tv Mike Rogers Remarks on Intelligence and National Security CSPAN3 April 26, 2016 5:00am-5:46am EDT
>> welcome back from the short break. i hope you enjoyed the second panel as much as i did. we're going to continue the conversation and particularly plea pleased to have mike rogers give us his viewpoint now in a key post. we heard from two panels really giving you a view from the executive branch and we're building our way from the national security advisor and how the president views intelligence but for now we have a lunchtime treat for you and my friend will be giving framing remarks. mike started his career at the republican national committee and he worked for senator
sessions. after law school he worked for president bush in the white house national security area and for about three years he was a staff director. i can't think of a better person. mike allen. >> thanks. it's an honor for me today to introduce my former boss and future national security leader mike rogers, former congressman and chairman of the house chairs committee. i want to speak for a few minutes about chairman roger's time as chairman of the house chairs committee. he was a strong, conservative voice for conservative internationalism. a strong national defense and an aggressive and fair intelligence
community. himself once a man in the field he knew what it was like to be around the campfire and to be at the top of the spear and he brought those instincts back to washingt washington. when i was his staff director and chairman rogers had a reputation for jumping on c-130s or going down range as it was called to different places where our intelligence community officers might be serving, chairman rogers really unhappy when i had to be the one to explain to him that the intelligence community for reasons of security was unenthusiastic about his ideas to go down range while he was chairman of the committee but the bottom line is he was never content and always wanted to go out to the source to get the real story and through that experience won the confidence of the men and women in the intelligence community and was
able to earn their trust they would give him and by extension of the committee the real story of what might be going on in the war on terrorism and our struggles with china or russia. i want to give two or three examples and i'll turn it over to the keynote speaker. but the first example i think was the role chairman rogers played with regard to the war on terrorism. he is a member of the committee that became aware of a misalignment of resources and some of our direct action programs and lobbied very hard all the way up to president bush to try to correct what he saw as a rule of engagement issue and some micromanagement that was hurting the way the national security operation was running
in the united states and i think when president obama and some of his directors became weighed down with rules of engagement and other management issues was able to take their concerns directly to the director in some cases over and over and over again. in some cases it was over dinner and i was relieved there was wine served to calm the atmosphere there. he knew when things needed a good airing in the intelligence community. he was one of the ones that really broke the dam on chinese economic espionage. i think history will show he started the moment in which people began to talk about our
intellectual property. the last thing is he was a friend and someone that listens to what people deep in the intelligence community were telling members of congress and in the case of giants that seem to be growing across the world they put out a report that i think educated people around the globe and you can't read an article about it without a reference to the report that they put out warning of this element of a rising china. finally in the age of snowden when so many people turned tail and wouldn't defend the national security agency, chairman rogers stood tall in the saddle and helped explain to the american people the need for great
intelligence and why it was so critical to our national security and diplomacy across the globe. this is a time when it wasn't popular to stand up and certainly at a time when the president wasn't necessarily doing all he could have been doing to back some of our men and women in the intelligence community. he was a tough critic and went after them on budget matters and authorities and like i said earlier on areas where he thought there was too much micromanagement but his chairmanship will be regarded as one that reestablished a tradition of an aggressive but fair oversight of the intelligence community and therefore i'm pleased to introduce the chairman here today, chairman mike rogers. thank you.
>> i wish mike was that nice to me when i was chairman. that would have been great. i'm very fortunate. i see former staff folks here. >> i think we had some of the most able national security people in this country that hope that any success was lead by my staff director as well and the able team he put together. i was always honored to call them friends in what i thought was very very serious and i also want to point out the quickest yes i ever got to one of these is when he called me and said would you participate. he is a guy whose integrity is impeccable. who i had the great privilege to work with the entire time i served on the intelligence community and it was a loss when you left and believe me there's still a hole there that is yet to be filled with your experience and your intellect that you apply both at the cia
for that service i want to say thank you very much i thought i'd talk about where we are. i was with the former secretary and somebody asked what is the biggest threat? what is the biggest threat facing us today? and you have to stop and pause and look at the world and changed the security structure of the world. the threat matrix significantly changed just in the last few years so i thought about it for a second and i said one issue. one thing scares me more on all the threats that we now face in ways we couldn't even contemplate 15 to 25 years ago and that's miscalculation. what if we get it wrong on north korea? what if we get it wrong on some maritime conflict in the south
china sea? what if we get it wrong on the new missile testing program? what if one of our allies gets it wrong? they make a mistake they were very aggressive. but now you have some kind of a conflict. small conflict what if that miscalculation can't be put back and you have a conflict that rages on. i say that because we can spend two hours today talking about the threats. i give cyber talks all over the country. normally my job is just to scare people on what's coming at them
and how bad it's getting but the one way that we the united states has a way to leverage the calculation, certainly aggressive diplomatic engaged everywhere in the world all the time and secondly is good intelligence now think about where we are and what kind of problems have been caused i think by nation states deciding that intelligence services are bad. i argue that europe is suffering from the hang over of world war ii. they geared their laws on what the activities of the athletic services based on what they witnessed and suffer under intelligence services whose business it was to oppress their populatio
populations. you can see where they're pushing in to the strategic value of intelligence services protecting it's population and brussels was leading that charge in many ways. to do the operations it needed to do to get the information that was for sure. what was happening is other european intelligence services decided there was lots of threats. threats to this particular country. they were coming through great britain and going to other
places across europe. they needed information as they travelled across europe so they decided to go in and follow them across europe by going into one of the countries that had lots of access to those kind of target sets so the snoeden leaks come out and they say they're spying on europe. how awful. how terrible. we need to gear ourselves to closing it down and tightening it down. all the information that the u.k. was collecting and dispersi dispersing. there was a great article, talked about the value of the information they were getting that they could go back to brussels intelligence services
and say you have a problem. they could go to places like germany and say you have a problem. here it is. that went away. we decided, the european union decided through big investigations to target the ability to collect information that was lawfully appropriate to protect their country and added benefit was across the european union. >> in that same time period there was a huge ramp up of fake passports. the thai police just had an arrest in late 2015 on an individual who was iranian and travelled to thailand on a fake passport. he stays in thailand for about 20 years.
his sole focus was to engage in the production of fake passports. clientele were seeking passports to get into europe. when they arrested him and it was all a fluke how they arrested him it was good old fashioned intelligence work. somebody found a case of resident stickers going to a place through a random inspection they have a thousand passports ready to go. they were exceptionally good they were operating in greece
for the last five years. somebody in syria was mad at the competition and they were sending a case of these stickers that were close. so good. so detailed. so accurate. it was going in and adhesive on the back. take it out of the box, put it on your passport and you're ready to go. you're now legal in greece and the reason they got on to it wasn't this great intelligence network and work and figuring out what was going to happen in these countries. somebody got jealous because another ring opened up. he said i got one for you. here's a big case coming into greece. you ought to take a look at where that goes and hangs up the phone. we used to love those cases in the fbi. that's always great. you want that cooperation but
that's not a way when you're undersiege to protect your nation. strategic intelligence can help you do that. unleashing the power to find out what they can do versus all the time and energy we spend trying to tell them what they cannot do. it happened here in the united states. we saw that same suffrage. >> we are going to pay a price for that. how do we restrict these big, bad bell jens agencies from doing anything bad. >> everything was legal and appropriate. even the president's review teams all were external and all found they were legal and
appropriate. now we might not have liked what they were doing but there was nothing illegal about it but in that week we decided our intelligence agencies were and think about the threats today they have fundamentally changed where they're coming at us. they have gone into a place like ukraine and shutdown. now the good news is it wasn't connected the way ours might be. so they went back and got in a little trouble for this. love my ukrainian friends they pulled the start button on the transfer stations and fired them back up so they got their power on in short order after this attack. it would take a very long time
and when you start to see russian policy change on being more aggressive in cyber in ways that we had never seen before and doing activities where they don't mind we have a strategic problem in cyber space. they have launched very sophisticated nuclear sub marines and are talking about running more runs up to the arctic. we're going to cut our standing army by 40,000 troops. they announce they're sending 40,000 in a training exercise in the arctic. we need to understand what the world is thinking. that's how you avoid miscalculation. what are the chinese thinking for the first time in their history? announcing by parliament last year that they were going to allow chinese troops outside of their region and when they did that passed it to parliament and
this year they announced they're sending troops. first time ever. the chinese have military components. they invested in mill tarization of space. they have developed missiles that make our navies very nervous. very concerned about how russia and china militarized space in a way that could disrupt our ability we have smart weapons and smart ships and smart aircraft and it's got to bad and the navy is worried about this.
that every new naval officer after a class of 2017 has to learn how to use it. developed in 1724. every new naval officers will have to use it. why? because our military is very concerned what happens when that carrier gsp goes out. i know what many of you are thinking. how do i get to starbucks. can you imagine 30 million noncano noncaffeinated americans in the morning. if you look at the strategic threats and how the tilt has happened and many start to argue about america's loss of strategic advantage. they're working on the option that every day they get better
and we don't. every day that they engage in strateg strategic espionage and we don't. the cia director said the cia does not steal secrets. that scared me to death. you sure want your cia stealing secrets and that tells you there might be a problem in how we're approaching strategic intelligence. if you're not stealing secrets how do you know what chinese military leaderships intentions are? when they show up we need to know their intentions. we do that to avoid miscalculation. maybe we were looking at our good friends and allies in the intelligence business you do that because sometimes your
allies can get you in more trouble than you can get in yourself. you think about the defense packs we have around the world. what if japan decides they want to be aggressive? we ought to know that. what if they decide to be aggressive on pushing back without coordination in the united states. we have a defense pact with them. shouldn't we know that? shouldn't we know that germany had relationships with iran prior to the iran deal? we probably should know that. shouldn't we know what they are thinking after the iran deal? i would like to know that. if i'm deciding thousand use our strategic intelligence to avoid trouble then we need to be as aggressive as we can so we're in that hang over period basically where i think we are still hung
over and fib beats up apple and apple beats up fbi. completely inappropriate in my mind. there's no path forward. all that's happened now is that they found a solution that doesn't mean they have to go to court. fair enough. all of those policy discussions are going to have to happen and this is what worries me most about our strategic alliances in the world. self-restriction, big problem in the u.s. intelligence. >> bad call, not bad for value and trying to avoid miscalculation but when you look at the alliances of economic security in the world some of them are starting to part. why does apple say we don't care
that we have the ability to get into a phone that might lead into the full investigation of the death of 13 americans? because their economics have not aligned with our national security. they need to sell these devices in europe. they need to sell these devices in china and asia so they're security and economics of the problem did not align one of our allies in asia was australian. about 25% of their gdp is related to exports to china so now if you have a national security discussion about australia they pause for a minute. now they're still one of our greatest allies and they're not going anywhere but you can imagine the challenge now of trying to get to a place where we have a common decision matrix.