That's it. I'm done. Finished. This is the last straw.
QuoteWashington Times
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
China removed as top priority for spies
Bill Gertz
The White House National Security Council recently directed U.S. spy agencies to lower the priority placed on intelligence collection for China, amid opposition to the policy change from senior intelligence leaders who feared it would hamper efforts to obtain secrets about Beijing's military and its cyber-attacks.
The downgrading of intelligence gathering on China was challenged by Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair and CIA Director Leon E. Panetta after it was first proposed in interagency memorandums in October, current and former intelligence officials said.
The decision downgrades China from "Priority 1" status, alongside Iran and North Korea, to "Priority 2," which covers specific events such as the humanitarian crisis after the Haitian earthquake or tensions between India and Pakistan.
The National Security Council staff, in response, pressed ahead with the change and sought to assure Mr. Blair and other intelligence chiefs that the change would not affect the allocation of resources for spying on China or the urgency of focusing on Chinese spying targets, the officials told The Washington Times.
White House National Security Council officials declined to comment on the intelligence issue. Mike Birmingham, a spokesman for Mr. Blair, declined to comment. A CIA spokesman also declined to comment.
But administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the new policy is part of the Obama administration's larger effort to develop a more cooperative relationship with Beijing.
A U.S. official who defended the policy change said "everybody involved understood the absolute importance of China as an intelligence priority."
"This is a case in which the assignment of a relative number — one or two — wouldn't mean, or change, a damn thing. And it didn't." The official said the U.S. government "has to keep its eyes on a host of threats, challenges and opportunities overseas. That's how it works."
Critics within the government, however, said the change will mean that strategic intelligence on China — the gathering of data and analysis of information — will be reduced over time, undermining what officials said are urgently needed efforts to know more about China's political, economic, military and intelligence activities.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, expressed concern about the change.
"For those who say changing from Priority 1 to Priority 2 doesn't make any difference — well then, why do it?" he asked. "China should be at the top of the priority list, not moving down."
Officials said the lower intelligence priority for China is a subtle but significant change that will affect an array of intelligence activities.
Although the effect is not expected to be immediate, a change in priority number generally means that projects regarding that country are scrutinized more skeptically on budgetary and other grounds. Agencies likely will reduce spending for intelligence operations on China, whether carried out by spies or by photographic and electronic-intercept satellites.
Critics of the decision also fear that the lower priority will cause CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency operatives to take fewer risks in the field when spying on Chinese targets.
One new area that has been given a higher intelligence priority under the Obama administration is intelligence collection on climate change, a nontraditional mission marginally linked to national security. The CIA recently announced that it had set up a center to study the impact of climate change.
One U.S. official said the NSC intelligence policy change followed protests from China's government about the publication in September of the National Intelligence Strategy, produced by Mr. Blair's DNI office. The strategy report identified China as one of four main threats to U.S. interests, along with Russia, Iran and North Korea.
At the time of its release, Mr. Blair was asked by reporters about the strategy report's harsh assessment of China and efforts to increase intelligence gathering on China.
"I would say that it is a muscular intelligence response to meet the nations responsibilities so that we can provide good advice to the policymakers and in the field," he said.
The Chinese government reacted harshly to the strategy report, both in public and in diplomatic channels, the official said.
A Chinese government spokesman in September stated that "we urge the United States to discard its Cold War mindset and prejudice, correct the mistakes in the [National Intelligence Strategy] report and stop publishing wrong opinions about China which may mislead the American people and undermine the mutual trust between China and the United States."
The NSC downgrading of China from so-called "Pri-1" to "Pri-2" was a political decision by the Obama administration that was designed to assuage Chinese concerns that intelligence agencies were exaggerating the threat from Beijing, the official said.
John Tkacik, a former State Department intelligence official, said the demotion of China to a second-tier priority reflects bias within the NSC staff.
"It means that the Obama administration doesn't understand the profound challenge that China has become or, even more disturbing, it cannot understand that China's challenges to America's policies are becoming even more threatening with each passing week," he said.
The intelligence downgrade was disclosed as civilian and military leaders were calling U.S. intelligence collection and analysis on China deficient.
Adm. Robert Willard, the new commander of U.S. Pacific Command, indirectly criticized U.S. intelligence estimates on China last fall, telling reporters in November that during the past decade "China has exceeded most of our intelligence estimates of their military capability and capacity every year. They've grown at an unprecedented rate in those capabilities."
Mr. Hoekstra said he had not been briefed in advance about the NSC's new policy on China intelligence gathering.
But the shift sends the wrong signal to the 16 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community that China is not important, he said in an interview.
"That's a wrong analysis," Mr. Hoekstra said. "The current situation with China is that they are cheating on trade agreements, aggressively pursuing military capabilities and aggressively conducting cyber-attacks."
A military official also said recently that Army, Air Force and Navy intelligence components are just beginning to understand the growing need to focus more intelligence assets on the challenges posed by China's military buildup and aggressive intelligence activities.
Counterintelligence officials also were surprised at the decision to lower the intelligence priority on China, noting that China's espionage, technology theft and economic spying continue to dominate scarce resources, including people and funds.
Michelle Van Cleave, former national counterintelligence executive, also said the priority change was ill-advised and will hurt personnel, funding and intelligence assets devoted to Chinese targets.
"Chinese intelligence is going after us with a vengeance," she said, noting that the problem includes industrial espionage, technology diversion and stealing defense and other national security secrets, in addition to a global campaign of cyber-espionage.[/size]
"So why are they doing this?" she asked. "I am very troubled by how little U.S. intelligence really knows about the Chinese, in part because they have been so successful against us. Our national leadership should be pushing to close this intelligence gap, because if they dont, they will risk making serious miscalculations in dealing with China."
But don't you realize that they're hoping and changing? Why would any foreign government cause trouble for America now that they've elected Bagger Vance?
It's a win-win situation. We just need to share all out technology with China and they'll show us the best means to pirate, hack, and steal technology from others.
Pakistan isn't in Priority 1? WTF?
Priority 1, UK and Australia
Umm. What the hell?
Can't you read everything about China on the internet, anyway, since their internet is open and uncensored?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on January 24, 2010, 01:07:25 PM
Priority 1, UK and Australia
The Limeys need to be kept track of.
Can't have them doing another Suez.
As much as I enjoy watching Seedy become disillusioned with his community organizer-leader, I wonder how much of this is a show of humility towards our national debt-holders, and how much actual substance there is to it.
only 3 more years
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2010, 03:38:56 PM
As much as I enjoy watching Seedy become disillusioned with his community organizer-leader, I wonder how much of this is a show of humility towards our national debt-holders, and how much actual substance there is to it.
I'm intrigued by what other countries and regions are on priority 1 and what it means.
Quote from: Neil on January 24, 2010, 11:53:01 AM
But don't you realize that they're hoping and changing? Why would any foreign government cause trouble for America now that they've elected Bagger Vance?
Yeah, but you are owned by the Chinese along with the province of Alberta. Anything you say regarding China is suspect.
This will piss Isreal off. If we let the Chinese steal our secrets directly, it will eliminate the profit the Isrealis make from selling them to the PRC.
;)
So which express would you join?
Quote from: Monoriu on January 24, 2010, 09:42:09 PM
So which express would you join?
Holland and Holland.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2010, 04:30:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2010, 03:38:56 PM
As much as I enjoy watching Seedy become disillusioned with his community organizer-leader, I wonder how much of this is a show of humility towards our national debt-holders, and how much actual substance there is to it.
I'm intrigued by what other countries and regions are on priority 1 and what it means.
North Korea and Iran. Priority 1 means that you have first dibs on resources and capabilities, and that you maintain military targeting data up-to-date. There is absolutely no reason to have China as a priority 1 intel target, as military operations against it are not even contemplated.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2010, 07:37:33 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2010, 04:30:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2010, 03:38:56 PM
As much as I enjoy watching Seedy become disillusioned with his community organizer-leader, I wonder how much of this is a show of humility towards our national debt-holders, and how much actual substance there is to it.
I'm intrigued by what other countries and regions are on priority 1 and what it means.
North Korea and Iran. Priority 1 means that you have first dibs on resources and capabilities, and that you maintain military targeting data up-to-date. There is absolutely no reason to have China as a priority 1 intel target, as military operations against it are not even contemplated.
So the US has officially given up on the use of force in the defence of Taiwan?
You people make me sick.
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2010, 09:06:39 AM
So the US has officially given up on the use of force in the defence of Taiwan?
You people make me sick.
I don't know what you are talking about. Chinese Taipei is a happy province of our glorious allies the People's Republic of China.
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2010, 09:06:39 AM
So the US has officially given up on the use of force in the defence of Taiwan?
You people make me sick.
It has? Link me up.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2010, 07:37:33 AMNorth Korea and Iran. Priority 1 means that you have first dibs on resources and capabilities, and that you maintain military targeting data up-to-date. There is absolutely no reason to have China as a priority 1 intel target, as military operations against it are not even contemplated.
You forgot Russia. That was the Big 4.
Never mind the obvious fact that China deserves Priority 1 simply for its ability to maintain a retaliatory nuclear capability against the United States, their conventional posture dictates it.
You, sir, have swallowed the WonTon Kool-Aid. Chi-Com Lover.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2010, 09:44:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 25, 2010, 09:06:39 AM
So the US has officially given up on the use of force in the defence of Taiwan?
You people make me sick.
It has? Link me up.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3531.msg181621#msg181621 (http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3531.msg181621#msg181621)
As much as I hate the term "cyber-war", aren't we pretty much in one with China right now?
Why do you hate the term?
Quote from: derspiess on January 25, 2010, 09:36:15 PM
As much as I hate the term "cyber-war", aren't we pretty much in one with China right now?
Soon, computer simulated nuke strikes will force millions of people around the world to step into the disintegrators. :weep:
Quote from: Syt on January 26, 2010, 01:21:43 AM
Soon, computer simulated nuke strikes will force millions of people around the world to step into the disintegrators. :weep:
The Chinese will need disintegrators the size of stadiums.
Quote from: Syt on January 26, 2010, 01:21:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 25, 2010, 09:36:15 PM
As much as I hate the term "cyber-war", aren't we pretty much in one with China right now?
Soon, computer simulated nuke strikes will force millions of people around the world to step into the disintegrators. :weep:
One can only hope.
Quote from: Jaron on January 25, 2010, 09:53:36 PM
Why do you hate the term?
Generally anything with "cyber" in it makes my skin crawl. Tended to be overused a bit in the late 90s.
Quote from: derspiess on January 26, 2010, 10:28:08 AM
Generally anything with "cyber" in it makes my skin crawl. Tended to be overused a bit in the late 90s.
And hardly ever gets used today. Heck the word usually means dirty chatting online now. Maybe the US and China are having a competition to see how can be the most naughty bad girl.
Quote from: Valmy on January 26, 2010, 10:34:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 26, 2010, 10:28:08 AM
Generally anything with "cyber" in it makes my skin crawl. Tended to be overused a bit in the late 90s.
And hardly ever gets used today. Heck the word usually means dirty chatting online now. Maybe the US and China are having a competition to see how can be the most naughty bad girl.
me love you long time GI Joe. Two dolla!
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2010, 07:37:33 AMNorth Korea and Iran. Priority 1 means that you have first dibs on resources and capabilities, and that you maintain military targeting data up-to-date. There is absolutely no reason to have China as a priority 1 intel target, as military operations against it are not even contemplated.
Just them two? If so then China's very clearly the odd one out and I entirely agree.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 26, 2010, 06:02:51 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2010, 07:37:33 AMNorth Korea and Iran. Priority 1 means that you have first dibs on resources and capabilities, and that you maintain military targeting data up-to-date. There is absolutely no reason to have China as a priority 1 intel target, as military operations against it are not even contemplated.
Just them two? If so then China's very clearly the odd one out and I entirely agree.
JUST ONE MINUTE MY FRIEND
NK, Iran, China and Russia were all Priority 1s. Until now.
I'm still pissed I can't use thumb drives at work anymore because the chinese were loading software onto thumb drives that would hack into our systems and steal data.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 07:01:00 PM
I'm still pissed I can't use thumb drives at work anymore because the chinese were loading software onto thumb drives that would hack into our systems and steal data.
Those devices should be illegal anyhow.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 08:14:31 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 07:01:00 PM
I'm still pissed I can't use thumb drives at work anymore because the chinese were loading software onto thumb drives that would hack into our systems and steal data.
Those devices should be illegal anyhow.
Why should they be illegal? That seems very extreme.
Quote from: Jaron on January 26, 2010, 09:20:06 PM
Why should they be illegal? That seems very extreme.
Any device made by a company that does business in China should be illegal.
Quote from: derspiess on January 25, 2010, 09:36:15 PM
As much as I hate the term "cyber-war", aren't we pretty much in one with China right now?
China is, but for some reason the US doesn't seem to be taking it very seriously.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on January 26, 2010, 10:50:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 25, 2010, 09:36:15 PM
As much as I hate the term "cyber-war", aren't we pretty much in one with China right now?
China is, but for some reason the US doesn't seem to be taking it very seriously.
If only the government would listen to internet crackpots about the looming chicom threat over our telephone lines! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Jaron on January 26, 2010, 09:20:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 08:14:31 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 07:01:00 PM
I'm still pissed I can't use thumb drives at work anymore because the chinese were loading software onto thumb drives that would hack into our systems and steal data.
Those devices should be illegal anyhow.
Why should they be illegal? That seems very extreme.
Huge information security risk.
I don't see any reason to make them illegal though, despite that fact. I do see a reason to ban them at places such as CIA headquarters, of course.
Quote from: Jaron on January 26, 2010, 09:20:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 26, 2010, 08:14:31 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 07:01:00 PM
I'm still pissed I can't use thumb drives at work anymore because the chinese were loading software onto thumb drives that would hack into our systems and steal data.
Those devices should be illegal anyhow.
Why should they be illegal? That seems very extreme.
You walk into Legg Mason, Constellation Energy, T Rowe Price or any other institution that deals with commodities with one of them, and you're fired immediately. Private sector don't play.