Warning Signals

In this episode, Jack and Julia discuss the US officials' Signal chat group debacle and why Jack thinks that there’s value in formality when it comes to government decision-making. Tune in for unique insights on:

• How government decisions of import typically get made, and what, if anything, is different about this Signal conversation.
• The evolution of secure communications and what’s lost - and gained - when technology makes communicating easier than ever.
• If the speed of technology is translating into the speed of decision-making at the highest levels, and if this is putting us at risk.

Join us for a history-informed, non-partisan conversation on this critical and timely topic!

Transcript

SFTS Ep 9: Warning Signals

Transcription

Julia

You know it's a big story when it stays in major media headlines for more than a day. And we're now looking at the second day that the US government officials signal group chat is being discussed in all forums. One of the most confounding things about this story is that it's being framed so differently across various partisan media outlets, and it's hard for the average citizen to know what to think about it. One of the initial questions I had, Jack, while I was reading the Signal chain, pertains to the way that our government even makes decisions. Is it normal to discuss a major military action like this with a group of 18 others on a cell phone? What's the process like? 

Jack

Well, there's a long history behind this, Julia, I mean, I can remember when I first joined the agency. So much was done in writing. You were limited by the amount of cable language you could put into a message. It required meetings, face to face meetings down on the hill or in the White House. So the process has changed tremendously with the advent of information [technology]. In fact, I remember vividly when the secure phones went in, right, the 70s version of the same Signal message in which you had these phones on desk and the head of worldwide operations, had them all pulled out because he was afraid that he wouldn't be able to keep track of whatever all those field offices were saying. And they might be plotting coups because they weren't coordinated. So that has a long, long history. But there was a formal process for the principals meetings. And I think that's something that's worth reflecting on. 

Julia

So we're looking at two things here, looking at the evolution of secure communications and how they're used within our intelligence and military apparatus. And then we're also looking at how decisions get made. So let's take these apart - first let’s discuss the communications. And I'd love to hear just a little bit more about what you used and why certain officers or leaders might have been reluctant to use those secure communications. And then let's jump into what we should expect and what a president and a principal's committee meeting should look like. So let's go 

Jack

So let’s break it into two and I'll take a break in between the first one. I mean, they're always concerned that someone else is listening, right? That they're either tapped into your phone, they have a bug in your office. There's, you know, satellites picking up something there. So I remember the Russians. The only way they would have meetings on classified would be in the bubble, and a bubble would be like a plastic room and we had them in our embassies on these blocks, and you would go in and have your meetings in there. And actually there's a famous case of someone going in with a Russian bug in your shoe and they said, emanated the signal. So then everyone had to take your shoes off for their meeting. 

Julia

Did the bubble pop because of the bug?

Jack

They were heavy, heavy, heavy plastic. They wouldn't take their paper out of the room. We're talking paper, let alone talking. So. And I remember, you know, when we would be monitoring drug traffickers and saying, well, speaking a little voice where our phones are being tapped or turn the shower on and we'll know they'll hear us. And of course, in those days, you could actually take out the sound of the shower. And certainly we turned the volume up. But today, it's so the world has changed so much because of technology. So now we're looking at this is a good example of the speed with which people can be pulled together. Talk about sensitive material in, you know, high tech capabilities where you have a handheld telephone I have one this is secure, the one they used on this conversation. So that affects the way meetings are structured. And I sort of miss the old process in a way. I'm sure some of it still is in place, but I think there's a purpose for it. 

Julia

Do we think, Jack, and I know technology, it's like the tool and the trap, right? We feel more secure because our apps have gotten so sophisticated. But then there are easy, you know, there's still ways to mirror phones and there's still ways to listen in and, and all these things. So it's this it's this hard thing to balance as, as an intelligence or as a human person, you know, worried about privacy. So in an in-person meeting, what would be different about it in person meeting and what makes that more vulnerable or more secure from your perspective to discuss things like military actions in person? 

Jack

But what you're really talking about is how does the bureaucracy work in its decision making process? At the apex is the  principals meeting. And that's what you had. You know, the fact is, the citizen you're watching a meeting take place in real time. And so it's really quite extraordinary. 

Julia

Do we think that a meeting happened before this chat, Jack, or are you suggesting this this chat was that meeting?

Jack

I don't know, in this particular case, what often happens is sub-principals have meetings and staff work problems. right? And then they call the big principals meeting. And that is when the heads of cabinet level officials get in the room and talk about a really important subject. War. Yeah. But it can be a couple of steps down from war. But how are we going to change our position here or whatever in the intelligence and security arena? So these are big meetings. And the people coming to the formal sit-down meeting are well briefed. I mean, whether they’re right or not, it's a different question, but they're well briefed. So there's a formal process. 

Julia

And I think one of the most sort of controversial aspects of this Signal group chat was that the messages had been set to delete, which is great from an operational OpSec point of view. You don't want your messages floating around, you know, forever. But what is the value? Or is there a value in memorializing a conversation like the one that the American public and the world just had a small view into? 

Jack

I'm no expert on the law, but I think there's an obligation to record them. Right? and consequently. Why? Because you want to make sure there's no after action disputes. The Secretary of State said this, and the Secretary of Defense said that and that there aren't any miscommunications when it's passed on to the field. So there's a reason why you memorialize it. And if the President's there, you're memorializing the meeting for the President. It's a decision making meeting and making your best advice to the president. I like the formal process. I mean, the speed, ease of communications, get you in more trouble than if you have time. And there are ways to put meetings together quickly, securely. But the preparation for these important decisions, I think, are a key and key benefit of having formal meetings that are well staffed out. 

Julia

And in the formal meeting, I imagine there is an opportunity to voice dissent or to express concerns about timelines or repercussions. And in the chat, we saw that at some point. And of course, this is you know, nothing has been officially confirmed in terms of identities of the members. But an individual believed to be Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of staff kind of said, okay this is a great discussion, but the President said, we're doing this, so we're doing this. Is that how would that have gone down differently in an in-person meeting if one had not already happened before this? We're assuming that that this was kind of an active conversation. 

Jack

Well, there's a couple of points that I'll try and make quickly. One is communications. Everyone's communicating quicker, faster, shorter presentation. So we have to recognize that we're in a new world. And then are there any adjustments, any risks that come from that. And I think this is a good case study. Uh, it's fascinating when you go back for almost all major flaps. This is a public relations flap, if you will. But when you go back, you will see that there's dissent between a great distance between Kasper and Shultz about Iran and hostages. And when you go back and look at these things, they provide a history and it's aired. And this meeting actually started with a dialogue of differing views, which I think is quite healthy. So the purpose of the meeting, again, is to come to a decision. This wasn't a full principals meeting in the sense that it came to an abrupt ending, and that was the decisions already been made. So why do we have a principals meeting? And everyone agreed that if the president is already set, then we move forward with it so that in that context, I'm not saying it's the only one in history that's ended this way. I don't know, uh, about every single case, but it was it was unusual in this regard. And the decision was made quickly. 

Julia

And what do you think that our both our allies and our adversaries are taking away? What's the message they're taking away from the content of this chat? And the fact that these plans were discussed over the chat, you know, in the group chat, the Europeans were referred to as “pathetic”. And then we, of course, have to think about an adversary like China looking at the chat and thinking about the vulnerabilities, both in terms of our app usage and also the content being shared. Should we expect a change in our security posture? 

Jack

Remember, the people in the meeting were talking as if they were at a principals meeting and they were using colloquial language and they were describing things and they weren't dreaming that they were ever going to read about it. Right. So it was ended. But frankly, when you step back, is there is there a leader in Europe that didn't think that's how we felt? I mean, the message is communicated loud and clear in more diplomatic language. So I don't think it's like a shock effect. Oh, I never realized that's how they're looking at our participation in Europe. I mean, the President himself was very bluntly stated that, you know, you're underperforming Europe and you need to carry your weight. So I don't see where there's any surprise or any really any shift in their policy based on that conversation. I, you know, I just found it interesting that the use of language, which again, you're talking lucky there aren't profanities and other things that sometimes work their way into these. So you're looking at the pure, pure thing that's polished up in presentations.

Julia

And just to wrap it up, Jack, you've sort of advocating for a more formal, measured approach to decision making at a time when we have these tools to rush them or to make them very quickly. What are the takeaways here? Do we think that the government is going to adjust the way that it conducts business? Do we think that anyone is going to get fired in this process? I mean, how big is this thing we're looking at in terms of shifting policy and process moving forward? 

Jack

Yeah, I don't think there's going to be another Signal principals meeting ever, ever. Okay. I mean, it's such a dynamite embarrassing story. In a way, the problem has cured itself that this won't happen, but it is the way we communicate in so many ways in an intelligent move so fast. And I do think there are big decisions that have to be weighed profoundly and discussed profoundly, and I do. It's not old fashioned I mean, it worked and served very well in in all the years I've looked at it. So I think we have to be careful that we don't get too energized by what looks like efficiency, because we can do it faster and bleed out of the system. The natural debate and the natural process of analyzing problems. This is not to disagree with the decision. I'm very comfortable that they went after the Houthis and so on. So but the question is there is experience does speak to process. And you know, people don't want to talk about that. But I think here's a case where we need this. Think about how we how we are making decisions. And I think this has been corrected because it was the last one ever made by Signal. That's my humble prediction. 

Julia

That just reminds me, you know, we do choose different means of communication based on the urgency of a situation, right? Like when you're in a crisis, you might sacrifice some degree of security to make sure that your, you know, partner knows what's happening or is protected. So if not Signal, I mean Signal could still be used potentially, but just maybe in a more fast moving, maybe the more fast moving technology is more appropriate for fast moving decisions. There might be something there as well for aligning a discussion and the method for the discussion.

Jack

Crises produce quick action. And people often deviated from all the things that they learned in their training in CIA or in State Department, and they deviated. A crisis, I would submit, in those cases, if they deviate, the Signal was better off than what they did in years gone by when they would just use a black phone and talk. And everybody in the world was listening to it. But I think you're right. We have to recognize that that's what happens in a crisis. You try and minimize it, you try to discipline. But human beings are human beings and, you know, so Graham Greene once wrote a book, The Human Factor. And when you look at intelligence and policy and there's always a human factor, no matter what technology you have in it. And so that needs to be part of the understanding that there's limitations to even the best system. 

Julia

This episode of straight from the shoulder has been produced by the Arkin Group in collaboration with Ann Marie Gordon of Merchant.