their part that would be culturally acceptable to us, or to them. The Long War is 90% intellectual, communications, political, economic, diplomacy, and intelligence focused. It is at most 10% military. We have not yet developed the doctrine or structure capable of thinking through and implementing a Long War (30 to 70 years if we are lucky) on a societal scale. This challenge is compounded because it is fundamentally different from waging the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The Cold War was essentially a grand siege in which a defensive alliance could contain the Soviet Union until it collapsed. This is an inherently offensive war in which we have to actively defeat our opponents. Furthermore this war resembles the Reformation-era wars of religion in DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 12 - Appendix 1 to Statement of Newt Gingrich which fellow nationals may be traitors serving the other side (examine Elizabethan England and the origins of the English secret service as an example). Analyzing this societal reality, designing strategies that first avoid defeat and then achieve victory, communicating these strategies to the Congress and the American people so they understand and support them, and then communicating them to our allies and neutrals around the world in terms which they can support is a challenge even more complex than the development of the containment strategy from 1947 to 1950. It is also central to our survival and to our ability to lead the world. Third, the Long War has a particular focus in the Middle East where Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are all potentially flash points of great danger. Within the Middle Eastern focus there are currently campaigns underway in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iraq campaign is actually a regional campaign with enemy forces using sanctuaries in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf Emirates. The Afghan campaign clearly has a sanctuary in northern Pakistan. It is within this regional framework -- and with the understanding that many of the elements of financing, recruiting, arming, and planning occur outside of Iraq and Afghanistan -- which the American Intelligence Community has to operate. Trying to win or understand the two immediate campaigns without understanding that we are engaged in the Long War is simply hopeless. It would also be hopeless for the Intelligence Community to conceptualize these two campaigns without reference to the Long War and without identifying the enemy as the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam. 2. Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Threat . There was a commission of seven physicists who published a report on the EMP threat which stated that an EMP attack on the U.S. could fundamentally damage our civilization as we know it. This report has had absolutely no impact on our government. Perhaps because it is an issue that does not neatly fit into our bureaucracies or the budget. Perhaps it is an issue that is so large and frightening that people just do not want to deal with it. However, if we do not think about it and make plans, we may find three minutes in the next conflict, our lives have been fundamentally and irrevocably altered. The breakdown of fundamental services in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina was the worst disaster in America in decades, possibly the worst ever. An EMP attack using a single weapon could easily destroy electrical, water, and telecommunications services for not just a single city but a third or more of the country. 3. Nuclear Non-Proliferation . If the North Korean government is willing to shrink its own population by four inches, it is challenging to determine what sanctions might DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 13 - Appendix 1 to Statement of Newt Gingrich be effective to deter it from acquiring nuclear weapons. After 50 years of trying to build nuclear weapons, North Korea is unlikely to give them up. Likewise, Iran will probably acquire nuclear weapons. The recent intelligence estimate that Iran would not have nuclear weapons for 10 years is dangerous. The truth is that we do not know anything. We have little to no penetration in their system. We were totally wrong in 1991 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In 2003, we were totally wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In 1991, we underestimated Iraq 9s capabilities. In 2002, we overestimated Iraq 9s capabilities. We were wrong both times. If Iran and North Korea get nuclear weapons and it is accepted by the United States and the world, it is only a matter of time before there is a nuclear Japan, a nuclear Taiwan, a nuclear Turkey, or a nuclear Egypt. The world suddenly becomes radically more difficult. 4. Latin America . Latin America is potentially the next great regional explosion challenging America and a much bigger challenge then the bureaucracies in Washington understand. While America has focused on the Middle East opponents to America have been gaining ground throughout Latin America. The systematic planning to weaken, isolate and undermine America by the current Cuban and Venezuelan governments may soon include other governments. There must be a substantially greater investment of resources, people, and senior leadership time in trying to get change the emerging pattern in Latin America before it becomes a real crisis. 5. The Gray World . A byproduct of globalization is the cGray World d, those ungoverned areas of the world that are the sanctuary of terrorists and international criminals. If you take illegal drug dealing, illegal arms dealing, illegal transportation, illegal people movement 3 including by the way, 800,000 slaves a year, there are systems of illegal transportation and finance that support these actions. They are all very sophisticated, very enduring, move much faster than our bureaucracies, and have more available cash. According to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, human trafficking alone generates an estimated $9.5 billion in annual revenue. That is just the revenue from selling the people. The International Labor Organization (ILO) 3 the United Nations (UN) agency charged with addressing labor standards, employment, and social protection issues 3 estimates that there are 12.3 million people enslaved in forced labor, bonded labor, forced child labor, sexual servitude, and involuntary servitude at any given time. That is a tremendous amount of productivity being siphoned from the legitimate world and used to produce revenue for criminals and terrorists. In short, the Gray World provides sanctuary to the worst terrorist and criminal elements in the world. 6. Rising Powers . The reality of the rise of China and India as economic powers, energy purchasers, goods producers (including military goods) and the diplomatic and alliance building patterns which energetic, rising heavily populated non- western countries can develop. Iran in an earlier time might have been coerced by the United States and Europe. Now Iran has India and China as customers and trading partners. With high priced oil Iran can build a factory in Venezuela and a DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 14 - Appendix 1 to Statement of Newt Gingrich refinery in Indonesia. The underlying patterns of power, trade, diplomacy and alliance are shifting. We need new models and new maps to understand this shift. We need new reporting and analytical efforts to follow carefully both the activities of India and China and the networking of anti-American countries into more coherent patterns of mutual trade and mutual support. We also need a longer range view of the challenge China and India will present as they continue to modernize and grow. In some ways they resemble the rising United States from 1840 to 1918 (by which point we had become the most powerful country in the world). In other ways they may resemble the rise of Germany 1864-1914 or the rise of Japan 1868-1941. 7. New Power and Diplomatic Patterns . There are new patterns of planning, negotiating, regulating and communicating which do not fit the Cold War, Eurocentric, and bilateral patterns to which we are accustomed and for which our institutions have been staffed. To the rest of the world the United Nations means a lot more than it does to us. This is a fact not a problem. What we do about it is the problem. The European Union is a fact. The Brussels bureaucracy is going to be planning regulatory, tax, scientific research, defense and foreign policy strategies for 25 countries with a population and an economy larger than the United States (and a lot more votes in the U.N.). With every passing year Brussels will become more important and European national capitals less important. It has to be staffed, planned for, and managed far more intensely and with far more resources than we have invested. Beijing and New Delhi are capitals of rising powers which will become the second and third most important economies in the world. Along with Japan they form an Asian center of activity which has to be constantly analyzed and planned for. Mexico City has an enormous ability to impact on the United States. Brasilia has less ability to impact on the United States but Brazilian interests and national pride combined with the sheer size of the country mean that we must pay constant attention. Finally, Moscow remains vital because of its possession of nuclear weapons and the continuing Russian investment in very high quality military research and development. Our analyses, our planning and our organizations must be refocused and in some cases restructured to recognize these emerging realities. 8. Energy . The rise of China and India as massive purchasers of energy combined with the decline of politically stable inexpensive oil reserves probably means that oil prices will be higher than they have been in the past. Because this was widely predicted in the 1970s and then was followed by very low prices in the 1980s there is now enormous skepticism about this prediction. The skeptics could be right. Furthermore the prospect of higher prices had led to a very substantial increase investment in energy efficiency. The result was that America is far less affected by higher oil prices than are third world and much less energy efficient countries. Finally a number of relatively inexpensive oil fields were discovered in paces like West Africa. Despite that historic detour toward lower prices it is at least possible that the massive increase in the standard of living in China and India and the growth of huge car markets (China will pass the U.S. to become the world 9s largest DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 15 - Appendix 1 to Statement of Newt Gingrich car market around 2025) will lead to higher oil prices for the long run. This will have significant foreign exchange implications for the United States. Furthermore, a more intense pursuit of oil and competition for oil will lead to a greater risk of crisis and war if the oil supply is threatened at any point. Thus the development of greater Chinese and Indian naval capabilities to protect their oil supply lines is almost guaranteed. It is very unlikely that these two large countries will follow the Japanese in accepting an American protectorate for the safe passage of their oil. Finally as American dependency on imported oil continues to grow there is a parallel increase in the threat of a national security crisis in which countries decide to quit selling us oil. 9. Math and Science as a National Security Crisis . The collapse of math and science education in the United States and the relative decline of investment in basic research is an enormous strategic threat to American national security. This is a strategically disappearing advantage. There is a grave danger that the United States will find itself collapsing in scientific and technological capabilities in our lifetime. A true national security analysis (as opposed to a narrowly military analysis) has to draw the distinction between societal capabilities and defense capabilities. The Japanese had terrific military capabilities in 1941. They simply did not have a societal capacity to sustain that capability and their air and sea power rapidly disintegrated when faced with a vastly more powerful society. It is very possible that America will find itself in this position within 20 years. We could have a solid military but a hollow society. The consequences could be catastrophic and without warning. The Hart-Rudman Commission warned that this is the second greatest threat facing American national security. In fact, the 14 bipartisan members unanimously agreed that the failure of math and science education is a greater threat than any conceivable conventional war in the next 25 years. The Commission went on to assert that only a nuclear or biological weapon going off in an American city was a greater threat. Looking beyond immediate defense needs is nothing new for professionals in national security. In the middle of the depression one of then Major Eisenhower 9s assignments was to visit almost bankrupt companies and ask them how rapidly they could mobilize and expand if America found itself in a big war. We need a similar deep analysis that looks out 20 years and assesses the probable scale of scientific change, the capacity of foreign scientific education and research and the requirements of both education and research investments needed for America to remain the leading power in the world in scientific knowledge and technological capability. 10. Breakouts . The next conflict may not be about mass production after the fact; it may be about technology hegemony, applied at the weakest point, on the day of the attack. Breakout working groups need to be developed to aggressively analyze areas in which other countries could suddenly develop capabilities we could not match and might not even understand. Quantum computing, electromagnetic pulse, engineered biologicals, nanoscale systems are some examples of possible breakouts. We need an insurance strategy of ensuring that in true areas of potential breakout that we have overmatching human and financial investments DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 16 - Appendix 1 to Statement of Newt Gingrich without regard to other budgetary concerns. The investment in radar, proximity fuses, the Atomic Bomb, computationally and mathematically based signals decoding (Ultra, Magic) and a host of similar breakout capabilities in World War II gave the allies huge advantages. Similar investments in breakouts sustained the allied advantage over the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. It is vital that the tables not be turned by immediate investments crowding out the more esoteric but ultimately more powerful breakout possibilities. 11. Taiwan . The Taiwan situation is so dangerous and potentially involves such a powerful collision between the United States and China that it should be constantly thought through. This is the place most likely to lead to a direct nuclear threat against American forces or even against America. The intensity of emotion which led Austria-Hungary to insist on war in 1914, Japan to insist on war in 1941 and Syria and Egypt to prepare for war in both 1967 and 1973 is the kind of intensity which could be triggered over Taiwan and could lead to a collision with incalculable consequences. The entire process of the Chinese-Taiwan-US relationship deserves the kind of continuing intellectual attention we gave to coming to grips with nuclear weapons in the 1950s. DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 17 - Appendix 2 to Statement of Newt Gingrich Core Values of the Intelligence Community 1. A Sense of Urgency In Addressing the Most Visible Threat: Constantly Challenging a Theory of Victory in the Long War against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam Against New Intelligence In order to win the Long War against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam, we must have a coherent theory of victory and therefore a theory of the intelligence requirements of victory in that war. This is a classic example of Sun T'zu's dictum "&know your enemy and you have won half the battle, know yourself and a thousand victories are yours". When our nation entered World War I, we learned that we had to mobilize the entire nation for war. Our military then spent most of the period between the World Wars thinking about exactly how to do that. After World War II, we were able to use the same mindsets and institutions to develop and implement the theory of containment. With very few exceptions, we sustained the Cold War from 1947 to 1991. Conservative or liberal, there was a relatively consistent theory of victory and we implemented it using the large industrial style bureaucracies that we developed between the World Wars and during and after World War II. Likewise, we need a theory of victory for the Long War with the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam. In the October 1964 edition of Science magazine, John Platt argued that molecular biology and high-energy physics were making stunning breakthroughs because the scientists in these fields usually have well developed theories and design experiments to validate them prior to spending money in the laboratory. In policing, Mayor Giuliani and Chief Bratton applied the best available management techniques in New York City to determine if they would work to achieve the goal of a safer and more prosperous city. They did. The implication for the federal government and national security is clear. We need a clear vision of success, a theory of victory of how to achieve that vision of success, and active and engaged assessments to determine if we are achieving our definition of success. We are nowhere near that point today. We are much closer to Abraham Lincoln in 1861 then to George Marshall in 1941. This is the beginning of a period of intellectual argument, intellectual discovery, and intellectual effort that is extremely hard. We had a theory of intelligence based on the Soviet Union but we do not have a theory of intelligence based on fighting a networked opponent engaged in a long term rebellion against the modern world and willing to operate across borders and in highly fluid ways. For example, there must be more emphasis on the corganized crime d parallels to analysis by family and by networked pattern. The Intelligence Community must make it a core value that the nation 9s working theory of victory is known, debated, and challenged by new intelligence. There must an established communitarian value that it is acceptable to challenge prevailed wisdom based on new information and new analysis. What should count is quality of analysis. DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 18 - Appendix 2 to Statement of Newt Gingrich Expertise resides all across the Intelligence Community. The CIA does not have a monopoly on truth and expertise. The CIA has been terribly wrong at times. The need for multiple voices, analysis, and opinions is the only antidote for group think. The DNI faces a challenge in focusing resources on what is truly important without gagging those who might have dissenting insights. The end goal should be clarity of data, not consensus of opinion. In this regard, it might be very worthwhile to establish competing analytical teams in each agency to provide a wider venue of scenarios to decision makers (a cTeam A/Team B Approach d). Leadership - civilian and military - needs to be more demanding and critical of assessments and analysis. Assumptions should be challenged. Shallow or faulty analytical judgments need to be identified. Leaders should not hesitate to demand answers or criticize intelligence analysis on account of any type of "Bolton Effect" -- any lingering impact of criticism related to charges of ideologues shaping intelligence. There is a fine line here but we have too many leaders that do not demand more substantive and in-depth assessments and challenge the assumptions upon which analysis is based. There will be those who say we can not begin to reform the intelligence system until we have a coherent theory of victory. It is true that once a coherent theory of victory is developed we will need to reshape our government agencies and public management processes to support it. However, without an effective intelligence system, we will be unable to develop a coherent theory of victory that will actually result in effective policies and strategies. 2. There is no Substitute for Human Intelligence We no longer live in a world where it is sufficient to count divisions in the field and ships at sea. The ironic lesson of this great high-tech information age is that it has empowered shadowy networks of individuals to the point where they can inflict pain on a nation state. We are in a global campaign against a religiously motivated minority in an age of weapons of mass destruction. The sooner we force a new approach to intelligence and a new system of organization, the sooner we will be getting inside our enemy 9s decision cycle and the sooner we will begin to regain intelligence domination of the battlefield. One part of the problem is analysis. We simply lack the sophisticated, focused analytical systems with people who understand our enemies, understand their networked, family based systems of operation and can focus over time on developing the kind of sophisticated intelligence which we had against both Germany and Japan in the Second World War. We do not identify the analytical qualities needed, allow people to spend years on the problem, and then create a resource center which can overmatch our opponents. This will require invention inside the system and will be bitterly opposed by those who undervalue intelligence and those whose careers have been embedded in the old style of intelligence. DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 19 - Appendix 2 to Statement of Newt Gingrich Another part of the problem is much better gathering of intelligence at a tactical level. Our ability to acquire virtually real time intelligence and understand what it means needs to be upgraded as much as analytical capabilities. This will require substantial investments in better intelligence, more tactical intelligence personnel, more translators, greater language capabilities, more in depth education about the enemy, etc. For example, we have been involved in Korea in one way or another since 1945. We have been committed to the active defense of South Korea since 1950. Yet only 35% of our Korean analysts speak any Korean. Only 10% of our analysts are fluent in Korean. So that means that 90% of Korean analysts are unable to read the newspapers or only marginally understand the newscasts from the country that they are responsible for briefing the rest of the government about. Sixty-five percent of the analysts are unable to order food in a Korean restaurant or ask for directions to the restroom. Yet these are the people we depend on to plumb the depths of North Korean psychology. Admittedly, Korean is a hard language to master. It takes up to 63 weeks of dedicated study to learn the language at an elementary level. However, one would think that after 55 years of involvement, we might have more than 10% of the analysts actually able to speak the language of the country that they study. In fact, speaking a foreign language fluently is often considered a liability in some intelligence agencies because the individual is considered too specialized. As we move forward, the focus should be light on bureaucracy and heavy on talent. One can have the best organizational structure but if bad people staff them, that structure will never work. Put talented, dedicated, honest, smart people in the worst organizational structure and they will find a way to get the mission accomplished somehow. 3. Mastering the Special Challenge of Information and Money It is also useful to mention that this war has two non-geographic theaters as well, information and money. If one views this in terms of intelligence, we are not well postured to analyze either one adequately. Both information and money pass between borders. Neither can be tracked by expensive space based systems. Both require an in depth level of knowledge dealing with systems, financial and cultural, that are beyond the experience of the typical intelligence analyst. Yet, both must be mastered. We have had success in both areas to a certain extent, but it is clear that we are unable to actually perform a meaningful and relevant intelligence preparation of the battle space for these two non-geographic theaters of war. To a certain extent, understanding the money side is a tool to help United States foreign diplomacy. If the United States is to effectively provide financial aid, we must understand where that money must go to have the greatest effect. However, to a larger extent, the intelligence system needs to know who is paying for the enemies 9 propaganda. Pamphlets preaching hate against all non-Muslims are not printed for free. Likewise, if the United States wishes to communicate what it considers acceptable DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 20 - Appendix 2 to Statement of Newt Gingrich behavior from those with whom we share the planet, we must know the best way to transmit those messages in a venue that is both accessible and acceptable to the intended audience. It is essential we know who is writing books advocating violence and murder as acceptable ways to change society. It is equally essential that we can identify the moderate voices of reform. 4. Lessons Learned Must be a Core Intelligence Community Value We need a robust and intellectually honest lessons learned system with an historical component that continuously looks at opponent denial and deception and whether or not we could penetrate it (note Iraq lessons learned as an example). This lesson learned system then has to be driven into changing practices, investments and structures by senior leadership. There must also be a systematic tactical and operational lessons learned approach with a historic component. For example there should be ongoing studies done of the most intensely bombed and attacked corridors in Iraq and the lessons to be learned from those areas. What surveillance and operational assets would we need to have a safe drive in from the airport to downtown Baghdad would be an example of a specific historic study that looked at what has worked and what has failed in that one combat zone. At a minimum, the current lessons learned program by DIA needs to scraped and a more interactive process operating at multiple levels of classification to include codeword across all executive branches of Government needs to implemented with the same vigor that the DOD has implemented the Joint Universal Lessons Learned System. DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 21 - Appendix 3 to Statement of Newt Gingrich Recommendations Organizations that are undergoing real change with a lessons learned driven approach have noticeable characteristics. First, non-performers are rapidly fired. One could see this in the Army prior to World War II with General Marshall. Second, the unqualified are rapidly transferred or retrained. Third, those who have useful skills 3 in this case languages, culture, insurgency and counterinsurgency - are rapidly promoted. We need to define now the metrics of measuring those changes and insist on the organizational structures and personnel changing to meet the metrics. This subcommittee is doing vital work in identifying what changes need to be made so we can move to an intelligence system that can keep up in the information age. Set forth below are a list of 25 recommendations. Some of them would apply to any large governmental bureaucracy while others are unique to intelligence. Some useful changes to consider would be: 1. The complexity, dangers and speed of the emerging 21st century world require very profound improvements in intelligence. Faster and more complex operations and activities require deeper analysis and planning (the difference in depth of perception and analysis required by a Boeing 747 compared to a Piper Cub would be analogous). The new intelligence capabilities have to be developed on a deep-mid-near basis so there is a long term analysis within which there are mid term and immediate analyses. Because the modern world is global and the threats are agile and interrelated the system has to be comprehensive and has to be an all sources and all points system. Since so much of the modern world is in fact open source a large part of the new 21st century intelligence system will involving acquiring, analyzing and connecting information from open sources. The new system has to have global, regional and local coverage and analysis and the three have to be interconnected for synergistic patterns, etc. As our competitors and opponents study us (and all of them do) their ability at denial and deception will increase. We need a much larger focus on contemporary denial and deception efforts by others. 2. Treat the intelligence process as an integrated process, moving it in complexity, speed, and effectiveness beyond the current model of the inter-agency process and require that it be measured and assessed using the same tools developed by JCS J5 Iraq interagency assessment room. Ensure that all intelligence programs and policies have an assessment process using metrics to determine if they are achieving their stated goals. 3. Review and standardize integration and information sharing across all levels of government to include city, county, and national for terrorist related information. The recent events in New York indicate that this is an area that has experienced rapid improvement in the last few years. Regardless, this issue is so important it needs to be established with standardized doctrine and disclosure procedures. DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 22 - Appendix 3 to Statement of Newt Gingrich Google and Amazon.com provide very effective models of creating communities of interests and concern. While Secret Internet Protocol Routing Network (SIPRNET) and the Joint World-wide Information and Communication System (JWICS) have some of those tools, they need to be expanded and exported across the entire Intelligence Community to include appropriately cleared city, county, and state police. 4. Develop greater use of data-mining and open source data. The DNI 9s recent efforts to establish an Open Source Center is clearly an excellent first step. Additionally, a large percentage of existing job descriptions should be rewritten at regional intelligence centers to reflect that at least a portion of an analyst 9s job is to read local newspapers, websites, and academic journals. 5. Establish the principle that the Director of National Intelligence should be a political appointee with the full faith and trust of the President. However, just as the Joint Chief of Staff and Office of Secretary of Defense require a core of professionals, both the Deputy DNI and Director Central Intelligence should be career intelligence professionals. This precedent alone would be a significant step toward the professionalization of the intelligence community at senior levels. 6. Review intelligence systems procurement. Given the rapid level of change in the civilian market, especially in information technology, nano-technology, quantum science, and other fields; it is extremely unlikely that our current Five Year Defense Plan (FYDP) appropriations process can keep up. 7. Consider shifting significant intelligence resources to the J5 or plans branch of the Unified Commands. This will facilitate long term planning and the development of inter-related war plans similar to the Rainbow Plans of the interwar period in scope and detail. Likewise, this would develop competing analysis and opinions ultimately allowing the commander to pick the best products. 8. Paradoxically the modern world requires a real time analytical and warning capability at the same time it requires a deep and mid capability. This will require an integrated information system on both a push forward and pull forward basis and a level of openness about information which has never before existed across all the stove-pipes of the intelligence community. Intelligence Community leaders should consider whether the President 9s daily brief should be redesigned to reflect this more complex and more interrelated world. The President should also evaluate establishing a pattern of regular monthly three hour strategic planning and assessment sessions in which the senior leadership rigorously avoids talking about current events and looks to the future. This would revive the strategic planning President Eisenhower brought into the system. DRAFT 10/19/2005 © 2005 Gingrich Communications - 23 - Appendix 3 to Statement of Newt Gingrich 9. Since the current conflict in Iraq is perhaps the most single pressing national security issue facing our country, we should consider standing up a special interagency analytical cell to focus on Iraq. This cell should be headed by a SES and report directly to the DNI. 10. Develop a government-wide, to include appropriately cleared city, county, state police, lessons learned database modeled after DOD 9s Joint Universal Lessons Learned database. This database should be capable of operating at multiple security levels; unclassified, confidential, secret, top secret, and codeword; and should be available via the web or via CD-ROM at each of those security levels. As one step toward better understanding how to wage the Long War should be a very high level no holds barred review of the mistakes made in Iraq. There are two 8what if d campaigns worth exploring to see if we could do dramatically better the next time we have to liberate a people from a criminal dictator threatening his neighbors, his own people, and America and her allies. First, what would have happened if we had followed the Afghan model of a conference within three weeks of victory and the creation of an Iraq interim government with an Iraqi leader as the public figure by June 2003? Could it have been done and if so how could it have been done? Second, what doctrine, technology and system would be necessary for the United States to impose its will in a setting like Iraq in May 2003? What kind of intelligence preparation of the total battlefield (including societal analysis and knowledge and economic analysis and knowledge) which in retrospect we wish could have been brought to bear to allow us to dominate the transition after winning the war against the regime? What would be the nature of the integrated system which could bring all aspects of national power to bear? Since the United States is 82% non-federal government what is the nature of the system which could bring all aspects of national power to bear (note the Iraqi immigrants, other Arab speakers, other American Muslims, etc as one area to explore)? It is important to do a real lessons learned that explores what fail

less