U.S. Faces Broad Spectrum of Threats, Intel Leaders Say

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2012 — The Unit­ed States and its allies face a broad spec­trum of nation­al secu­ri­ty threats from ter­ror­ism, nuclear pro­lif­er­a­tion and cyber attacks, intel­li­gence lead­ers told Con­gress mem­bers today.

Direc­tor of Nation­al Intel­li­gence James R. Clap­per and Defense Intel­li­gence Agency Direc­tor Army Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess Jr. pro­vid­ed their world­wide threat assess­ments to the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Committee. 

Clap­per list­ed coun­ter­ing ter­ror­ism, nuclear pro­lif­er­a­tion and cyber threats, as well as coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence, as being at the fore­front of nation­al secu­ri­ty con­cerns. But, he added, “it is vir­tu­al­ly impos­si­ble to rank – in terms of long-term impor­tance – the numer­ous poten­tial threats to U.S. nation­al security.” 

Unlike in the Cold War days of hav­ing a sin­gle, large adver­sary, Clap­per said, “it is the mul­ti­plic­i­ty and inter­con­nect­ed­ness of poten­tial threats – and the actors behind them – that con­sti­tute our biggest challenge.” 

Burgess cit­ed a “broad spec­trum of dis­sim­i­lar threats,” includ­ing ris­ing region­al pow­ers and high­ly adap­tive and resilient transna­tion­al ter­ror­ist networks. 

Intel­li­gence shows the next three years will be a crit­i­cal tran­si­tion time in coun­tert­er­ror­ism, as groups like al-Qai­da dimin­ish in impor­tance and ter­ror­ist groups become more decen­tral­ized, Clap­per said. 

U.S. coun­tert­er­ror­ism has caused al-Qai­da to lose so many top lieu­tenants since 2008 “that a new group of lead­ers, even if they could be found, would have dif­fi­cul­ty inte­grat­ing into the orga­ni­za­tion and com­pen­sat­ing for mount­ing loss­es,” the direc­tor said. Al-Qaida’s region­al affil­i­ates in Iraq, the Ara­bi­an penin­su­la and North Africa are expect­ed to “sur­pass the rem­nants of core al-Qai­da in Pak­istan,” he said. 

With con­tin­ued, robust coun­tert­er­ror­ism efforts and coop­er­a­tion from inter­na­tion­al part­ners, Clap­per said, “there is a bet­ter-than-even chance that decen­tral­iza­tion will lead to frag­men­ta­tion of the move­ment with­in a few years,” although he added that ter­ror­ist groups will con­tin­ue to be a dan­ger­ous transna­tion­al force. 

Intense coun­tert­er­ror­ism pres­sure has made it unlike­ly that a ter­ror­ist group would launch a chem­i­cal, bio­log­i­cal, radi­o­log­i­cal or nuclear mass attack against the Unit­ed States in the next year, Clap­per said, but groups such as al-Qai­da in the Ara­bi­an Penin­su­la con­tin­ue to show inter­est in such an attack. Most ter­ror­ist groups, how­ev­er, remain local­ly focused, Clap­per said, not­ing that al-Qai­da in Iraq remains focused on over­throw­ing the Shi­ia-led gov­ern­ment in Bagh­dad in favor of a Sun­ni-led government. 

In Africa, the al-Qai­da in the Islam­ic Maghreb and al-Shabaab orga­ni­za­tions strug­gle with inter­nal divi­sions and out­side sup­port, and have been dimin­ished by gov­ern­ment and mil­i­tary pres­sure in Soma­lia, Kenya and Ethiopia, he said. 

Clap­per also said that extrem­ist “lone actors,” includ­ing crim­i­nals and home­grown ter­ror­ists, con­tin­ue to be a con­cern inside the Unit­ed States. The intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty, he added, will stay alert to events that might pre­cip­i­tate an attack, such as a per­ceived anti-Islam­ic bias, mil­i­tary involve­ment in anoth­er Mus­lim coun­try, or unrest overseas. 

In Afghanistan, Clap­per not­ed that the tran­si­tion of secu­ri­ty is suc­cess­ful so far in the first two phas­es. His assess­ment, he told the com­mit­tee, is that the gov­ern­ment in Kab­ul will con­tin­ue to make “incre­men­tal, frag­ile progress” this year in gov­er­nance, secu­ri­ty and devel­op­ment that is depen­dent on the sup­port of inter­na­tion­al partners. 

The Tal­iban still are resilient, and NATO’s Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force will remain essen­tial at least through the end of this year, Clap­per said. Endur­ing sta­bil­i­ty depends heav­i­ly on sup­port from neigh­bor­ing states such as Pak­istan, he added, espe­cial­ly since many Euro­pean gov­ern­ments har­bor doubts about extend­ing finan­cial help past 2014. 

The Tal­iban have lost influ­ence in the past year, most­ly where ISAF forces are con­cen­trat­ed, but its senior lead­ers con­tin­ue to enjoy safe havens in Pak­istan, the direc­tor said. 

Al-Qaida’s impact on the Afghan insur­gency “is lim­it­ed,” he said, and it most often works with oth­er insur­gent groups that don’t depend on for­eign fighters. 

Clap­per cit­ed incre­men­tal improve­ments with gov­ern­ments oper­at­ing in most provinces of Afghanistan. How­ev­er, he said, provinces still strug­gle to pro­vide essen­tial ser­vices, and access to offi­cial gov­er­nance most­ly is lim­it­ed to urban areas, leav­ing much of the rur­al areas isolated. 

The direc­tor acknowl­edged the intel­li­gence view is some­what more pes­simistic than that of U.S. mil­i­tary lead­ers in Afghanistan, but he said that is not unusu­al. “I don’t find it a bad thing,” he said. “In fact, I think it’s healthy that there is a con­trast between what the oper­a­tional com­man­ders believe and what the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty assesses.” 

Burgess cit­ed “endem­ic cor­rup­tion and inef­fi­cien­cies” in the Afghan army and police that he said are under­min­ing secu­ri­ty efforts. Afghan forces rely on ISAF for logis­tics, intel­li­gence and trans­porta­tion and will need sus­tained men­tor­ing and sup­port, he said. 

In Iraq, Burgess said, Iraqi secu­ri­ty forces have main­tained secu­ri­ty since U.S. troops left the coun­try in Decem­ber and prob­a­bly will sus­tain that through the next year. But, he said, Iraqi forces still need train­ing in a num­ber of areas, includ­ing logis­tics, intel­li­gence, and on new equip­ment pur­chased from the Unit­ed States. 

The Iraqi forces have demon­strat­ed their abil­i­ty to “put forces on the street, con­duct sta­t­ic secu­ri­ty of high-pro­file sites, oper­ate check­points and con­duct intel­li­gence-dri­ven tar­get­ing,” Burgess said. But, he added, numer­ous secu­ri­ty vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties remain due to man­ning short­ages, logis­ti­cal short­falls and over­ly cen­tral­ized com­mand and control. 

Weapons pro­lif­er­a­tion con­tin­ues to be a con­cern, an increas­ing­ly among non-nation states, Clap­per said. “Bio­log­i­cal and chem­i­cal mate­ri­als and tech­nolo­gies, almost always dual-use, move eas­i­ly in our glob­al­ized econ­o­my, as do the per­son­nel with sci­en­tif­ic exper­tise to design and use them,” he said. “The lat­est dis­cov­er­ies in life sci­ences dif­fuse glob­al­ly and rapidly.” 

Still, intel­li­gence shows no nation states have pro­vid­ed weapons of mass destruc­tion assis­tance to ter­ror­ist groups, and no non­state actors are tar­get­ing WMD sites in coun­tries with unrest, the direc­tor said. But that could change as gov­ern­ments become more unsta­ble, he added. 

Mid­dle East secu­ri­ty large­ly will depend on how things work out for coun­tries where gov­ern­ments were top­pled in the Arab Spring, such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, Clap­per said. The pos­si­ble col­lapse of the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment would have broad impli­ca­tions through­out the Mid­dle East, both intel­li­gence lead­ers told the senators. 

The two also out­lined threats from nations such as Iran and North Korea. 

The pair told the com­mit­tee they could not say whether Iran is devel­op­ing nuclear weapons –, only that it “is keep­ing open the option” by devel­op­ing nuclear capa­bil­i­ties that bet­ter posi­tion it to do so. Also, they said, Iran is expand­ing its ura­ni­um enrich­ment capa­bil­i­ties, which can be used either for civ­il or weapons pur­pos­es, but the amount enriched so far does not appear to be weapons grade. 

Intel­li­gence shows that Iran is capa­ble of pro­duc­ing nuclear weapons as well as the bal­lis­tic mis­siles to car­ry them, “mak­ing the cen­tral issue its polit­i­cal will to do so,” Clap­per said. 

For now, Burgess said, “We assess that Tehran is not close to agree­ing to aban­don its nuclear program.” 

Iran increas­ing­ly has shown a will­ing­ness to con­duct attacks out­side its bor­ders, and any future attacks prob­a­bly will be shaped by Tehran’s cost-ben­e­fit analy­sis of an attack, as well as their per­cep­tions of U.S. threats against the regime, Clap­per said. Because of that, he said, the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty still can influ­ence Iran’s deci­sions, not­ing that increas­ing­ly tough eco­nom­ic sanc­tions seem to be working. 

“Iran can close the Strait of Hor­muz, at least tem­porar­i­ly,” and may launch nuclear weapons against U.S. forces in the area if attacked, Burgess said. He added, though, that the agency believes Iran is unlike­ly to ini­ti­ate an attack. 

In North Korea, the gov­ern­ment views its nuclear capa­bil­i­ties as intend­ed for deter­rence, inter­na­tion­al pres­tige, and coer­cive diplo­ma­cy, Clap­per said. Its nuclear weapons and mis­sile pro­grams pose a seri­ous threat in East Asia, and lead­ers in Pyongyang have shown in the past their will­ing­ness to export them to places such as Iran and Syr­ia, he said. 

Still, Clap­per said, intel­li­gence ana­lysts assessed that North Korea would con­sid­er using nuclear weapons only under nar­row cir­cum­stances, includ­ing a mil­i­tary defeat or loss of control. 

Mean­while, Clap­per and Burgess said cyber attacks, while large­ly invis­i­ble to the pub­lic, are grow­ing in scale and sophis­ti­ca­tion, and large­ly come from Chi­na and Rus­sia against U.S. cor­po­ra­tions and gov­ern­ment sites. 

U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs) 

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefence.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →