DOCSLIB.ORG

Joint Review of Domestic Sharing of Counterterrorism Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Joint Review of Domestic Sharing of Counterterrorism Information Review of Domestic Sharing of Counterterrorism Information Prepared by the Inspectors General of the: INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MARCH 2017 Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Audit Division Report 17-21 REVIEW OF DOMESTIC SHARING OF COUNTERTERRORISM INFORMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION . ............................................................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................... 1 FIELD-BASED COUNTERTERRORISM INFORMATION SHARING ...................................................................................... 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 7 INTEGRATION, COORDINATION, AND NATIONAL STRATEGY .......................................................................... 7 EXAMPLES OF INFORMATION SHARING AND COORDINATION ......................................................................................7 SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES ................................................................................................................................. 8 INTERCONNECTED MISSIONS OF FEDERAL PARTNERS ................................................................................................ 9 STRATEGY AND COORDINATION IN DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION SHARING............................................ 11 DHS INTELLIGENCE ENTERPRISE ......................................................................................................................... 14 Limited Cohesiveness and Coordination of Effort across the DHS Intelligence Enterprise ................................... 14 I&A Staffing Issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Insufficient Reporting of Counterterrorism Information ......................................................................................... 17 Delays in I&A Intelligence Product Review and Approval ....................................................................................... 18 DHS Lacks Consistent Access to C-LAN and SCIFs in the Field................................................................................. 20 DOJ SUPPORT OF COUNTERTERRORISM INFORMATION SHARING ............................................................................. 21 DOJ Strategy for Internal Counterterrorism Information Sharing .......................................................................... 22 JTTF Executive Board Meeting Participation and Content ...................................................................................... 23 Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC) ................................................................................................................... 27 FBI Threat Review and Prioritization ........................................................................................................................ 29 ODNI FIELD BASED ELEMENTS SUPPORT TO COUNTERTERRORISM INFORMATION SHARING ..........................................31 The Domestic DNI Representative Program............................................................................................................. 31 The NCTC Domestic Representative Program .......................................................................................................... 38 FUSION CENTERS ............................................................................................................................................. 42 Federal Investment and Support to Fusion Centers ................................................................................................ 42 National Network Maturity Model ........................................................................................................................... 47 Need to Coordinate Granting of Security Clearances .............................................................................................. 49 National Mission Cell Initiative .................................................................................................................................. 50 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 51 APPENDIX A: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE & METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 52 APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDATIONS . ............................................................................................................ 54 APPENDIX C: THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCES RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT . ....................................................................................................................................................... 63 APPENDIX D: THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYS RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT ............... 67 APPENDIX E: THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICES RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT ...................................... 77 APPENDIX F: THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT . ................... 80 REVIEW OF DOMESTIC SHARING OF COUNTERTERRORISM INFORMATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fifteen years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, the terrorist threat remains in the United States and abroad, as evidenced by recent attacks in Paris, France; San Bernardino, California; Brussels, Belgium; Orlando, Florida; and Nice, France. The U.S.’s national security depends on the ability to share the right information with the right people at the right time. This requires sustained and responsible collaboration among federal, state, local, and tribal entities, as well as the private sector and international partners. In response to a request from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Offices of Inspector General (OIG) of the Intelligence Community (IC), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted a review of the domestic sharing of counterterrorism information. The OIGs concluded that the partners in the terrorism-related Information Sharing Environment components of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), DHS, DOJ, and their state and local partners are committed to sharing counterterrorism information. The partners’ commitment to protecting the nation is illustrated by the actions taken before, during, and following terrorism-related incidents, as well as by programs and initiatives designed to improve sharing of counterterrorism information. However, the OIGs also identified several areas in which improvements could enhance information sharing. To share information effectively, the federal, state, and local entities actively involved in counterterrorism efforts must understand each other’s roles, responsibilities, and contributions, especially with the involvement of multiple agencies, such as the DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and DHS’ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in complex investigations. Updating or establishing new information sharing agreements among such entities should enhance coordination and collaboration, and reaffirm and formalize the roles and responsibilities of partners in the current information sharing environment. Similarly, although there is a national information sharing strategy, its implementation has been viewed to be uneven. The OIGs believe that the ODNI, DHS, and DOJ should review the interagency information sharing memorandum of understanding (MOU) and take necessary actions to update intelligence information sharing standards and processes among the departments, which we believe would result in better implementation of the strategy. i The OIGs also identified improvements in various practices and processes of the partners involved in counterterrorism. At DHS, a lack of unity in its Intelligence Enterprise, issues in the field related to staffing and access to classified systems and facilities, as well as problems with intelligence reporting processes, have made the DHS Intelligence Enterprise less effective and valuable to the IC than it could be. DOJ can improve its counterterrorism information sharing efforts by developing and implementing a consolidated internal DOJ strategy, and evaluating the continued need and most effective utilization for the United States Attorney’s Offices’ Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC) meetings. Further, the FBI should spur participation associated with Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) and improve its efforts to obtain partners’ input in the process of identifying and prioritizing counterterrorism threats. Within the ODNI, the Domestic DNI Representative program is hindered by large geographic regions, as well as the lack of a clear strategic vision and guidance. In addition, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) Domestic Representative program, although well received in the field, has also struggled to sufficiently cover its
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency's Civil Liberties
    112 Harvard National Security Journal / Vol. 6 ARTICLE Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency’s Civil Liberties Gap __________________________ Margo Schlanger* * Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law, University of Michigan. I have greatly benefited from conversations with John DeLong, Mort Halperin, Alex Joel, David Kris, Marty Lederman, Nancy Libin, Rick Perlstein, Becky Richards, and several officials who prefer not to be named, all of whom generously spent time with me, discussing the issues in this article, and many of whom also helped again after reading the piece in draft. I would also like to extend thanks to Sam Bagenstos, Rick Lempert, Daphna Renan, Alex Rossmiller, Adrian Vermeule, Steve Vladeck, Marcy Wheeler, Shirin Sinnar and other participants in the 7th Annual National Security Law Workshop, participants at the University of Iowa law faculty workshop, and my colleagues at the University of Michigan Legal Theory Workshop and governance group lunch, who offered me extremely helpful feedback. Jennifer Gitter and Lauren Dayton provided able research assistance. All errors are, of course, my responsibility. Copyright © 2015 by the Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College and Margo Schlanger. 2015 / Intelligence Legalism and the NSA’s Civil Liberties Gaps 113 Abstract Since June 2013, we have seen unprecedented security breaches and disclosures relating to American electronic surveillance. The nearly daily drip, and occasional gush, of once-secret policy and operational information makes it possible to analyze and understand National Security Agency activities, including the organizations and processes inside and outside the NSA that are supposed to safeguard American’s civil liberties as the agency goes about its intelligence gathering business.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence Failures in Countering Islamic Terrorism: a Comparative Analysis on the Strategic Surprises of the 9/11 and the Pa
    Department of Political Science Master’s Degree in International Relations - Global Studies Chair of Geopolitical Scenarios and Political Risk Intelligence Failures in Countering Islamic Terrorism: A Comparative Analysis on the Strategic Surprises of the 9/11 and the Paris Attacks and the Exceptionality of the Italian Case SUPERVISOR CANDIDATE Prof. Giuseppe Scognamiglio Antonella Camerino Student ID: 639472 CO-SUPERVISOR Prof. Lorenzo Castellani ACCADEMIC YEAR 2019-2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………5 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………..6 CHAPTER 1: Intelligence: A Theoretical Framework 1.1 – The Intelligence Cycle………………………………………………………………….11 1.2 – Intelligence Failures…………………………………………………………………….19 1.3 – The Strategic Surprises and Surprises Attacks………………………………………….24 1.4 – The Black Swan Theory………………………………………………………………...30 CHAPTER 2: The Case of USA: The Attacks of the 9/11 2.1 – The US Intelligence Community……………………………………………………….35 2.2 – Analysis of a Terrorist Organization: Al-Qaeda………………………………………..43 2.3 – The 9/11 Attacks: Facts, Causes and Consequences……………………………………52 2.4 – The US Involvement in the Middle East: The War on Terror………………………….61 CHAPTER 3: The Case of France: The Paris Attacks of November 13 3.1 – The French Intelligence Community…………………………………………………...73 3.2 – Analysis of a Terrorist Organization: The Islamic State………………………………..80 3.3 – The Paris Attacks of November 13: Facts, Causes and Consequences………………...90 3.4 – The French Involvement in the Middle East: Opération Chammal…………………….98
    [Show full text]
  • Workforce Planning in the Intelligence Community
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This report is part of the RAND Corporation research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that ad- dress the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for re- search quality and objectivity. WORKFORCE PLANNING IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY A Retrospective CHARLES NEMFAKOS, BERNARD D.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends and Predictions in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 3
    A HOOVER INSTITUTION ESSAY Trends and Predictions in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance THE FAA AND BEYOND DAVID S. KRIS Aegis Paper Series No. 1601 It is a strange time for national security. Beginning in 2013, Edward Snowden’s leaks caused the US government to significantly reduce the scope, and increase the transparency, of its foreign intelligence surveillance, while the president urged caution and restraint in response to the extraordinary rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). At the same time, US communications providers sought additional reforms and reduced their cooperation with surveillance directives in important cases. Finally, anti-surveillance politicians, on the right and left of the US political spectrum, prospered as part of a burgeoning populist movement. In Western Europe, by contrast, ISIL’s rise spurred a significant and overt expansion of surveillance authorities. European governments, particularly the United Kingdom, began National Security, Technology, and Law and Technology, Security, National making increasingly strident demands for communications data from US providers. And the European Union struck down the safe-harbor regime for trans-Atlantic data sharing on the grounds that US surveillance laws do not adequately protect privacy. Despite increased transparency, as of January 2016, the immense technical and legal complexity of US surveillance law continues to challenge informed debate across all of these fronts. In this highly charged and confused environment, Congress will soon take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act (FAA), which is set to expire at the end of 2017. I make six predictions about the issues likely to dominate that legislative process.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends and Predictions in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance: the FAA and Beyond
    ARTICLES Trends and Predictions in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance: The FAA and Beyond David S. Kris* It is a strange time for national security. Beginning in 2013, Edward Snowden’s leaks caused the U.S. government to significantly reduce the scope, and in- crease the transparency, of its foreign intelligence surveillance, while the president urged caution and restraint in response to the extraordinary rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). At the same time, U.S. communi- cations providers sought additional reforms and reduced their cooperation with surveillance directives in important cases. Finally, anti-surveillance politicians, on the right and left of the U.S. political spectrum, prospered as part of a burgeoning populist movement. In Western Europe, by contrast, ISIL’s rise spurred a significant and overt expansion of surveillance authorities. European governments, particularly the United Kingdom, began making increasingly strident demands for communications data from U.S. providers. And the Euro- pean Union struck down the safe-harbor regime for trans-Atlantic data sharing on the grounds that U.S. surveillance laws do not adequately protect privacy. Despite increased transparency, as of January 2016, the immense technical and legal complexity of U.S. surveillance law continues to challenge informed debate across all of these fronts. In this highly charged and confused environment, Congress will soon take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act (FAA), which is set to expire at the end of 2017. I make six predictions about the issues likely to dominate that legislative process. Most of those issues concern incremental change, and a range of possible outcomes well within existing legal and policy * David S.
    [Show full text]
  • DHS/ALL/PIA-086 DHS Counterintelligence Program Page 1
    Privacy Impact Assessment for the DHS Counterintelligence Program DHS Reference No. DHS/ALL/PIA-086 August 31, 2020 Privacy Impact Assessment DHS/ALL/PIA-086 DHS Counterintelligence Program Page 1 Abstract The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Counterintelligence (CI) Program is a Department-wide effort designed to detect, deter, and disrupt foreign intelligence threats directed at the United States. CI encompasses those activities that identify, deceive, exploit, disrupt, or protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted for or on behalf of foreign powers, organizations, or persons, or their agents (including transnational criminal organizations and drug trafficking organizations conducting intelligence-related activities), or international terrorist organizations or activities, collectively hereinafter referred to as foreign intelligence entities (FIE).1 DHS is conducting this Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) because the DHS CI Program requires access to, collection of, and storage of personally identifiable information (PII) associated with individuals who are either involved in, witness to, or knowledgeable of CI-related activities that are the subject of inquiry by DHS, or supporting CI activities conducted by the DHS CI Program. Overview The DHS CI Program is a coordinated Department effort to detect, deter, and disrupt foreign intelligence threats directed at the United States. Within DHS, only two Components are members of the Intelligence Community (IC): the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which each have different authorities under Executive Order (EO) 12333 “United States Intelligence Activities” 2 (as well as through their own statutory authorities, which are explained in more detail below).
    [Show full text]
  • Dod Directive 5143.01, October 24, 2014
    Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 5143.01 October 24, 2014 Change 1 Effective April 22, 2015 DCMO SUBJECT: Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) References: See Enclosure 1. PURPOSE. This directive: a. Reissues DoD Directive (DoDD) 5143.01 (Reference (a)) to update the responsibilities and functions, relationships, and authorities of the USD(I), pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) by sections 113 and 137 of Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (b)), and in accordance with section 3001 et seq. of Title 50, U.S.C. (Reference (c)), as well as Public Law 108-458 (Reference (d)), Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 (Reference (e)), and E.O. 13470 (Reference (f)). b. Authorizes the USD(I) to reissue chartering DoDDs, in accordance with DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5025.01 (Reference (g)), for OSD Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed officials who are under the authority, direction, and control of the USD(I). c. Conforms to and is consistent with law and Presidential guidance concerning the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). d. Cancels Deputy Secretary of Defense (DepSecDef) Memorandums (References (h) and (i)). 2. APPLICABILITY. This directive applies to OSD, the Military Departments (MILDEPs), the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands (CCMDs), the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (OIG DoD), the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this directive as the “DoD Components”).
    [Show full text]
  • National Security Rulemaking
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 41 Issue 4 Article 2 Summer 2014 National Security Rulemaking Robert Knowles Valparaiso University Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert Knowles, National Security Rulemaking, 41 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 883 (2014) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol41/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NATIONAL SECURITY RULEMAKING ROBERT KNOWLES* ABSTRACT Agencies performing national security functions regulate citizens’ lives in increasingly intimate ways. Yet national security rulemaking is a mystery to most Americans. Many rules—like those implementing the National Security Agency’s vast surveillance schemes— remain secret. Others are published, but the deliberations that led to them and the legal justifications for them remain hidden. Ordinarily, these rules would undergo the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and- comment process, which has earned wide, if not universal, praise for advancing democratic values and enhancing agency effectiveness. But a national security exception from notice- and-comment in the APA itself, along with the overuse of classification authority, combine to insulate most national security rulemaking from public scrutiny and meaningful judicial review. The result is a national security administrative state that is insular and unaccount- able to the public. Some scholars find this exceptional treatment inevitable, while others have proposed reforms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Way Forward
    Information Sharing in the 21st Century The Way Forward REPORT TO THE MARKLE FOUNDATION OF THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CAPSTONE TEAM May 2012 A Project of School of International & Public Affairs Columbia University New York, New York [This page is intentionally left blank] INFORMATION SHARING IN THE 21ST CENTURY: THE WAY FORWARD 1 Table of Contents Overview ...............................................................................................................................5 Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................6 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................6 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................7 Introduction .......................................................................................................................13 Information Sharing – Where We Are Today .............................................15 Legislative History of U.S. Intelligence Activities Pre 9/11 ...........................15 The National Security Act of 1947 ......................................................................................15 Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ...................19 The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) ........................................19 Executive Order 12333 (1981)............................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency's Civil Liberties Gap." Harv
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2015 Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency’s Civil Liberties Gap Margo Schlanger University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/1410 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, National Security Law Commons, President/ Executive Department Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Schlanger, Margo. "Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency's Civil Liberties Gap." Harv. Nat'l Sec. J. 6 (2015): 112-205. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 112 Harvard National Security Journal / Vol. 6 ARTICLE Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency’s Civil Liberties Gap __________________________ Margo Schlanger* * Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law, University of Michigan. I have greatly benefited from conversations with John DeLong, Mort Halperin, Alex Joel, David Kris, Marty Lederman, Nancy Libin, Rick Perlstein, Becky Richards, and several officials who prefer not to be named, all of whom generously spent time with me, discussing the issues in this article, and many of whom also helped again after reading the piece in draft. I would also like to extend thanks to Sam Bagenstos, Rick Lempert, Daphna Renan, Alex Rossmiller, Adrian Vermeule, Steve Vladeck, Marcy Wheeler, Shirin Sinnar and other participants in the 7th Annual National Security Law Workshop, participants at the University of Iowa law faculty workshop, and my colleagues at the University of Michigan Legal Theory Workshop and governance group lunch, who offered me extremely helpful feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 John D
    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Urgency, Opportunity, and Frustration: Implementing the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 John D. Negroponte* and Edward M. Wittenstein INTRODUCTION A terrorist organization targets America's airlines, igniting domestic panic and finger-pointing in Washington. The plot is hatched in a distant Muslim- majority nation-a country with which the United States has maintained a historically volatile relationship and in which multiple attacks against U.S. citizens originated in the past decade. A key perpetrator hails from another country where Islamic extremism is known to thrive, and he traveled to other countries en route to the United States, evading airport security. With the benefit of hindsight, the plot now appears crystal clear. Prior to the incident, multiple U.S. and foreign government agencies possessed bits and pieces of relevant information. There was no "smoking gun" that in itself could have Brady-Johnson Distinguished Senior Research Fellow in Grand Strategy and Lecturer in International Affairs at the Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale University. Ambassador Negroponte also serves as Vice Chairman of McLarty Associates, an international strategic advisory firm in Washington, D.C. He was the country's first Director of National Intelligence from 2005 to 2007. During his more than four decades of diplomatic service, Ambassador Negroponte has served as Deputy Secretary of State (2007- 2009), U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations (2001-2004), and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (2004-2005), the Philippines (1993-1996), Mexico (1989- 1993), and Honduras (1981-1985). He received his B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • A M E R I C a N P U R P O
    THE INSTRUMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS OF AMERICAN PURPOSE Foreword By Joseph S. Nye & Brent Scowcroft Edited By Kurt M. Campbell & Jonathon Price THE INSTRUMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS OF AMERICAN PURPOSE FOREWORD BY JOSEPH S. NYE & BRENT SCOWCROFT EDITED BY KURT M. CAMPBELL AND JONATHON PRICE Copyright © 2009 by The Aspen Institute The Aspen Institute One Dupont Circle, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Published in the United States of America in 2009 by The Aspen Institute All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 0-89843-501-3 Wye Publication Number: 09/004 Cover design by: Yong Wook Back Interior design by: Steve Johnson aspen strategy group* CO-CHAIRMEN Stephen E. Biegun Vice President Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Ford Motor Company University Distinguished Service Professor John F. Kennedy School of Government Robert D. Blackwill Harvard University Senior Fellow RAND Corporation Brent Scowcroft President Antony J. Blinken The Scowcroft Group, Inc. Staff Director U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee DIRECTOR Lael Brainard Vice President and Director Kurt M. Campbell Global Economy and Development CEO and Co-Founder The Brookings Institution Center for a New American Security Ashton B. Carter Co-Director ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR Preventive Defense Project & Chair, International & Global Affairs Jonathon Price John F. Kennedy School of Government Associate Director Harvard University Aspen Strategy Group Susan Collins Senator MEMBERS United States Senate Madeleine K. Albright Richard Danzig Principal Senior Advisor The Albright Group, LLC Center for Strategic and International Studies Richard L. Armitage President John M. Deutch Armitage International Institute Professor of Chemistry Massachusetts Institute of Technology Zoë Baird President Thomas E.
    [Show full text]