Chaotic Trump Administration Plus Russian Bounty Intelligence Equals Loss Of American Lives
Trump Wasn’t Briefed on Russian Bounty Intelligence Because It Wasn’t Verified, White House Says. Chaotic Trump Administration Plus Russian Bounty Intelligence Equals Loss Of American Lives
U.S. intelligence officials didn’t brief President Trump or Vice President Mike Pence on intelligence indicating Russia paid bounties to Afghan militants to attack American forces because the intelligence community and national security officials hadn’t reached a consensus about its veracity, the White House said Monday.
“There is no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations and in effect there are dissenting opinions from some in the intelligence community with regards to the veracity of what’s being reported,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said.
Revelation of the reports’ existence has sparked criticism from Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans. Ms. McEnany said White House chief of staff Mark Meadows briefed the leaders of congressional committees at the White House on Monday.
Among those briefed were Rep. Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Liz Cheney, the third-ranking Republican in the House, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.), according to people familiar with the matter. It couldn’t be determined whether any Democratic lawmakers were given a briefing.
Ms. McEnany gave no details of which spy agencies were more skeptical than others of the reported Russian bounties. Both Moscow and Taliban militants have denied that any bounty arrangement exists. Nor did she answer questions about why, given the potentially explosive nature of the information, Mr. Trump wasn’t briefed on the reports and the differing assessments of them.
According to a classified American intelligence assessment, a Russian spy unit paid members of Afghanistan’s Taliban movement to conduct lethal attacks on U.S. and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops in Afghanistan, people familiar with the assessment said.
The White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have declined to say whether the reported actions by an arm of Russia’s military intelligence agency, the GRU, were included in written materials prepared for the president, as opposed to in-person briefings.
It isn’t unusual for individual spy agencies, which have different specializations and cultures, to be at odds about the value of secret streams of information. That occurred in one instance in the 2017 intelligence assessment of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, which was briefed to both President Obama and President-elect Trump.
Since news media reports of the intelligence findings surfaced Friday, Mr. Trump has suggested the reports were a hoax perpetrated against him by the news media.
Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Mr. Putin, denied the reports in an interview with NBC News.
Both Republicans and Democrats expressed alarm at the reported Russian activity.
“We’ve known for a long time that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is a thug and a murderer,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.), wrote on Twitter. If the reports are true, he wrote, “I will work with President Trump on a strong response. My number-one priority is the safety of our troops.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi requested a briefing for all House members, in a letter to Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and CIA Director Gina Haspel.
“The questions that arise are: was the President briefed, and if not, why not, and why was Congress not briefed,” she said.
NSA Differed From CIA, Others On Russia Bounty Intelligence
Lawmakers say intelligence contains evidence that Russia paid bounties to insurgent for attacks on Americans.
The National Security Agency strongly dissented from other intelligence agencies’ assessment that Russia paid bounties for the killing of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, according to people familiar with the matter.
The disclosure of the dissent by the NSA, which specializes in electronic eavesdropping, comes as the White House has played down the revelations, saying that the information wasn’t verified and that intelligence officials didn’t agree on it.
Because of that, President Trump was never personally briefed on the threat, the White House said, although the information was included in written intelligence materials prepared for Mr. Trump and has been known for several months, some lawmakers said after briefings this week at the White House.
It couldn’t be learned why the NSA differed from others—including the Central Intelligence Agency—about the strength of the intelligence. The differences weren’t over the central assessment that operatives with Russia’s GRU intelligence agency paid bounties to the insurgent Taliban movement to kill Americans, some of the people said.
In the nuanced practice of intelligence analysis, which involves piecing together sometimes incomplete and ambiguous bits of data, such disagreements aren’t unusual, and sometimes stem from institutional differences, experts and former officials have said.
The NSA focuses on electronic eavesdropping, mining intercepted phone conversations, texts and emails, and other electronic signals. The CIA’s role is human intelligence, which on battlefields such as Afghanistan often means interrogation of enemy detainees.
The NSA in the past has been more conservative than other U.S. intelligence agencies in its analysis of high-profile intelligence matters involving Russia. A January 2017 intelligence-community assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, ordered by then-outgoing President Obama, stated that while the CIA and Federal Bureau of Investigation had “high confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin aspired to help Mr. Trump’s electoral chances, the NSA reported only “moderate confidence” of that finding.
The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report in April that concluded the analytic difference between NSA and the other intelligence agencies in that case was “reasonable, transparent, and openly debated among the agencies and analysts, with analysts, managers, and agency heads on both sides of the confidence level reasonably justifying their positions.”
The NSA declined to comment in an email to The Wall Street Journal. The CIA has declined to comment on the issue, aside from a statement late Monday by CIA Director Gina Haspel, in which she decried media leaks and indicated analysis of the threat to U.S. troops is ongoing.
Pentagon officials late Monday said the military was still evaluating intelligence that Russian GRU operatives were engaged in malign activity against the U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan. “To date, DOD [the Department of Defense] has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations found in open-source reports,” the statement said.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday met with a top Taliban leader to discuss a peace agreement. Mr. Pompeo reminded Mullah Baradar to adhere to the Taliban’s commitments, “which include not attacking Americans,” a statement said.
The issue of the Russian-Taliban arrangement has roiled Washington since Friday, with both Republican and Democratic lawmakers demanding briefings on the issue and information on how Mr. Trump and his national security team have handled it. Republicans lawmakers were briefed by the White House on Monday, and a group of Democrats were briefed Tuesday.
Members of the House Intelligence Committee are due to be briefed by intelligence officials on Thursday morning, a congressional official said.
While White House officials said Mr. Trump never received an in-person briefing on the reported threat to U.S. troops, information about the intelligence assessment apparently was included in his written daily intelligence briefing, Republican lawmakers said.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) said following a White House briefing that the intelligence was included in the President’s Daily Brief, the main intelligence summary presented to the White House, but said it was still being verified. “It was not to the point of verification, where it would have been highlighted,” he told reporters Tuesday.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas) after a White House briefing Monday, told NBC: “I believe it may have been” in the PDB.
Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, wouldn’t say Tuesday if the PDB in the past contained the intelligence, citing secrecy. Mr. Trump, she said, had been briefed on the intelligence in recent days.
The president’s intelligence briefing—actually delivered now on a secure iPad—“has gotten smaller and more graphical-oriented” under Mr. Trump, said Robert Cardillo, a former senior career intelligence official who served as editor of the PDB from 2010-2014, said.
Mr. Trump isn’t an avid reader of the written materials, according to former officials. But Mr. Cardillo said intelligence briefers are able to highlight an issue, or seek feedback on it, in what he called the “walk-on brief”—the verbal, in-person session between the president and his briefers.
John Bolton, who served as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser for 18 months, wrote in a book published this month that the president typically received two intelligence briefings a week, fewer than his predecessors. “In most of those, he spoke at greater length than the briefers, often on matters completely unrelated to the subjects at hand,” Mr. Bolton wrote.
Sen. Todd Young (R., Ind.) said that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee from both parties have had access to the intelligence for some time.
“Every single member, Republican and Democrat alike, of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is aware, should have been aware, of the intelligence that I was briefed on. It’s long been available,” he said.
One person familiar with the issue said that written reports on the intelligence were made available to Senate Intelligence Committee members earlier this year, although not all senators on the panel necessarily read the documents, which can only be viewed in a secure room.
In an interview with the Journal, Mr. McCaul said one U.S. intelligence agency was “strongly dissenting” with another over the assessment, but he wouldn’t name the agencies at odds or the issues in question.
After a White House briefing Tuesday, Rep. Adam Smith (D., Wash.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said White House officials outlined evidence of Russian wrongdoing.
“They did not dispute that there is some intelligence that supports the conclusion,” Mr. Smith said. But they insisted there is other intelligence “that disputes the conclusion,” he said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) said he and other Democrats at the briefing, which was delivered by White House personnel rather than intelligence or military officials, were left with more questions.
“The president called this a hoax publicly. Nothing in the briefing we just received led me to believe this was a hoax,” Mr. Hoyer said.
No Americans Are Known To Have Died In Russian Bounty Scheme, U.S. General Says
Mideast commander calls intelligence ‘worrisome,’ but says officials haven’t connected U.S. casualties to payments to Taliban by Moscow.
A top U.S. military official confirmed Tuesday that U.S. intelligence assessed that Russia had offered to pay Taliban militants to kill American service members, but said there was no evidence the proposed payment scheme resulted in any U.S. troop deaths.
“I found it very worrisome,” Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, in charge of U.S. Central Command, said of the intelligence. “I didn’t find that there was a causative link there.”
Gen. McKenzie’s public comments to a group of reporters while traveling in Qatar were the first by a top military official regarding the intelligence. Central Command is responsible for U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
According to the classified assessment, Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency paid members of Afghanistan’s Taliban movement to carry out lethal attacks on U.S. troops in that country. Russia has denied the existence of the arrangement.
U.S. officials learned about the intelligence as the Trump administration was withdrawing a significant portion of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and as U.S. diplomats tried to forge a peace accord involving the Taliban and the U.S.-backed Afghan government.
U.S. lawmakers said after briefings by White House and intelligence officials last week that information about the bounty scheme was included earlier this year in the daily intelligence briefing prepared for President Trump.
The White House has denied that Mr. Trump had been personally briefed about the intelligence before reports about it emerged last month, though he has been briefed on it since then.
The administration has played down the intelligence and Mr. Trump has called it a “hoax.”
The Trump administration also has launched an investigation into who leaked information about the intelligence to news organizations.
Gen. McKenzie told the reporters that while there was no evidence tying the bounty offer to U.S. troop deaths, Russia has given Taliban fighters money and weapons for years.
“We should always remember, the Russians are not our friends,” he said. “And they do not wish us well, and we just need to remember that at all times when we evaluate that intelligence.”
There currently are approximately 8,600 U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan. Mr. Trump has called for troop withdrawals tied to a U.S.-Taliban peace agreement, though the deal has snagged on the requirement of talks between the insurgent group and the Afghan government.
Chaotic Trump Administration Plus,Chaotic Trump Administration Plus,Chaotic Trump Administration Plus,Chaotic Trump Administration Plus,Chaotic Trump Administration Plus,Chaotic Trump Administration Plus,Chaotic Trump Administration Plus,Chaotic Trump Administration Plus,