Category Archives: NSA

This article first appeared on the Just Security site.

On Monday, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster agreed to serve as national security advisor to the president.

McMaster has written and spoken extensively on a range of topics, from grand strategy to ground force maneuver. McMaster also appears to have strong views about military ethics that may influence the advice that he provides on matters of war and peace.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

While I have not found a systematic presentation of his moral worldview, there are a number of striking and potentially revealing statements that readers may find of great interest.

Indeed, McMasters statements over the years suggest a moral outlook that may positively influence national security policy, or lead to conflict with others in the administration who do not share his values.

First, I should note that, while commanding the U.S. Armys 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq, McMaster reportedly

forbade his soldiers from using dehumanizing and derogatory language when referring to Iraqis: both because such behavior is inconsistent with the shared values that define a soldiers moral identity, and because such behavior is potentially a verbal foot in the door leading to more serious forms of abuse.

As commander of the regiment, McMaster also reportedly ordered detainees be treated humanely, and even polled detainees on how well the regiment followed through. Such reports suggest that McMaster may be a practitioner of military ethics, not simply a theorist.

Speaking at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs in 2014, McMaster offered the following remarks:

If you see, for example, what ISIL [ISIS] is doing today, you would think, Okay, how do you deal with an enemy like this, an enemy that operates in this way, and then is intermingled with civilian populations? Maybe to defeat this kind of enemy you have to be equally brutal. Maybe you have to lower your standards, but I would say that exactly the opposite is the case.

. . . We have to defeat them in a way thats consistent with our values that reflect our society and whats expected of our military, for our Army forces, and of course whats been expected since at least the time of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, taking it back even further.

So what does that mean? It means that we have to fight them applying the principles of just war theory, which means distinction. We distinguish between our enemies and civilian populations.

Every day in Afghanistan today, every day across the wars in Iraq, our soldiers and Marines place themselves at a higher level of risk to protect innocents. I think thats something thats very important to understand about these kind of conflicts. Our soldiers are warriors, but our soldiers are also humanitarians.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster at the Trump Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, February 20. Adil Ahmad Haque writes that McMaster's distinguishing between civilians and combatants and accepting higher risk to avoid harming civilians seem incompatible with targeting the families of our enemies or simply bomb[ing] the shit out of them, in the words of President Trump. Kevin Lamarque/reuters

Needless to say, distinguishing between civilians and combatants and accepting higher risk to avoid harming civilians seem quite incompatible with targeting the families of our enemies or simply bomb[ing] the shit out of them, in the words of President Trump.

McMaster sounded the same theme years earlier, in a 2010 speech, Moral, Ethical, and Psychological Preparation of Soldiers and Units for Combat:

Because our enemy is unscrupulous, some argue for a relaxation of ethical and moral standards and the use of force with less discrimination because the endsthe defeat of the enemyjustifies the means employed. To think this way would be a grave mistake. The war in which we are engaged demands that we retain the moral high ground despite the depravity of our enemies.

McMaster then made the following observation:

Ensuring ethical conduct goes beyond the law of war and must include a consideration of our valuesour ethos. The Law of War codifies the principal tenets of just war theory, especially jus in bello principles of discrimination and proportionality. However, individual and institutional values are more important than legal constraints on immoral behavior; legal contracts are often observed only as long as others honor them or as long as they are enforced.

In this passage, McMaster suggests that principles that protect civilians during the conduct of hostilitiesdiscrimination and proportionalityare, fundamentally, moral principles codified into law. Accordingly, they bind soldiers categorically, irrespective of any expectation of reciprocity or fear of punishment.

The relationship between the law of war and the morality of war may be particularly relevant today, as a recentpresidential memorandum directs the secretary of defense to recommend changes to any United States rules of engagement and other United States policy restrictions that exceed the requirements of international law.

If the morality of war prohibits what the law of waras understood by the U.S. governmentdoes not, then it may prove quite fortuitous that the incoming national security advisor seems committed to the former as well as to the latter.

In a 2014 Veterans Day speech at Georgetown University entitled, The Warrior Ethos at Risk, McMaster offered the following thoughts:

I thought that we might consider two ways of honoring our veterans. First, to study war as the best means of preventing it; and second, to help the American military preserve our warrior ethos while remaining connected to those in whose name we fight.

It was Aristotle who first said that it is only worth discussing what is in our power. So we might discuss how to prevent particular conflicts rather than eliminate all conflict, and when conflict is necessary, how to win. And in the pursuit of victory, how to preserve our values and make war less inhumane.

Similarly, in a 2016 speech at Norwich University, McMaster warned against the tendency in our country to confuse military studies with militarism, arguing instead that the study of war is important to the preservation of peace.

These statements suggest that we should aim, above all, to prevent and avoid war. When we fail, we should fight the wars we cannot avoid as effectively and ethically as possible. This view seems consistent with the just war tradition, which seeks a middle path between realism and pacifism.

In a 2013 interview with McKinsey, McMaster volunteered the following (Ill let these passages speak for themselves):

The human dimension of war is immensely important for the Army as well; we need leaders who are morally, ethically, and psychologically prepared for combat and who understand why breakdowns in morals and ethics occur. I think there are usually four causes of breakdowns in moral characterignorance, uncertainty, fear, or combat trauma.

It is important to understand the effects of those four factors on an organization and then educate soldiers about what we expect of them. We need leaders who have physical and mental courage on the battlefield, of course, but also the courage to speak their minds and offer respectful and candid feedback to their superiors. Our leaders cant feel compelled to tell their bosses what they want to hear.

In addition to the fundamentals of combat, our soldiers really have to live the Armys professional ethics and values. They must be committed to selfless service, to their fellow soldiers, to their mission, and to our nation. That also involves, obviously, respect for and protection of our Constitution and understanding their role in that context.

Finally, McMaster seems to view the wars we are currently waging through a moral lens that differs quite dramatically from that of his immediate predecessor and of some of his new colleagues in the administration.

In his speech at Norwich University, McMaster called for soldiers and civilians alike to understand and develop empathy, empathy for the cultures and historical experience of the peoples among whom wars are fought and to promote moral conduct by generating empathy for others in an effort to prevent war or at least make war less inhumane.

In his Carnegie Council remarks, McMaster repeatedly describes ISIS, the Taliban and similar groups as irreligious groups seeking to impose a political order on local populations who are their primary victims:

This is an irreligious ideology in which you have these so-called imans who have third and fourth grade educations. Theyre thugs and criminals. Theyre misogynistic. They are wanting to impose on a huge population and territory an order that is medieval and rejects humanity, I think.

Theyre criminals. We ought to make sure we criminalize their behavior. What religious standard justifies this? No religious standard. These are irreligious people.

What we must do is we must defeat these enemies, who are enemies of all civilized people, along with our partners and allies in the region, the people who are suffering the most, who are in these regions in Afghanistan and Iraq and so forth.

Similarly, at Georgetown, McMaster said:

we will defeat these enemies who cynically use a perverted interpretation of religion to incite hatred and violence. . . .

Enemy organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIL [ISIS] seek to perpetuate ignorance, foment hatred and use that hatred as justification for the murder of innocents. They entice masses of undereducated, disaffected young men with a sophisticated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and brainwashing.

McMaster made similar remarks last May at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

McMaster seems to understand that groups like ISIS and the Taliban do not represent Islam or the worlds Muslims. They seek to rule by violence and terror precisely because they cannot rule by consent. Accordingly, the United States should fight alongside Muslim communities against a common enemy rather than treat all Muslims as the enemy.

Will McMasters views prevail in the National Security Council, and shape the administrations foreign policy? Time will tell.

Adil Ahmad Haque is Professor of Law and Judge Jon O. Newman Scholar at Rutgers Law School.

See the article here:
Can NSA Pick McMaster Bring Ethics to the White House? - Newsweek

News 12 NBC 26 @ 6:00 / Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2017

AUGUSTA, Ga. (WRDW/WAGT) -- Augusta University's Cyber Institute is getting a big boost. A week after Governor Deal signed the Cyber Center's budget, now the school is seeing a grant from the NSA.

If it wasn't clear already Augusta University is becoming the place to be for cyber.

"So what' I'm telling you is the institute is working, what we're doing is working," Augusta University Cyber Institute Director Joanne Sexton said.

They've already expanded their reach into downtown Augusta and now they're reaching further, globally.

"We're in the right place at the right time, making things happen so we're very very fortunate," Sexton said.

Last week the NSA gave the school nearly a grant for nearly 300,000 dollars. The money could help students take a trip to see NATO's cyber security headquarters, but it's also helping add more cyber courses here.

"One thing is if you look at our name, it's the Cyber Institute, we didn't call it Cyber Security. And that was on purpose because cyber touches all of us. It's across all of the curriculum," she said.

That means cyber security, cyber terrorism, cyber in health care, and more. There's something to learn for every student.

"Federal to private to state, whatever, everyone needs this kind of work," Augusta University Cyber student Matthew Tennis said.

It's making students like Matthew ideal job candidates.

"I'm looking at either going into federal work in the intelligence industry or into private work in intelligence," he said.

"When you talk about cyber security, it's zero unemployment as long as you have the skills," Sexton said.

They're adding to the skills by adding graduate programs in intelligence analysis and security studies. And the cyber school has already doubled in size, more than 300 Augusta University students are in cyber programs. This is another way the school and the city area are virtually growing.

"Augusta University has a piece, our local community has been really supportive, but really it's about the whole team working together," she said.

See the original post here:
NSA gives grant to Augusta University Cyber Institute - WRDW-TV

The disclosure processthat governs how and when federal agencies should tell tech firms about flawed computer code is in no immediate danger of termination under the Trump administration, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flawed code by its very nature offers vulnerabilities that can be targeted by hackers. Knowledge of these vulnerabilities especially those never publicly reported is valuable to a wide array of actors, including law enforcement and intelligence services. In the past the default hasbeen to err on the side of disclosure, even by the super-secretive National Security Agency, according to a comprehensive research reported conducted by Columbia University.For now, that isnt likely to change, saidNeil Jenkins, director of the Homeland Security Departments Enterprise Performance Management Office, or EPMO.

It is not within our national interest to build up a stockpile of vulnerabilities to hide behind and to use for intelligence or law enforcement purposes. We have to get those out to make sure that systems are secure, Jenkins told a room full of cybersecurity industry insiders while speaking on a panel at the 2017 RSA conference. But the process does recognize that there are some vulnerabilities that we need to keep, that we need to use for national security purposes.

In most cases, though, the government has incentive to report flawed code, U.S. officials say.

The process is still in use, it is in regular use, and we are having meetings about these things on a pretty regular basis. And I would say, as of right now, we are still in the mode of responsible disclosure under the current administration, Jenkins said at RSA.

Known as the Vulnerabilities Equities Process, or VEP, the guidelines were only recently made public. The government first began releasing limited information about the process during the Obama administration.

We made an agreement early on that we would err on the side of the defense of this nation and if we didnt put it out the capability, if it were ever found then we would put it out there. And we stuck to that. It makes your job harder, but it was the right thing for the country, former NSA Director Keith Alexander said in December during a University of Maryland event. We put out more than 90 plus percent of those things that we saw. Some people criticized it [the VEP] but nobody changed.

In the run-up to President Donald Trumps inauguration, however, some feared that a new White House would reverse courseand offer intelligence and law enforcement agencies greater leeway to keep vulnerabilities secret.

Where we are in 2017, if you look at the sort of arc of cyber policy today, coming out of the Trump campaign and then out of the then president-elects office, it was very offense-oriented, explained Rob Knake, a former director for cybersecurity on the National Security Council at the White House. So I think there was this sense that the gloves were coming off, that the [VEP] would be thrown out the window That was my fear.

But what we have seen since then I think is a growing recognition that we revived this policy, that this is a policy from the Bush administration, this started in 2008 and came out of the CNCI and one which [current White House homeland security adviser] Tom Bossert had a heavy hand in, said Knake.

Though the VEP offers renewed transparency in its current form over what has largely been a clandestine decision-making process, the panel of experts also agreed that more can be done.

Greater coordination and shared oversight, Knake explained, should be instituted between the multiple federal agencies that share a vested interest in either disclosure or keeping software flaws secret. Until today, each federal agencies has approached the VEP in a slightly different manner.

We agree that it is time for this process to be codified in law just to make sure that it continues, that there is are clear considerations around the risk and potential for operational use and for regular review of what youre not disclosing, said Heather West, a senior policy manager for Mozilla.

I think ultimately there could be a lot more transparency around [the VEP], one of the things we noticed as we have gone through and researched this process is that it works reasonable well and the government could build a lot of trust with industry; saying this is what we have and are doing. And then we can have this collaborative relationship that we dont normally have in the cybersecurity space, West said.

At the moment, there are no penalties in place for agencies or U.S. officials that decide to keep software vulnerabilities out of the VEP process.

See the original post:
Software vulnerability disclosures by NSA will continue under Trump, officials say - CyberScoop

This post is also available in: Spanish

Did you really think that the European Union would protect your privacy? Dont be so naive.

The US-EU Privacy Shield program is supposed to give EU citizens greater data protections. As I wrote previously, the Privacy Shield program has several legal loopholes, which makes it looka bit like a block of Swiss cheese.

To add insult to injury, not only does the Privacy Shield fail to protect peoples private data, even NSA contractors are invited to join the party! The Privacy Shield program gives these NSA contractors the ability to transfer personal data stored in the EU to the US. From watching international news over the past few years, you may remember how Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSAs mass surveillance programs. Snowden exposed how the US government had access to read your emails and to listen in on your phone calls.

Including NSA contractors on the list of Privacy Shield is a bit like letting the fox guard your henhouse. While some of the NSA contractors are signed up only to share human resources data, their inclusion in the program does nothing to improve Privacy Shields already dismal public image. The companies on the list are allowed to submit a self-assessment to ensure their compliance with Privacy Shield. In practice, this means that these companies have little or no independent oversight.

The followingNSA contractors have joined the Privacy Shield program: BAE Systems, Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.

With the inclusion of NSA contractors in the Privacy Shield program, it is rather obvious that the US government cares nothing for data protection. While Europeans are lulled into a false sense of security with Privacy Shield, the US continues to build its surveillance state.

BAE Systems

In 2013, BAE Systems won a multi-year contract with the NSA for high performance computing. The contract is valued at $127 million. A leaked top-secret document outlines the NSAs surveillance priorities for 2012-2016. One of the NSAs stated goals is to use high performance computing to crack encryption. As a goal, the document states that the NSA plans to Dynamically integrate endpoint, midpoint, industrial-enabled, and cryptanalytic capabilities to reach previously inaccessible targets in support of exploitation, cyber defense, and cyber operations. In other words, the NSA plans to use its high performance computing program to broaden its surveillance capabilities, and BAE Systems is helping.

Boeing

The American telecom, AT&T, built a secret room in one of its centers to facilitate NSA spying. In 2006, an AT&T technician blew the whistle and revealed the NSAs massive spying operations. The NSA used a device to sift through massive amounts of data from the internets backbone. The device was made by a company called Narus. In 2010, Boeing acquired Narus.

In 2008, Boeing acquired Digital Receiver Technology (DRT). The NSA used DRT equipment to track peoples locations by their cellphone signals. Some DRT devices also have the ability to listen in on cellphone conversations and jam cellphone signals. Several DRT devices appear in the NSAs surveillance catalog.

General Dynamics

In 2014, the Intercept revealed that the NSA was recording virtually every phone call in the Bahamas. The program is called SOMALGET, which is part of a broader surveillance program called MYSTIC. The broader surveillance program, MYSTIC, collects phone call metadata from several countries including Mexico, Kenya, and the Phillipines. General Dynamics had an 8 year contract valued at $51 million to process data for the MYSTIC program.

Lockheed Martin

In 1988, Margaret Newsham, a software engineer for Lockheed Martin, blew the whistle on a massive NSA spying program. The NSA was intercepting phone calls and electronic data in a surveillance program called ECHELON. While working for Lockheed Martin, Newsham was helping to create software that ran the ECHELON program. Newsham also revealed that the NSA was listening to phone calls of a US Congressman.

The US militarys research arm, DARPA, awarded contracts for the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program. The TIA program would collect massive amounts of data and use a predictive policing model. In other words, TIA used automated analysis to identify people as potential terrorists. In a very eery sense, it was the film Minority Report becomingreality. DARPA gave Lockheed Martin 23 contracts valued at $27 million for the TIA program. Several branches of the US government were involved in the TIA program, including the NSA. In 2012, the New York Times revealed that the NSA was running a program very similar to the TIA. The full extent of the TIAs legacy would not be revealed until the Snowden leaks in 2013.

Northrop Grumman

In 2000, the NSA launched the Trailblazer project. The aim of Trailblazer was to update the old Cold War era interception technology employed by the NSA. The Trailblazer project was mired in scandal. The NSA had wasted over a billion dollars for a program that did not work. Northrop Grumman was one of the contractors working on the failed Trailblazer project.

The Trailblazer project was terminated in 2006. The next year, the NSA awarded Northrop Grumman a $220 million contract. The contract was to help the NSA manage the vast amounts of data it collected from its surveillance programs.

Raytheon

In 2009, the NSA founded the US Cyber Command. The new command center would focus on defensive as well as offensive cyber warfare. Raytheon posted job advertisements for cyber warriors to work at locations near known NSA sites.

In 2010, the NSA awarded Raytheon a classified $100 million contract for the Perfect Citizen program. The program would place sensors, to detect cyber attacks, in the backbone infrastructure of public utilities. A Raytheon employee criticized the program with the following words in an email: Perfect Citizen is Big Brother. The NSA rather comically claimed that Perfect Citizen would not be used for spying; however, privacy advocates were worried that the program would be used for domestic surveillance.

The text of this article is released into the public domain. You are free to translate and republishthe text of this article. Featured pictureis CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Flicker user jrothphotos. Secondary picture CC by EFF.

Printouts from PrivacyShield.gov website, link.

Originally part of the Occupy protests, Rachael is an advocate for transparency in government and digital civil liberties.

This post is also available in: SpanishDid you really think that the European Union would protect your privacy? Dont be so naive. The US-EU Privacy Shield program is supposed to...

All content is CC-BY if not mentioned otherwise. Please link back to us if using content.

Read this article:
NSA Contractors Join Privacy Shield - Pirate Times

BY: Nick Bolger February 21, 2017 1:16 pm

Adam Kredo, senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon, appeared on One America News Network Monday to discuss the secret campaign to oust former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Kredo discussed his recent report with Liz Wheeler.The piece reports that Obama Administration holdovers waged a campaign of leaks to force Flynn's resignation.

"It is quite an accusation," Kredo said. "And from at least half a dozen sources both inside and outside of the White House that I spoke to, it happens to be a fact."

Obama's former Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, created a "pro-Iran echo chamber" and used his allies to create an echo chamber outside of the White House to combat Trump on foreign policy, Kredo explains.

Kredo reports that Flynn's resignation was forced in an attempt to keep hidden side deals surrounding the Iran nuclear deal.

Flynn resigned from his post on February 13 following reports that he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence over his contact with Russia.

The rest is here:
Kredo Tells OAN: Obama Officials Pushed Flynn Out As NSA - Washington Free Beacon

I think Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster will be the next national security advisor. Like Vice Adm. Bob Harward, General David Petraeus reportedly has withdrawn over the issue of being able to bring in his own staff. And Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, the acting NSA, is probably too old for a job this demanding, especially in this administration.

That leaves just two. I dont know about Bolton. Id be surprised, though, if he fit the Trump template.

Picking McMaster is not a bad thing. Ive known him since he was major. Hes smart, energetic, and tough. He even looks like an armored branch version of Harward. (Thats him, working out with a punching bag in Iraq, in the foto. I took it in the citadel in downtown Tell Afar one sunny winter day about 10 years ago.) (Btw, Harward was scheduled to appear on ABCs This Week yesterday morning, but backed out an hour before airtime. )

As I said at the end of my Friday post, once Trump was turned down by Harward, it became more likely that he would turn to the active duty military for his 3rd pick for the job. McMaster is among the best of them out there. For his Ph.D. dissertation, he wrote one of the best books on the Vietnam War, Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.

He has good combat experience, he was a good trainer, and he led the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment well in his deployment to Iraq, most notably in pacifying Tell Afar, to the west of Mosul.

I wrote about his operations there in my book The Gamble. I am traveling so I dont have it with me, but I remember him telling his soldiers that understanding counterinsurgency really wasnt hard: Every time you disrespect an Iraqi, youre working for the enemy. They even had Customer Satisfaction Forms that detainees were asked to fill out upon release: Were you treated well? How was the food? What could we do better?

There are two big differences between him and Harward: First, he is on active duty. (Though the Army inexplicably couldnt find a four star job for him, and had told him to plan to retire later this year.) Second, his wife wont kill him if he takes the job, as Harwards wife might have.

That said, the basic problems remain. To do the job right, McMaster needs to bring in his own people. And it remains unclear if he can get that.

As for relations with the Pentagon: McMaster knows Mattis, but not well. (They both spoke at a conference at the University of North Carolina in April 2010.) But they are similar people and will respect each other.

I dont know how McMaster will work Trump. McMaster once wrote that the American war plans for Afghanistan and Iraq were at times . . . essentially narcissistic. (Good line, but I think it is more illuminating to say that they were minimalist plans for maximalist goals, which is of course a bad combination.) At any rate, McMaster may learn a lot more about narcissism in the coming months.

Over the weekend, I did an informal poll of people who have worked for McMaster, asking if they would be willing to follow him to the National Security Council staff. To a surprising degree, they replied, Yes, they would. Thats an indication of loyalty to and confidence in him.

For extra credit, here is a reading list from McMaster.

Meantime, over the weekend, an NSC staffer who had been hired by General Flynn was canned for criticizing the Trumps at a think tank meeting. I actually dont have a problem with this. Either you work for someone or you dont. If you cant be loyal, at least be discreet. I think we may be seeing more such departures throughout the Trump administration, people who are effectively resigning in public.

Photo credit: Thomas E. Ricks

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

Read the original:
Last man standing: McMaster for NSA? - Foreign Policy (blog)

President Trump on Monday named a Philadelphia native, Army Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, to serve as his National Security Adviser.

Herbert Raymond "H.R." McMaster, 54, was tapped after Trump's first NSA chief, Michael Flynn, was forced out last week and another candidate, retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward, turned down the position.

Known in military circles as an intellectual strategist, McMaster grew up in the city's Roxborough section and graduated in 1980 from Valley Forge Military Academy and College in Radnor Township. Four years later, he graduated from West Point.

During the 1991 Gulf War, McMaster was awarded the Silver Star for a battle in which his armored cavalry troop of nine tanks destroyed more than 80 tanks and other vehicles from an Iraqi mechanized brigade.

He later earned a doctorate from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, writing a dissertation that turned into a widely-acclaimed book, Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam, published in 1997.

A 2006 article in the New Yorker that focused on McMaster's service during the Iraq War said the book "assembled a damning case against senior military leaders for failing to speak their minds when, in the early years of the war, they disagreed with Pentagon policies. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, knowing Johnson and McNamara wanted uncritical support rather than honest advice, and eager to protect their careers, went along with official lies and a split-the-difference strategy of gradual escalation that none of them thought could work. Dereliction of Duty won McMaster wide praise, and its candor inspired an ardent following among post-Vietnam officers."

The same year, CNN called the book "the seminal work on military's responsibility during Vietnam to confront their civilian bosses when strategy was not working."

McMaster also wrote a 2003 monograph for the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership, titled "Crack in the Foundation: Defense Transformation and the Underlying Assumption of Dominant Knowledge in Future War."

The New Yorker piece noted that McMaster, "who describes himself as 'a bit of a Luddite,' argued against the notion that new weapons technology offered the promise of certainty and precision in warfare."

His military education at Valley Forge included several leadership roles and athletics.

"We are very proud of H. R. McMaster's distinguished career in the defense of our nation," saidCol. John C. Church Jr. USMR, president of Valley Forge Military Academy and College.

During his senior year, McMaster was class vice president and a Company Commander, or cadet leader. He was a member of theNational Honor Society and won theSuperintendent Award,Gold and Silver Stars, theschool's interscholastic debate medal, the American Legion Military Excellence medal, and theNational Guard medal, according to school officials.

McMaster was also the co-captain of the football team and played on the baseball team. He participated in intramural soccer, basketball, wrestling, rifle-shooting and swimming.

In Tom Clancy's 1994 book, "Armored Cav: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment," the famed author interviewed McMaster about his life and career.

McMaster, born July 24, 1964 in Philadelphia, told Clancy that his father was an infantryman during the Korean War and his mother was a school teacher and administrator. He had a younger sister, Letitia, who graduated from Villanova University.

In 2011, he served as a deputy to Gen. David Petraeus in Afghanistan and led a special anti-corruption task force at ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) headquarters in Kabul.

Most recently, McMaster has served as director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center at Fort Eustis in Virginia.

In 2014, Time magazine included McMaster on its list of "The 100 Most Influential People." In a brief essay written for the magazine by Dave Barno, a retired lieutenant general, McMaster was called "the architect of the future U.S. Army."

Barno wrote that McMaster "might be the 21st century Army's pre-eminent warrior-thinker" and "also the rarest of soldiers one who has repeatedly bucked the system and survived to join its senior ranks."

Published: February 20, 2017 4:30 PM EST | Updated: February 20, 2017 6:32 PM EST The Philadelphia Inquirer

Continued here:
Trump appoints Philly native, Valley Forge grad to lead NSA - Philly.com (blog)

Ad will collapse in seconds CLOSE February 20, 2017 02/20/2017 4:23 p.m. By Adam K. Raymond

Share

President Donald Trump has found his national security adviser and once again, its a general. On Monday, Trump named Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster as his replacement for former NSA Michael Flynn and called the 54-year-old a man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience.

Trump made the announcement while sitting on a golden couch at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, where he also said that acting NSA Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general, will serve under McMaster as chief of staff. Additionally, Trump said that former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, a candidate for the NSA job, will be asked to work with us in a somewhat different capacity.

A career Army officer, McMaster previously served as the director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, described by USA Today as an internal think tank that looks at future threats and how to deal with them. In 2014, he was named to Time magazines 100 most influential list and called the architect of the future U.S. Army. In the magazine, retired Lieutenant General Dave Barno described McMaster as an iconoclast who repeatedly bucked the system and survived to join its senior ranks.

The West Point graduate also has a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His dissertation was turned into the 1997 book Dereliction of Duty, which CNN said in 2006 is considered the seminal work on militarys responsibility during Vietnam to confront their civilian bosses when strategy was not working.

While McMasters academic bona fides may stand in contrast with Trumps the Times says hes seen as one of the Armys leading intellectuals he shares the presidents opinion that the U.S. military is too small. We are outranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries, he said at a 2016 hearing of the Air-Land subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Our army in the future risks being too small to secure the nation.

McMaster, who has been described as a blunt-spoken bulldog, joins Defense Secretary James Mattis, whose nickname is Mad Dog, and Homeland Security head John Kelly, a no-nonsense pragmatist, as one-time generals who have signed up to work in the Trump administration.

John McCain the Republican vs. John McCain the Patriot

CPAC Blasted for Milo Yiannopoulos Invite After Pedophilia Remarks Resurface

Airplane Passenger Reportedly Called Police After Feeling Not Comfortable Sitting Next to Mykki Blanco

The Blacks for Trump Guy Is a Former Member of a Murderous Cult Who Thinks Obama Is the Devil

The White House Mole

For a Black Artist to Win Album of the Year, They Have to Make an Album of the Decade

Report: Putins Psychological Profile of Trump Calls Him Nave

CPAC Yanks Milo Yiannopoulos Invitation After Offensive Video

Report: Trumps Lawyer Involved With Secret Plan to Lift Russian Sanctions

Did Lena Dunham Shade the Wing on Girls?

Most Popular Video On Daily Intelligencer

The silly-sign makers were out in full force on Monday.

He was previously in charge of designing the Army of the future.

The right-wing provocateur came under fire for a video in which he defends relationships between younger boys and older men.

The Kremlin is trying to better understand Trump as worries reportedly grow in Moscow about his ability to lift sanctions.

The Defense Secretary arrives in Baghdad as a part of his world tour of walking back Trump statements.

Many opposed giving the right-wing provocateur a speaking slot even before seeing his defense of relationships between younger boys and older men.

The other two people involved with the plan were a pro-Putin Ukrainian lawmaker and a Trump business associate with links to the mafia.

Trumps fake Swedish news reflects a misleading right-wing narrative about refugee-perpetrated crime.

He warned that suppressing the media is how dictators get started, though he mostly avoided direct references to the president.

Trump has already chosen his 2020 opponents: the press and any version of reality that doesnt come from him.

Meanwhile, Trump is still looking for his next national-security adviser.

But the White House insists nobody is getting enhanced access to the president.

The senator (ambivalently, agonizingly) takes on the president.

An elite school allegedly had to cancel a field trip to the Central Parks Trump-affiliated Wollman Rink.

The Associated Press has a draft of a memo that suggests deploying as many as 100,000 National Guard troops.

Scott Pruitt will spearhead the Trump administrations efforts to increase water pollution and accelerate man-made climate change.

Michels displacement by Newt Gingrich is widely seen as a landmark on the road to partisan polarization. The path continues ever downward today.

25-year-old Siti Aisyah had apparently been paid for similar acts before.

The House Oversight chair is seeking charges against the exState Department employee who helped set up Hillary Clintons private email server.

A quest to repeat the Bush tax cuts, but without the fatal weakness.

Follow this link:
Trump Picks HR McMaster, Army Strategist, As National Security Adviser - New York Magazine

A former senior official at the National Security Agency says the planned split between the nations digital spying outfit and its offensive cyber military arm will happen, though likely not for a while.

Prior to the election in November, the outgoing Obama administration had moved to split the NSA, which is focused on espionage and intelligence gathering, from U.S. Cyber Command, which can conduct offensive military operations in cyberspace. Since assuming office in January, however, President Donald Trump has struggled to fill key government positions, like the national security adviser, making any immediate bureaucratic overhauls unlikely.

I think everybody says its inevitable, John Chris Inglis, the former deputy director of NSA, told The Intercept during an interview in San Francisco.

The question is whether you do that now or you do that in a year or two, he continued.

Inglis spoke to The Intercept following a speech he gave on combatting insider threats, entitled How to Catch A Snowden, at the RSA Conference, one of the largest annual cybersecurity events. Inglis was at the NSA in 2013 when Edward Snowden leaked a massive trove of documents to journalists on the surveillance programs.

Currently, the two agencies are under one roof and one dual-hatted director: Adm. Michael Rogers, who has also suggested an eventual split between his agencies. Theres been a heated debate about the benefits and downsides of separating the two entities as Cyber Command grows and develops its parallel mission. Figures like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are vehemently against separating resources between espionage and attack in the digital space at least in the absence of clear policies from the White House.

Though Inglis tells The Intercept he believes the split is bound to occur, he says that President Trump and his White House have other fish to fry right now.

A separation in the coming months, especially with NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett retiring in the spring, might induce instability, Inglis said. And while Adm. Rogers has reportedly been no stranger to controversy and bad reviews facing sinking morale during a major NSA reorganization he doesnt appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.

In the meantime, Cyber Command is still maturing. It was first formed under Gen. Keith Alexander and Ingliss leadership in 2009. Cyber Command in still early days needed the NSA, Inglis said. But the split makes sense in the long run, he argued.

The more they stay in that relationship, the less Cyber Command will need NSA, the more theyll be held back by NSA, and the less NSA will need Cyber Command, Inglis said. Its for both of their benefit to essentially give them on scene leadership that can focus entirely on what theyre supposed to do as agencies that are nominally independent but complimentary.

If that split were to happen, it might open the job of NSA director up to a civilian leader.At one point during the Obama administration, Inglis was regarded as a top candidate for the NSA job under the restructuring, though theres no indication hes currently under consideration.

Inglis tells The Intercept he would, if asked, accept a job in the Trump administration in a heartbeat.

Inglis is currently a managing director at Paladin Capital Group, a private equity firm that invests in companies around the world. He started as a computer scientist in the NSA, then worked in signals intelligence, and rose to become deputy director. He spent 41 years in the Department of Defense, nearly 30 of them at NSA.

Inglis would be a superb selection and it is no surprise that he would be willing to serve his country regardless of who was in office, Susan Hennessy, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former attorney at NSA, wrote in an email to The Intercept. He is trusted and respected both at NSA and within the government generally.

Describing the current situation as a tumultuous period, Hennessey said that the number of people qualified to lead the NSA is small. Inglis is one of the few people who would top anyones list for that role, Republican or Democrat, she added.

Having not been offered something, it would be inappropriate for me to say I want a job, especially if that job is now held by somebody, Inglis said, laughing.

View post:
NSA Split From Cyberwar Command Inevitable, Says Former Official - The Intercept

TRUMP AGENDA: Harward turns down NSA job

Retired Navy Vice Adm. Robert Harward has turned down an offer to become President Donald Trump's national security adviser.

From the Washington Post last night: "Former national security adviser Michael Flynn denied to FBI agents in an interview last month that he had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country's ambassador to the United States before President Trump took office, contradicting the contents of intercepted communications collected by intelligence agencies, current and former U.S. officials said. The Jan. 24 interview potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy. Lying to the FBI is a felony offense. But several officials said it is unclear whether prosecutors would attempt to bring a case, in part because Flynn may parse the definition of the word "sanctions." He also followed his denial to the FBI by saying he couldn't recall all of the conversation, officials said."

NBC: "The creation of a 9/11-style commission to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election has won bipartisan support, according to a senior Democratic lawmaker. In an interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes, Rep. Elijah Cummings said that such a committee was necessary 'to really get into how all of this happened, what was the relationship between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and try to figure out how to make sure that this does not happen again.'"

NBC News confirms that Mike Dubke, the founder of Crossroads Media, will be the White House communications head.

NBC's Ali Vitali wraps yesterday's press conference.

The New York Times: "[H]is 77-minute news conference was dominated by an extraordinarily raw and angry defense of both his administration and his character. At times abrupt, often rambling, characteristically boastful yet seemingly pained at the portrayals of him, Mr. Trump kept summoning the spirit of his successful campaign after a month of grinding governance to remind his audience, again, that he won."

The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump told aides Thursday morning that he wanted to have the press conference because "my message is being filtered."

The AP goes there on historical comparisons, with this headline: "Remember Nixon? There's history behind Trump's press attacks"

The Washington Post reports on the "logistical nightmare" and high costs of the Trump family lifestyle.

"Donald J. Trump redrew the electoral map with his rousing economic nationalism and evocation of a lost industrial age. It was a message that drew many union members to his cause. And now it is upending the alliances and tactics of the labor movement itself," writes the New York Times.

Trump is planning a new immigration order next week, writes the Wall Street Journal.

Don't miss POLITICO's interview with Mark Sanford, who is not holding back about the president of his own party.

The Washington Post asks: "If Trump can't arrange his own meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, how does he unite the country?"

No, Trump's election victory was not "the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan."

CONGRESS: Paul Ryan's tough tax-reform sell

POLITICO writes that Paul Ryan is having a tough time selling his tax reform plan to fellow Republicans.

Read more here:
First Read's Morning Clips: Harward Turns Down NSA Job - NBCNews.com