Support the billions necessary. Does the Prime Minister that the small amounts needed are now the resilience line . E rail i know from personal experience how vital the link is rely on it. People so im happy to look at this very urgently. Something i was about the bellwin scheme. They need a very big claim triggering bellwin. The assistance will be there. Requirement urgent to get this right. Order. Youve been watching Prime Ministers questions there from of commons. House it airs live everybody wednesday and sunday eastern nights 9 00 p. M. Eastern on onlineand watch any time at cspan. Org. Tomorrow live coverage of the Heritage Foundation in ashington, d. C. Theyre expected to take part of the event that will focus on a umber of issues including digital privacy, healthcare and education. Long u can watch the day sum it mitt beginning at 9 30 eastern and comment on the event as it happens by facebook and twitter. Use the hashtag cspan chat. I think its all an evolutionary process. You grow into this role and my is that you never get comfortable if youre always pushing for change and growth. In yourself but in the issues that you care about and so theres done, never a point in time where you feel like, there, i am now and i do this the same way all the time. Changing. S first Lady Michelle obama, onday night at nine eastern live on cspan and cspan three and on cspan radio and cspan. Org. Push official rmer ci a illiam nolte discusses intelligence. Rom the institute for World Politics in washington, d. C. , that is little more than an hour. I figure youre either getting older or more important to there is an introducer the introducer. Pretty good stuff. All thank irst of john and the institute for extending this it sreuttation. Be here nor michelle nd they both given significantly credible reasons why they are not here, i hope because they wanted to stay home and watch the opening ceremony. That would be very disappointing although i am in a contest to r ras the most em bear that embarrassing thing could happen to mr. Putin. One of the things i stress with my students is that intelligence integritybased profession. Brian kelly remains one of those professionals who to me xemplifies in so many ways the integrity and the courage that sometimes is demanded of people in this field. Me an s lecture gives opportunity in some ways to brian. My debt to and i should also say its such an honor to meet misses kelly tonight. This is a man who for those of knew him cherished him when he was alive and his memory. And i to say, however, feel my sense have of nerves oming on when the institute made this offer i declined because at the very least i am in counter t intelligence. As i said, i dont think this is idea. Lly good but then john talked to me about doing this and i had second thoughts. Y second thoughts were, njohn, this is a really bad idea because this should be given by colleagues by someone who has worked in this tough field and not someone who i think and time im proud of it has advocated attention to and greater respect for counter american ce and intelligence profession. In the end i decided to do it its want to make it clear in that capacity as an advocate and not an expert that i speak you this evening. With the ruggle thought that advocating for Counter Intelligence should be a problem. It is an absolutely integral art of any intelligence process. Sometimes to engage my students i n were discussing ns a raise the hypothetical technology has moved to the n. S. A. Can do only protectts Core Missions ciphers of other countries. Technology could do that which one would you do . They pickedsurprise the Second Mission and i have to tell them thats wrong t goes an incident i had. As a young historian i was day and i said something to the effect that nsa was his named. It was the National Security my and my colleagues didnt do security. David looked at me and said, the if you could only do one which would it be . Nd ive always kept that either or thought in my mind and hope we never reach the point becomes a reality. And i think that same question of counter le intelligence versus what i sometimes refer to in my classes as positive intelligence only to make the distinction clear from has that m outside same sort of quality. Hat after all is the point of collecting all this information if we cant protect the sources that thods and processes allow us to bring it to decision makerers. Point of a world class intelligence structure if counter match it with intelligence processes capable of protecting the confidentiality of that those sources. The question is often asked hether secret intelligence can take place in a Democratic Society that places high value openness. One question that should be Democratic Society oversee regulate and intelligence operations should permit individuals or nstitutions to declare themselves above and beyond legal authority. Start sent president either or hypothetical, we are robably in Something Like the 6th decade as far as can i see in which Counter Intelligence been take your pick, under funded, undernoticed or disrespected. I never gotten around to researching this. To 1950 and ack before, the resources expended probably ted states came pretty close to matching hat we spoepbt on that other aspect of intelligence. Pioneers the original o it became n. S. A. Thought their first job was protecting codes and ciphers. Think you can even find in the Popular Culture some reflections of that. You look back to motion 40s and early 50s counter intelligent the good guys. How i did know that . They were always played by john jimmy stewart. Thats all you need to know. Ten years before they would have been played by Ronald Reagan or which means going after common nists which means that warner skaeuf saved a lot scripts. Over time through the 70s and protagonistsnd the in Motion Pictures were less to guys fair garretting rogues. S than of course al shift marked more than Counter Intelligence and whether one warren t with the commission or war in vietnam from the 1960s the counter view that intelligence represented an effort to spy on them of and deprive their constitutional lib earth has been strong. Aside for a moment aybe for all time if we could, oliver stones j. F. K. I cant any institution in American Life that is not conspiracy. N his take a look at something i find something more interesting and old Robert Redford barbara try stand the were. On one level it aa love story about two people who cant resolve issues but the bark drop of that is the conviction that the 1950s represented a period which innocent americans suffered repression at the hands hysterical witch who for communists agent all right thinking people knew did not exist. Lets not deal while were going into the depths with the crucible. So didactic and so boring that i thought if i island o a tkesz either disk and my only choice was the Scarlett Letter discover hawthorne as masser of pros style. How did we get here . We had the Culture Shift and the counter n of intelligence was part of that. Never trust anyone over 30 was a towed of my generation along with sex, drugs and rock n roll. The and tide of that culture swept over us and its a still degree. O some the good news is the tides eventual subside. Tides as well. The revisionists or counter ulture views of Counter Intelligence would as we know benefit what for a lot of writers and screen writers was a trilogy of poster people. Richard nixon y, hoover. Edgar could you ask for a trio to deal with. The reality of course is that is that more subtle than sometimes hollywood makes it. Hoover for one had he resigned or died in the 1930s would be of the great figures in 20th century in riminology and one of the few people in washington who opposed of japanese was jay edgar hoover. You stay ality is if in a government job for 50 years assume its your personal huub bris whim take over. As for nixon we know the strange wist associated with that very imbittered figure. Critics carthy his ften portray him more as an evil aberration. Former professor who just has long by the way, noted the mc carthy in the end produced more antianticommunists and i think theres truth in that. Wasirst job was high school shelving books in the library. Ne of the things that fascinated was literature on the pies and it was the most nteresting thing in the world, rosenbergs were innocent and mc carthy and chambers were villain other half that said that whitaker, chambers and mc heros and national guilty. Enbergs were move forward a bit here to when i was sitting in my cubical who was one of the first hires in 1930. Pretty close to 80 at the time and when he uddenly tilted his head rather dramatically i thought i was medical emergency. Steins perjury and he was reading the spoeupb of guilty, know he was dont you, he said. I reply and i thought the winestein came close to demonstrating to that. Ask your boss. He walked away and i walked into bosss office and this tells you how fresh a face i was. Do you r. Wilson, what he looked verowna and at me like personnel made a serious mistake. Said as in two gentlemen of . He said i ought to read into something called that. Wilson at that point went god. T white and said oh my i said yeah. Do you know someone named bill croll. Withins up the phone and a couple of days way was meeting him and Cecil Phillips and remark an into that system. There d several times after to declassify it within efforts ach of those failed. They failed because people assume he agency i with good motives insisted that to the public to estroy agency equities by releasing sources and methods. Intern program one of my other did he tours in life. Me if the seem to source method was if you use a youre lookinger for trouble. Maybe the agency could survive particular disclosure. Few years later i was at a conference where Christopher Andrew giving the talk on c. I. A. And Truman Administration stopped and said, way, if you think ultra changed the history of the world war wait until it comes out. I found a pay phone. Explanation eed an of what that is, but nevertheless, called mr. Croll told him what happened. Ive never been able to get him to confirm this but i know bill believe that our british of nsa had gotten tired dragging its feet and in a few declassified. What happens from that . E now know with the exception of very few hardcore, that the vidence is that the rosenbergs guilty and there were war soviet spies and people still deny it. But when your handler wrote a book about how he handled you, denials dont seem credible. That also learned from experience that two president s of national or so Security Policy were subject to historical part of a story that was factually implausible. In fact, what nsa did and i there, what we did was value our equities above the good name of the america. Ates of and thats something all the need to nce services think about from time to time. Counter he damage to intelligence and its reputation came from outside. Selfinflicted. Discussion on the atomic pies the factual incorrect continued because it was declassified far, far too late. Nd this should be a continuing lesson for all the agencies. That leave us now as far as the state of Counter Intelligence. I had moments where i thought receding. I was i was very pleased with a national f a intelligence executive, but clear decade its very hat n. C. I. Suffers from the same shortage of authority that from. N. I. Suffers i was excited several years ago Jennifer Sims publ i thought ere and here is the intellectual underpinning and that movement to appear. A ould hope it might lead to Manhattan Project as i referred to it at the time. Fact, when i approached i lacked such a proposal the of interest was apparent. When i later raised this with senior n. C. I. Official not i should mention not michelle i was told we need more c. I. A. Training. Try again to get that Manhattan Project going. There are other things that have boy, were getting there. Intelligence National Security alliance produced a great short paper on counter couple of years ago i thought that might speed some things and that has not atched and you still see some of these instruct kherl problems. At the time of the wikileaks , losers disclosures hen one asked how they were dealing with the security people involved in the case, his reply ask the ll have to security people. When i got back to my office i friend in security who quickly told me that the problem was the Counter Intelligence eople were messing around in what was clearly a security case. This was clearly a selfinflicted wound. I sat through a briefing even recently just before the nowden article started to appear in which the briefers said that one of the problems in counter and intelligence was dealing with of the interface intelligence. Ty name blurted out if you all those throw in Information Assurance i was thanked. Thanked. Want to be i wanted some recognition these old structures were getting in of getting it done that on e was so much turf going between these various functions ta they talk to each other. This over those last few months. Mike caden onor of who is not here. Ive always thought of this as former mike e shanahan well hes still Mike Shanahan but the former coach saying i dont have a problem with my defense. With my problem defensive line, my linebackers and my backs. Got a problem with the hole, ace. Thats the problem we have. We have 20th century structures a 21sts century environment and that is not work. To m pleaseed that nsa has now linked organizationally its security functions. But i dont think that has to be model for everyone. Structure in the 21st isnttry important be less than process. You can put people wherever you structurally and communicate well and youll get past the structure. Still have these great fears when i see wiring diagrams to really a met ts for. Thats a met for of an industrial model. Yet we think those are very, very real. David john and david said that in a 21stgo contest between bureaucracies networks will win and i look at our government and our Intelligence Community and i think we are far more bureaucratic than network and the cause. Ot help let me add a few thoughts on the reversing the cultural way that ive spoken about. Irst of all, and we all know this, the National Discussion or onversation raised by the snowden disclosures will continue and i dont intend to any credit for this. You can argue that john brown the harpers fairy raid deserves credited for slavery. Who didnt know shrelavery was ue part of that cow is where i would put mr. Snowden. Go there. I would prefer to see an orderly National Security instruments including and ligence counterintelligence. I stay in contact with a tkpwraoupld the american in washington t which is very much the staff of he former hartruddman commission. I look back at the reports of a or saopbd think we missed a terrific opportunity. Calls for a very serious comprehensive review of our 1947 instruments rity never came to pass. At as going to be looked everyone told me in the summer fiscal 2002. Then we any what happened in september of 2001. This orderly thorough look we had postcrisis all know whatd we that means. The most dangerous thing you hear in washington is a group of congressmen around microphones in the rotunda saying we must do something. Frightening y prospect. Review . D we do such we could do worse than look at ruddman methodology. To deal with egy our environment the next 10 to 15 years and see if our match either the strategy or the environment. Lot ofaround at an awful our National Security systems of i dont see that matching they and the problems face. My two students lieutenants mike echi and christina england. That. Logize for are favors Academy Graduates and we have a program there to bring graduates to the school of Public Policy and they are very come in ts when they nd i ask them how many sorties did the f22 fly in iraq. And the answer is zero. Something is wrong when we spend billions of dollars on instruments we dont want to use. I late to pick on the air force guys a drink you later i think they are free ctually but i could do the same thing with the other military services. I think we could easily do the ame thing in the Intelligence Services. We are simply not adapting our that to the environments we face. The issues we face in the future, i think, are among those part re defined in large by the information environment we face. If we have not faced that with snoweden, target, who else got hacked this week . I dont know. Environment ion drives a lot of the National Security environment. Graham who we may remember as the whole earth catalogue. He gave an interview in wired the ine in which he said most important event the last 20 years was the playing out of law. Es ok. Most important i could argue but is top five. I used to give lectures where i moores law playing itself out somewhere around 2002 happened. Nd it hasnt i see articles all the time that slow down law will because we finally reached how many circuits you can put on a bit of silicon. Say i find articles that at con, old tough look nanotechnology and biotechnology and the predictions that moores end are oing to quadra quantitatively balanced with in for a say we are whole new cycle. Intelligence and counterintelligence more specifically has to deal with the constantly changing volatile information environment. I want to