DOCSLIB.ORG

Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 11 Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Form Approved Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2. REPORT TYPE JUN 2012 00-00-2012 to 00-00-2012 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One 5b. GRANT NUMBER Interagency Group Made a Major Difference 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION National Defense University,Institute for National Strategic Studies,260 REPORT NUMBER 5th Avenue Ft. Lesley J. McNair,Washington,DC,20319 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 168 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Complex Operations, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Center for Transatlantic Security Studies, and Conflict Records Research Center. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by conducting research and analysis, publishing, and participating in conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant Commands in support of the academic programs at NDU and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and the broader national security community. Cover: Kathleen Bailey presents evidence of forgeries to the press corps. Credit: The Washington Times Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference By Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 11 Series Editor: Nicholas Rostow National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. June 2012 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited. Portions of this work may be quoted or reprinted without permission, provided that a standard source credit line is included. NDU Press would appreciate a courtesy copy of reprints or reviews. First printing, June 2012 For current publications of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, please go to the National Defense University Web site at: www.ndu.edu/inss. Contents Foreword .......................................................1 Executive Summary ..............................................3 Introduction ....................................................6 Active Measures and Small Interagency Group Performance ...........8 Devaluing the Counter-Disinformation Mission: 1959–1977 ..........12 Rebounding to Take the Offensive: 1977–1981 ......................20 The “Reagan Revolution” and Countering Soviet Disinformation: Early 1981 .....................................................25 The Founding of the Group: 1981–1984 ............................32 Momentum Carries the Working Group: 1984–1985 .................48 The Apogee of the Active Measures Working Group: 1986–1987 .......58 Analysis of Variables Explaining Performance of Active Measures Working Group .................................................64 Atrophy and Decline: 1988–1992 ..................................93 Performance Assessment .........................................97 Observations ..................................................107 Conclusion ...................................................115 Appendix: Working Group Products ..............................121 Notes ........................................................125 About the Authors .............................................155 Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications Foreword In this era of persistent conflict, U.S. national security depends on the diplomatic, infor- mational, military, and economic instruments of national power being balanced and operation- ally integrated. A single instrument of power—that is, one of the country’s security depart- ments and agencies acting alone—cannot efficiently and effectively deal with the Nation’s most important security challenges. None can be resolved without the well-integrated use of multiple instruments of power—a team bringing to bear the capacity and skills of multiple departments and agencies. The requirement for better interagency integration is not, as some have argued, a passing issue temporarily in vogue or one tied only to counterterrorism or foreign interventions in failed states. Interagency collaboration has become a persistent and pervasive trend in the national security system at all levels, from the strategic to the tactical, and will remain so in an ever more complex security environment. Because of its resources, expertise, and pool of highly developed leaders, the Department of Defense (DOD) will have an outsized role in the future integration of elements of American power. This makes it vitally important that military leaders gain an understanding of inter- agency best practices. This study on the Active Measures Working Group provides a window into one little known but highly influential interagency group and its methods. Although the study examines just one case, it makes some intriguing arguments about how and why this interagency process managed to work well. Its historical and organizational insights are im- mediately relevant to many interagency efforts that the military finds itself involved in today. Along with pointing to best practices, this study disproves some conventional notions about the interagency process. Most notable of these is that small interagency groups need to be far away from Washington to work well. The diverse cast of officials involved in the story of the Active Measures Working Group demonstrates that many leadership values the military respects are resident elsewhere in gov- ernment. Two of the group’s leaders, Dr. Kathleen Bailey and Ambassador Dennis Kux, prac- ticed what some have called “360-degree leadership.” They accepted responsibility, exercised initiative, and took in the views of their subordinates, peers, and superiors in a respectful and forthright way. Expertise and a mission-focused attitude were valued above rank. It is important for military leaders to recognize that organizations such as the Department of State have such dedicated leaders, both political appointees and career civilians, with whom they can partner to overcome the institutional and cultural gaps that so often hinder interagency collaboration and high-performing small teams. 1 Strategic Perspectives, No. 11 The study also reveals another telling lesson: DOD can support an interagency effort with- out having to lead it. Participants in the Active Measures Working Group commented on the resources and gravitas that military participation lent their successful effort. As readers will see, the presence of DOD representatives, civilian and military, encouraged and emboldened the group. The Active Measures Working Group experience illustrates the profound impact that military officers can have on an interagency effort without being in the lead and without provid- ing a large amount of resources. It is supremely important that the coming generation of U.S. military leaders is educated on how to participate effectively in such interagency fora. Finally, the strategic nature of the group’s mission highlights the value of the case study. In an increasingly connected age, America will need to protect its public reputation from those
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is Counterintelligence? and How Lessons on Counterintelligence Might Enrich Their Courses
    Association of Former Intelligence Officers From AFIO's The Intelligencer 7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 324 Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies Falls Church, Virginia 22043 Web: www.afio.com , E-mail: [email protected] Volume 20 • Number 2 • $15 single copy price Fall/Winter 2013 ©2013, AFIO measure what an adversary knows about us? How do we determine whether or not we are successful in keeping our secrets and projecting the image we wish Guide to the Study of Intelligence to project? How do we know what and whom to trust?3 This article is a short cut to some basic concepts about counterintelligence: what it is and is not. Educa- tors in history, government, political science, ethics, law and cognitive psychology should consider whether What is Counterintelligence? and how lessons on counterintelligence might enrich their courses. Recommended additional readings are suggested in the footnotes. A Guide to Thinking A general introductory course on U.S. counter- and Teaching about CI intelligence should have five key learning objectives: Understanding the meaning of counterintelli- gence, its place within intelligence studies, and by Michelle K. Van Cleave its role in international relations as an instrument of statecraft.4 Understanding the difference between tactical WHY STUDY COUNTERINTELLIGENCE? and strategic CI,5 the difference between CI and security,6 and the range of foreign intelligence he study of “counterintelligence” is rare in aca- 3. Consider for example the deception paradox: “Alertness to demia. While modern courses on international deception presumably prompts a more careful and systematic relations often include intelligence, they usually review of the evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J
    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 11 Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Complex Operations, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Center for Transatlantic Security Studies, and Conflict Records Research Center. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by conducting research and analysis, publishing, and participating in conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant Commands in support of the academic programs at NDU and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and the broader national security community. Cover: Kathleen Bailey presents evidence of forgeries to the press corps. Credit: The Washington Times Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference By Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 11 Series Editor: Nicholas Rostow National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. June 2012 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • US Intelligence on the Soviet Economy and Long-Term Competition
    Response Essay Rubles, Dollars, and Power: U.S. Intelligence on the Soviet Economy and Long-Term Competition Austin Long Rubles, Dollars, and Power: U.S. Intelligence on the Soviet Economy and Long-Term Competition This response essay explores some of the key areas of agreement and disagreement between two recent articles on Cold War-era assessments of the Soviet economy. Andrew W. Marshall and Abram N. Shulsky, Similar questions are being asked today about the “Assessing Sustainability of Command Chinese economy, making this more than an issue Economies and Totalitarian Regimes: The of historical interest.4 Soviet Case,” Orbis 62, no. 2 (Spring 2018), Fortunately, two recent articles revisiting Cold https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2018.02.011. War-era intelligence on the Soviet economy provide an accessible entry point for those Marc Trachtenberg, “Assessing Soviet grappling with such questions today. The first Economic Performance During the Cold War: is by two participants in the original debate A Failure of Intelligence?” Texas National about the Soviet economy. Andrew Marshall was Security Review 1, no. 2 (March 2018), founding director of the Office of Net Assessment http://hdl.handle.net/2152/63942. in the Office of the Secretary of Defense after more than two decades as an economist at the he 2018 National Defense Strategy RAND Corporation. Abram Shulsky was minority articulates a clear vision that “[t]he staff director for the Senate Select Committee on central challenge to U.S. prosperity and Intelligence before joining the Defense Department security is the reemergence of long- during the Reagan administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Educação Histórica: Perspetivas De Investigação Nacional E Internacional
    EDUCAÇÃO HISTÓRICA: PERSPETIVAS DE INVESTIGAÇÃO NACIONAL E INTERNACIONAL COORD. ISABEL BARCA LUÍS ALBERTO MARQUES ALVES FICHA TÉCNICA TÍTULO Educação Histórica: Perspetivas de Investigação Nacional e Internacional (XV Congresso das Jornadas Internacionais de Educação Histórica) COORDENAÇÃO Isabel Barca Luís Alberto Marques Alves EDIÇÃO: CITCEM Centro de Investigação Transdisciplinar «Cultura, Espaço e Memória» DESIGN: by Scala | Graphic Performance (de acordo com as normas CITCEM) ISBN 978-989-8351-60-9 Porto, 2016 — Trabalho cofinanciado pelo Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) através do COMPETE 2020 – Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI) e por fundos nacionais através da FCT, no âmbito do projeto POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007460. ENSINAR COM A SÉTIMA ARTE – O ESPAÇO DO CINEMA NA DIDÁTICA DA HISTÓRIA TIAGO DOS SANTOS REIGADA18 RESUMO A apresentação desenvolverá a temática do cinema sob o ponto de vista da sua relação com a História e com o Ensino da História. Através de um olhar retrospetivo, pretendemos perceber qual a relação estabelecida entre cinema e História, e vice-versa, com o objetivo de encontrar pontos de ancoragem que nos permitam enquadrá-la no âmbito da didática, fazendo do filme o ponto de partida para aprendizagens significativas em História. Com este propósito em mente, faremos uma breve contextualização teórica que incorpora os vetores cinema, História e Didática, que nos permitirá depois traçar o perfil de utilização do filme na sala de aula de História, analisar as suas potencialidades
    [Show full text]
  • Strategically-Motivated Advanced Persistent Threat: Definition, Process, Tactics and a Disinformation Model of Counterattack
    Strategically-Motivated Advanced Persistent Threat: Definition, Process, Tactics and a Disinformation Model of Counterattack Atif Ahmad Jeb Webb School of Computing and Information Systems Oceania Cyber Security Centre The University of Melbourne Melbourne, Australia Parkville, Australia [email protected] [email protected] Kevin C. Desouza James Boorman QUT Business School Oceania Cyber Security Centre Queensland University of Technology Melbourne, Australia Queensland, Australia [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Advanced persistent threat (APT) is widely acknowledged to be the most sophisticated and potent class of security threat. APT refers to knowledgeable human attackers that are organized, highly sophisticated and motivated to achieve their objectives against a targeted organization(s) over a prolonged period. Strategically-motivated APTs or S-APTs are distinct in that they draw their objectives from the broader strategic agenda of third parties such as criminal syndicates, nation-states, and rival corporations. In this paper we review the use of the term “advanced persistent threat,” and present a formal definition. We then draw on military science, the science of organized conflict, for a theoretical basis to develop a rigorous and holistic model of the stages of an APT operation which we subsequently use to explain how S-APTs execute their strategically motivated operations using tactics, techniques and procedures. Finally, we present a general disinformation model, derived from situation awareness theory, and explain how disinformation can be used to attack the situation awareness and decision making of not only S-APT operators, but also the entities that back them. Keywords: Advanced Persistent Threat; APT; Cybersecurity; Information Security Management; Situation Awareness Theory; Strategic Disinformation 1.0 Introduction • On 3 October 2018, FireEye published an article on what is thought to be a state-sponsored advanced persistent threat (APT) team dubbed “APT38” (Fraser et al 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • US Economic Policies and the End of the Cold
    Trading with the Enemy: U.S. Economic Policies and the End of the Cold War A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Tyler P. Esno April 2017 © 2017 Tyler P. Esno. All Rights Reserved. 2 This dissertation titled Trading with the Enemy: U.S. Economic Policies and the End of the Cold War by TYLER P. ESNO has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by Chester J. Pach, Jr. Associate Professor of History Robert Frank Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT ESNO, TYLER P., Ph.D., April 2017, History Trading with the Enemy: U.S. Economic Policies and the End of the Cold War Director of Dissertation: Chester J. Pach, Jr. This dissertation argues that U.S. economic strategies and policies were effective means to wage the Cold War during its final years and conclude the conflict on terms favorable to the United States. Using recently declassified U.S. and British government documents, among other sources, this analysis reveals that actions in East-West economic relations undermined cooperative U.S.-Soviet relations in the 1970s, contributed to heightened tensions in the early 1980s, and helped renew the U.S.-Soviet dialogue in the late 1980s. Scholars have focused on the role arms control initiatives and political actions played in the end of the Cold War. Arms control agreements, however, failed to resolve the underlying ideological and geopolitical competition between the United States and the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Cold War Days: Lies, Deaths and Aggression
    COLD WAR DAYS Lies, Deaths and Aggression Fidel Castro Ruz Almost four decades ago scientists living in the United States discovered the Internet, the same way that Albert Einstein, born in Germany, discovered in his own time the formula to measure atomic energy. Einstein was a great scientist and humanist. He contradicted Newton's laws of physics, held sacred until then. However, apples continued to fall due to the laws of gravity that had been defined by Newton. These were two different ways of observing and interpreting nature, with very little information on this in Newton's day. I remember what I read more than 50 years ago about the famous theory of relativity elaborated by Einstein: energy is equal to mass times the speed of light, called C, squared: E=MC². The United States money existed and the resources necessary for such expensive research. The political climate resulting from the generalized hatred against the brutalities of Nazism in the richest and most productive nation in the world destroyed by the war, transformed that fabulous energy into bombs that were dropped over the defenseless populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and a similar number of people who were exposed to radiation and subsequently died in the following years. A clear example of the use of science and technology with the same hegemonic goals is described in an article written by the former official of United States National Security, Gus W Weiss; it originally appeared in the magazine Studies in Intelligence, in 1996, even though it was more widely distributed in 2002 under the title of Deceiving the Soviets.
    [Show full text]
  • The Farewell Dossier (Gus W. Weiss)
    Duping the Soviets The Farewell Dossier Gus W. Weiss We communists have to string substantive topics. The Soviets along with the capitalists for a viewed détente as fpeaceful coexist while. We need their credits, encef and as an avenue to improve their agriculture, and their tech their inefficient, if not beleaguered nology. But we are going to economy using improved political relations obtain continue massive milita~y pro to grain, foreign credits, and 1 In sci grams and by the middle 1980s technology. pure the Soviets deserved their we will be in a position to return ence, and their to a much more aggressive for impressive reputation, demonstrated eign policy designed to gain the space program original ity and accomplishment in rocket upper hand in our relationshsp lacked with the West. engineeringŠbut they pro The Soviets viewed détente duction know-how necessary for long-term competition with the as fpeaceful coexistencef Leonid Brezhnev. Remarks in United States. Soviet managers had 1971 to the Politburo at the and as an avenue to difficulty in translating laboratory beginning of détente. improve their inefficient, if results to products, quality control was poor, and plants were badly During the Cold War, and especially not beleaguered economy organized. Cost accounting, even in in the 1970s, Soviet intelligence car the defense sector, was hopelessly using improved political ried out a substantial and successful inadequate. In computers and micro clandestine effort to obtain technical relations to obtain grain, electronics, the Soviets trailed and scientific knowledge from the and Western standards by more than a foreign credits, West.
    [Show full text]
  • FAREWELL a Film by Christian Carion
    NORD-OUEST and LE BUREAU Present Emir Kusturica Guillaume Canet FAREWELL A film by Christian Carion Running time: 1h52' World Sales Pathé International Paris Office London Office 2 rue Lamennais Kent House, 14 – 17 Market place 75008 Paris London, W1W8AR Phone : +33 1 71 72 33 05 Phone : + 44 207 462 4427 Fax : +33 1 71 72 33 10 Fax : + 44 207 436 7891 www.patheinternational.com www.pathepicturesinternational.co.uk [email protected] [email protected] US/International press contact: Sophie Gluck Sophie Gluck & Associates Cell: +1 917 593 8159 [email protected] FAREWELL Synopsis In 1981, Colonel Grigoriev of the KGB (real name - Vladimir Vetrov), disenchanted with what the Communist ideal has become under Brezhnev, decides he is going to change the world… Discreetly, he makes contact with a French engineer working for Thomson in Moscow and little by little passes on documents to him - mainly concerning the United States - containing information which would constitute the most important Cold War espionage operation known to date. During a period of two years, French President, François Mitterrand, was to personally vet the documents supplied by this source in Moscow, to whom the French Secret Service gave the codename “Farewell”. Then master of the White House, Ronald Reagan, set aside his reluctance to work with a French Socialist to put this unhoped-for information from the very heart of the KGB to use. Farewell would in fact decapitate the network which enabled the KGB to gain in-depth knowledge of scientific, industrial and military research in the West. Once the USSR had been deprived of these precious sources of information, Ronald Reagan’s announcement of the new “Star Wars” military programme sounded the death knell of the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Perspectives No. 11
    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 11 Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Complex Operations, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Center for Transatlantic Security Studies, and Conflict Records Research Center. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by conducting research and analysis, publishing, and participating in conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant Commands in support of the academic programs at NDU and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and the broader national security community. Cover: Kathleen Bailey presents evidence of forgeries to the press corps. Credit: The Washington Times Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference By Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 11 Series Editor: Nicholas Rostow National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. June 2012 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Espionage Today and Information Wars of Tomorrow
    Industrial Espionage Today and Information Wars of Tomorrow Paul M. Joyal President To be presented at the 19th National Information Systems Security Conference Baltimore Convention Center Baltimore, MD October 22-25,1996 INTEGER Security Inc. Information and Analytic Services 725 15th Street, NW, Suite 908 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 347-2624, Fax (202) 347-4631 Industrial Espionage Today and Information Wars of Tomorrow. October 22-25, 1996 Baltimore, Maryland Paul M. Joyal President INTEGER Security Inc. Information and Analytic Services 725 15th Street, NW, Suite 908 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 347-2624, Fax (202) 347-4631 ABSTRACT In this report we review case histories of industrial espionage publicized in the media and in Congressional hearings. The threat to the United States as the world's largest investor in R&D is magnified by the transition from a cold war military confrontation of the super powers to economic competition in global markets. To sustain their market share, France, Japan and Russia have initiated national programs to acquire U.S. technical know-how. Former intelligence staff now distill fragments of sensitive information into meaningful intelligence to guide industrial and national efforts towards dominance. This threat is amplified by the exponential proliferation of global communication networks, like the INTERNET, that reach into corporate America and permit unseen adversaries to probe the vast U.S. data stores for unprotected intelligence. Counter intelligence in industrial espionage by the United States on a national level is virtually impossible because of public scrutiny in our open society. On the positive side, the upheaval of a rapid transition from the global political high-tension and high stability of the Cold War to the low-tension and high instability of the so-called new world order has prompted increased international collaboration against international terrorism and organized crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Intelligence and State Security Services
    Russian Intelligence and State Security Services From Wikipedia related-articles and www.tridentmilitary.com GRU GRU Generalnovo Shtaba Glavnoje Razvedyvatel'noje Upravlenije Главное Разведывательное Управление From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia GRU or Glavnoje Razvedyvatel'noje Upravlenije is the acronym for the foreign military intelligence directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, (formerly the Red Army General Staff of the Soviet Union). GRU is the English transliteration of the Russian acronym ГРУ , which stands for "Главное Разведывательное Управление", meaning Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff. The full name is GRU GSh (GRU Generalnovo Shtaba (or "GenShtaba"), i.e. "GRU of the General Staff"). The GRU is Russia's largest intelligence agency. It deploys six times as many agents in foreign countries as the SVR which is the KGB intelligence successor. It also commanded 25,000 spetsnaz troops in 1997. [1] The current GRU Director is General of the Army Valentin Vladimirovich Korabelnikov. History The GRU was created in 1918 by the Bolshevik Communist Party under Lenin, and given the task of handling all military intelligence, particularly the collection of intelligence of military or political significance from sources outside the Soviet Union. The GRU operated residencies all over the world, along with the SIGINT (signals intelligence) station in Lourdes, Cuba, and throughout the former Soviet bloc countries, especially in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The first head of the GRU was Janis Karlovich Berzin, a Latvian Communist and former member of the Cheka, who remained in the post until 28 November 1937, when he was arrested and subsequently liquidated during Stalin's purges.
    [Show full text]