PDA

View Full Version : China removed as top priority for spies



RyanS
02-07-10, 19:06
What is Obama doing? What is he thinking? Part of me thinks that China is calling the shots with all the US debt they own. Whatever the reason, when are things going to actually be done about this man instead of just talking about it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/20/china-removed-top-priority-spies/


By 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.

"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."

Macx
02-07-10, 19:31
I hate to defend this administration, but . .. .

Maybe they are openly dropping their guard for China to soften the whole Dali Lama thing & it is really just a feel good, while the agents that are actually doing are doing every bit as much as before.

I just am never really inclined to think that what we openly say about what we are doing with our spies is actually what we are doing.

Maybe I am wrong & this is just one more bit of treason from the white house. . . .

Business_Casual
02-07-10, 19:35
Maybe I am wrong & this is just one more bit of foolishness from the white house. . . .

Clearly, the current administration needs some adult supervision.

M_P

m4fun
02-07-10, 20:25
Pehaps this administration is so about appoligizing for the USA, our past deeds - defending outselves - that we should just drop our pants and bendover?

Cagemonkey
02-07-10, 20:44
Its about kissing ass. Don't want to piss off our biggest creditor now do we. Right now I'd say were pretty much working for the Chinese. The Reds have traditionally like out sourcing the USA for technological R&D. The sooner we give them their money back, the better.

Mjolnir
02-07-10, 22:46
It's about kissing ass. Don't want to piss off our biggest creditor now do we? Right now I'd say were pretty much working for the Chinese. The Reds have traditionally like outsourcing the USA for technological R&D. The sooner we give them their money back, the better. I think along these lines, too. Also, ONE plan is for China to "assist" our gov't to 'PACIFY' the stubborn US population. Only time will tell, but a wise man doesn't have to wait until the brown stuff impacts the rotating blades to assess some things; even things that may seem "outlandish" to many. They have a large population of very disciplined people; we've armed them since 1972 and who knows the depth of their military capability. It would be foolish to go head-to-head with China at this point in history; besides they belong to the SCO (Shanghai Cooperative Organization) which includes the preeminent nuke power - Russia. Combined we could not win against them. We've let power-hungry monsters to wreck our foreign policy and we've inherited this potentially deadly "ally" for all to see.

BAC
02-08-10, 00:22
It's not like China is going to attack us, considering how closely our countries are economically shackled. I would like to see us bring China into the fold in the Middle East; their troubles with radical Islam would be good common ground to stand on. Call me a young dumb optimist, but both of our countries stand to gain a lot more working as business partners than lining up sight pictures. Same goes for Russia (which is sad since that's more an issue of gov't vs gov't rather than people vs people).


-B

Preferred User
02-08-10, 07:47
It's not like China is going to attack us

You must not work in IT. I can say from the Cyber-Forensic side of things we are under constant bombardment. The US Government is getting probed and pounded. I have investigated many breaches at DoD and other large firms. The outbound theft of intellectual property and other information is staggering. There are huge bot farms controlled out of China (causing Americans to attack Americans). There are many concerns about compromised infrastructure (bots controlling part of the power grid). I have been to quite a few locations now that do not allow Lenovo (formerly IBM) computers to be in their facilities. And the list goes on.

Not all wars are fought with bullets.

ForTehNguyen
02-08-10, 07:53
It's not like China is going to attack us, considering how closely our countries are economically shackled. I would like to see us bring China into the fold in the Middle East; their troubles with radical Islam would be good common ground to stand on. Call me a young dumb optimist, but both of our countries stand to gain a lot more working as business partners than lining up sight pictures. Same goes for Russia (which is sad since that's more an issue of gov't vs gov't rather than people vs people).


-B

another reason why I believe free trade is the best diplomacy you can get. In the end, its bad business to kill your business partners. By the same token, trade sanctions, tariffs, and restrictions do the opposite.

Alric
02-08-10, 08:34
Not only is the downgrade of China very frustrating, but this also caught my eye.


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.

Despicable. There is no defense for that lunacy.

ForTehNguyen
02-08-10, 09:27
lets not forget the CIA director Barry appointed was some accounting bean counter and had zero intelligence experience. Indeed very scary.

SeriousStudent
02-08-10, 18:15
........ I have been to quite a few locations now that do not allow Lenovo (formerly IBM) computers to be in their facilities. And the list goes on.

......

Us. No Lenovo equipment is allowed on our premises.

Tell them about the Chinese contractors that got busted at Cisco, stealing source code. Tell them what law enforcement found when they raided the apartment where they lived.

Tell them about the Chinese switch/router manufacturer that used so much stolen Cisco source code, that it has the same bugs in the IOS. You can even get patches from a Cisco TAC, and they will apply to those switches.

:(

SeriousStudent
02-08-10, 18:27
"Further evidence links Aurora attack to China"

http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/6624/further-evidence-links-aurora-attack-to-china/

"Operation “Aurora” Hit Google, Others"

http://siblog.mcafee.com/cto/operation-%E2%80%9Caurora%E2%80%9D-hit-google-others/

"Google, NSA to team up in cyberattack probe"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100204/wr_nm/us_google_cybersecurity

Everyone in IT worldwide knows what a threat China is. When you have Mandiant and the NSA helping you put out the fire, you are truly covered in flames.

Mjolnir
02-08-10, 18:38
Us. No Lenovo equipment is allowed on our premises.

Tell them about the Chinese contractors that got busted at Cisco, stealing source code. Tell them what law enforcement found when they raided the apartment where they lived.

Tell them about the Chinese switch/router manufacturer that used so much stolen Cisco source code, that it has the same bugs in the IOS. You can even get patches from a Cisco TAC, and they will apply to those switches.

:(
Unfortunately, this kind of shenanigans has been taking place unabated and unresponded to since the Clinton Administration.

Preferred User
02-08-10, 18:44
Tell them about the Chinese contractors that got busted at Cisco, stealing source code. Tell them what law enforcement found when they raided the apartment where they lived.

Tell them about the Chinese switch/router manufacturer that used so much stolen Cisco source code, that it has the same bugs in the IOS. You can even get patches from a Cisco TAC, and they will apply to those switches.

:(

There is some very interesting reading for those so inclined to enlighten themselves.

Reading through all the reports from 2002 through 2008 (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/china.html) and 2009 (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Power_Report_2009.pdf) provides valuable perspective on the Defense Department's view of Chinese information warfare capabilities.

Also: US DoD Annual Estimates of Information Warfare Capabilities and Commitment of the PRC 2002-2009 (http://www.mekabay.com/overviews/dod_prc_iw.pdf) Which highlights the propensity of China to try to gain military and industrial secrets through espionage.

Or: Chinese Information Warfare: A Phantom Menace or Emerging Threat? (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ssi/chininfo.pdf)

Or this little tidbit from Major General Wang Pufeng, former Director of the Strategy Department, Academy of Military Science, Beijing: The Challenge of Information Warfare (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/china/docs/iw_mg_wang.htm). Where he writes: "Firepower superiority depends on information superiority. In keeping with the demands of information warfare, we must base our war preparations on achieving victory in this area and use it to plan China's military and national defense modernization."

SeriousStudent
02-08-10, 19:04
.......

Also: US DoD Annual Estimates of Information Warfare Capabilities and Commitment of the PRC 2002-2009 (http://www.mekabay.com/overviews/dod_prc_iw.pdf) Which highlights the propensity of China to try to gain military and industrial secrets through espionage.

.......

Yeah, Mike's pretty sharp. He does a good job up at Norwich. I debated going there for the IA program he runs.

The Northup-Grumman report was good reading, too. And gee whiz, they were an Aurora target.........

Did you have fun at Black Hat? :cool:

Preferred User
02-08-10, 21:16
Did you have fun at Black Hat? :cool:Yep. Going to SANS? I have to work but will be at SANSFIRE. Kind of weird that it will not be in DC.

BAC
02-08-10, 21:24
You must not work in IT.

I'm also not referring to cyber-attacks. China has extremely little to gain and a lot to lose by the United States and/or its dollar collapsing. They'll screw with us, perhaps try to undermine efforts when given the chance, but they will not outright attack us with the intention of doing grave damage to our nation. Control? If possible. Destroy? Hell no. They have too much invested in us, and us also includes our infrastructure.


-B

SeriousStudent
02-08-10, 21:35
Yep. Going to SANS? I have to work but will be at SANSFIRE. Kind of weird that it will not be in DC.

I'm still trying to squeeze the nickels from the budget folks.

SANS is awesome, really hard-core content, without the killer hangovers from Black Hat or DefCon. ;)

BiggLee71
02-09-10, 12:15
Another "homerun" in Barry's stellar first year performance :rolleyes:

thopkins22
02-09-10, 12:20
Because the government is known for it's honesty when talking about who they're spying on and how they're doing it?:rolleyes:

I seriously doubt that the Washington Times is privy to what's actually happening in the various intelligence agencies...other than what they've been told by public relations types.

RyanS
02-09-10, 12:34
Because the government is known for it's honesty when talking about who they're spying on and how they're doing it?:rolleyes:

I seriously doubt that the Washington Times is privy to what's actually happening in the various intelligence agencies...other than what they've been told by public relations types.

Yes, you are so right, I should have known better than to doubt my government, particularly in light of its past dealings with China, or North Korea, or Iran, or Russia.

Outlander Systems
02-09-10, 15:29
Pretty much shaped my opinion of China a decade ago.

http://www.amazon.com/China-Threat-Bill-Gertz/dp/0895262819

N4FAN
02-09-10, 19:31
This is a yet another OBAMAZZ KISSIN tactic he always pulls with foreign powers. Especially when China OWNS us!
OBAMA has a little brown on his nose... HAHAHA