"An operational question - please treat it as such" Topic

'Trump defends 'right' to share secrets'
'President Donald Trump has defended his "absolute right" to share information with Russia, following a row over classified material.'
'In his tweet early on Tuesday, Mr Trump said: "As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety.'

'US media said Mr Trump had shared material that was passed on by a partner which had not given permission.'

link

The operational question is this:

How much information is it safe for the UK and other allies to pass on to the US?

I know that I would never trust the US with anything… so how is this going to affect anti-terrorist or military operations in future? Fine, giving away US secrets – but thinking you have the absolute right to give away things given to you in confidence by others?

As I say, please don't let this spiral into a political morass, the question is 'how is this going to affect future operations' – a lot if information is either not passed on to the US, or if it is passed on to the US will that info be given on condition it isn't given to the President… thus meaning he doesn't have the full picture?

It will most likely have a chilling effect with allied intelligence.

Five Eyes will continue … it survived Manning, Snowden and Assange who did real damage. Trump is proving to be a little more erratic than I would like but cooperating with Russia on terrorism is not a bad thing – Russia is not the USSR and it is not clear that he divulged anything. And we already have some secrets that we don't share widely (eg., AUSTEO, REL GBR).

From the Natl Security Advisor statement I heard, there was no classified material shared---everything discussed was open source in the news already.

While I am not offended by you asking this question here, it is probably better suited for the Blue Fez.

' there was no classified material shared---everything discussed was open source in the news already.'

Some are saying that, more aren't (including Trump):

'Trump allegedly revealed "code-word information" related to threats from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) that had been provided by a U.S. ally in the region, according to the Post.

One U.S. official told the newspaper that the information was so sensitive it had not been provided to U.S. allies.'

link

Also:
'One could almost hear the spluttering. From Vauxhall Cross to Wellington, from Tel Aviv to Ottawa, spy chiefs across the world in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey spitting their coffee, whiskey and mint tea across their tables the moment news came to them.

Donald Trump had finally done it. He'd boasted to Russia. Russia! And revealed intelligence provided from another nation for US "eyes only".

He allegedly gave away top secret details of a plot against airlines using laptop bombs hatched by Islamic State to Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, and Sergei Kislyak, the Kremlin's envoy to Washington.

According to the New York Times and the Washington Post, Trump also discussed military operations to disrupt the plot and gave away the location of where it was put together.'

link

'While I am not offended by you asking this question here, it is probably better suited for the Blue Fez.'

There is always a political side which should be in the Fez, but the operational side – how the military and intelligence side are affected – what interests me – frankly, US politics can stay in the US, we have our own issues. But the possibility of this causing a loss of confidence in sharing intelligence – that does concern me, and that does belong here.

Thinking about it – the thread is not about the actions of the President, it is about the actions of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

"As I say, please don't let this spiral into a political morass,"

LOL, yet all the sources you quote start with allegations and suppositions and end with the conclusion that since these allegations and suppositions were made, they are indeed facts that will end with the deaths of many and the disruption of intelligence operations.

That is exactly how I would go about not starting a spiral into a political morass.

zone of control, it would be very easy for a grown adult to not let this spiral into a political morass.

The question remains will this have an adverse affect on allies and intelligence sharing. If you do not wish to participate in THIS discussion, please move along and respect the OPs reasonable parameters.

Garrison…you set it up and then say not to let it become political. Right.

No it will not have an impact other than the press knocking it about for a few more days and speculating on the impact, as with this thread.

Just another story spiraling out of control. When you read the articles the vast majority of the commentary comes from those who are now out of power and they're often using the conditional word of "if" he did it would be bad. Frankly we don't know what was discussed, and we certainly don't know the agendas of those who leaked the story and the spin they put on it.

Even in the BBC story you linked to, LTG McMasters and the SECSTATE, who were present, stated intel sources and methods were not discussed. And the story says the Washington Post's argument is this wasn't a denial; there's proof for you. Again taking into account the WAPO's own spin and extreme anti Trump bias (heck I don't like Trump and I didn't vote for him, but even I now take WAPO's bias with a grain of salt.)

Of course, in this day and age, everyone will choose to believe what they want to believe based on their own bias.

So I don't think there will be an impact.

If this is as reported then this is a Big Thing. You NEVER violate the release conditions of information provided by an ally. To do so violates every trust. If this were to happen the other way around and US information was disclosed without permission youd be looking at serious sanctions.

If the US and Russia share common ground in defeating ISIS and Islamic extremism in the ME, there's no reason why coordination and intelligence-sharing cannot occur.

The fact that there are differences in other areas between the Globalist Western Establishment and Russia doesn't mean that there can be no mutually beneficial dialogue or cooperation in specific areas of shared interest. Nothing to see here, folks.

'LOL, yet all the sources you quote start with allegations and suppositions '

Well, 'I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety.' – that is a clear statement – knowing the allegations described above, I would read this comment as a verification – otherwise why didn't carry a denial that secret and/or embargoed information was passed on?

For me, this is a major thing for 2 reasons:

1) The FACT that the Commander in Chief of the US military feels that he has the right to pass on any infornmation given to him in confidence by allies. As in ' I have the absolute right to do,' At the very least, that would be a major insult to said allies, at worst it would result in a total breakdown in intelligence relations with those allies.

2) The POSSIBILITY that some/all of the information under discussion was secret/sensitive in nature and could possibly lead to an intelligence breach. If this possibility turns out to be correct – and past utterances suggest it could easily be – then this would be a precedent that could have horrific consequences.

Even if no actual secrets were passed on, the harm will have been done. As stated, we don't know what was said – but I suspect that this one won't go away quickly and will have repercussions for a long time – if trust goes, so does cooperation. I think that trust has gone.

Again, I will emphasize what I consider to be the key phrase – 'which I have the absolute right to do'

If the suppositions are correct, it will having a chilling effect. Other countries will think twice about sharing intelligence with a president who asserts "I have the absolute right to do".

"From the Natl Security Advisor statement I heard, there was no classified material shared---everything discussed was open source in the news already."

You have to listen to it closely--that's not what McMasters said. He said the the story as reported was inaccurate, but not precisely how. He stated that at no time were sources and methods discussed, but the story never said that sources and methods were discussed. It was a very tightly crafted statement.

When a story is based on "Anonymous Sources" that for some reason feel compelled to speak only to media that has a definite averse agenda, I don't give it much credence or concern. They have to try harder for me to believe it. There have always been Anonymous Sources reporting all kinds of things about everyone in politics.

Yes, but what did he say about Roswell?

I know that I would never trust the US with anything…

This seems to be at odds with keeping the conversation non-political.

All elected officials in the US are assumed to have the trust of the American people. Therefore they are not vetted before giving access to classified material. I understand congress does do a little arranging of committees to reduce access to congressmen they don't think can keep a secret. The president is the classifying authority for any information the fed holds, and can classify or declassify that information at will (though there are oversight committees in congress that could act if he jumped the shark). If he reveals something another country provided they would have to determine how serious is the breach of trust and how best to respond.
All other intelligence agencies, allied or otherwise will
1: Ascertain the facts as best as they can.
2: Roll it into their overall intelligence picture.
3: Determine how it affects them.
4: Calculate the best way to react.
I'll leave off any editorializing about these particular circumstances in the spirit of the original post.

+1 Martian

'This seems to be at odds with keeping the conversation non-political.'

Not at all – context. We are talking about passing confidential or secret information on – my answer to the question postulated above it – 'How much information is it safe for the UK and other allies to pass on to the US? '

Sharing intelligence with a third party you were specifically asked not to and giving them enough information to work out the source country (apparently).
-1 to your next roll on the global intelligence sharing table
-2 to your next roll on the regional intelligence sharing table
-4 to your next roll on the country intelligence sharing table
Draw a card from the diplomatic faux pa, intelligence matters sub-deck (and hope its not the 'congratulations you've just honked off the Israeli intelligence and diplomatic community off' card as I suspect, like it or not, an awful lot of human intelligence comes out of Israel).

Democratic government sub-table
D6 roll, on a roll of 1-6 you've annoyed politicians in your own party.
Opposition politicians are annoyed.

+1 to diplomatic relations with Russia (-75% chance of the Russian's revealing just how much grey Oligarch money is invested in your business empire for the next game month)

This morning I was listening to a podcast on the Australian equivalent of the CIA. link

A couple of relevant quotes: "The crash through or crash approach of <an Australian prime minister> had crashed", and "The secret of success in the secrets business is keeping your successes secret".

Lots of parallels to todays world. Worth a listen!

@ROU:
"Democratic government sub-table
D6 roll, on a roll of 1-6 you've annoyed politicians in your own party.
Opposition politicians are annoyed."

I love it! Roll the die over and over again and still get the same results.

Dan

there was no classified material shared

The report is that this was Codeword material. link

To move into the realm of hypotheticals let's put the question the other way – what would the USA think if an ally released material classified as "Secret – Codeword" to a nation NOT regarded by the USA as an ally?

Probable Answer – something unpleasant would hit the fan pretty damn hard and pretty damn quick.

When a story is based on "Anonymous Sources" that for some reason feel compelled to speak only to media that has a definite averse agenda, I don't give it much credence or concern. They have to try harder for me to believe it. There have always been Anonymous Sources reporting all kinds of things about everyone in politics.

True to some extent – but what's the alternative ? Who do you complain to if the Commander in Chief will just shrug it off and say "I have laissez faire to do what I like. And you're fired for making a fuss." ?

Who do you complain to if the Commander in Chief will just shrug it off and say "I have laissez faire to do what I like. And you're fired for making a fuss." ?

Presidents are elected. They do not rule by the divine right of kings. If a presidents actions are deemed egregious enough they can be impeached.

Too bad we can't impeach ignorant and unprofessional news anchors who always quote "un-named sources" as if it was gospel!

Don't you think that it's out of whack to let a Secretary of State mishandle classified info but try to nail a President who repeats open source materials?

Don't you think that allied nations know which is which? If shared info is already open sourced, why would such a country really give a crap?

While it is probably classified what size gun an M1A1 has yet I bet everyone of us either knows or an easily google it. Because it is considered "secret", repeating that still is considered to be disclosure of secret material.

So, I believe the allied countries don't really care, either to the degree over this one IF anything discussed WAS really classified.

No not if you think about it.
I think it the passing of information of a terrorist threat to the Russians is not such a big deal.

The statement I have the absolute right to pass on any information is a fact of course he has.
Eg The POTUS is told that information given in confidence states that Greenland is going to invade Canada is POTUS going to tell Canadians, well yes.

The only problem is if he discloses the exact source of the intel ( this came from agent X who works for country Z). Which is doubtful that he would know that.
If you pass top secret Intel to another party you must assume it is no longer top secret and everybody knows and works under that assumption.

Fact I am anything but a fan of himself but this is overblown to the max

"The statement I have the absolute right to pass on any information is a fact of course he has."

Not if it is another country's information and not if he ever expects to receive any more in the future

Anyway….Putin says he can clear up all this confusion if the USA would like him to.

Kind man.

Love the BBC's analysis of this gesture

You can't help feeling that the Kremlin is loving this. As the US administration – and the US superpower – staggers from one crisis to the next, Russia is watching and revelling in a political rival tearing itself apart.
President Putin's comments today on America were full of sarcasm and patronising put-downs. He said he was ready to provide the US Congress with a transcript of Foreign Minister Lavrov's conversation with President Trump. But that was surely just another dig at America. He will know that it will take more than a transcript on Kremlin-headed notepaper to make this crisis go away.

link

I honestly have NO IDEA how this will or might affect such things, because I simply have no idea what really goes on behind the scenes at intelligence agencies here or elsewhere. It just always sounds like everybody spying on everyone else, and no one really trusting anyone else. Didn't the Wikileaks or Snowden whistle-blowing reveal that the US routinely snoops on its erstwhile allies? And it's well known that Israel spies on the US, its biggest supporter. It seems like we live in a world where there are no friends among spies, only endless intrigue and gamesmanship. Spies and lobbying and alliances of convenience and looking the other way when it's deemed useful -- and advancement of objectives that might change overnight. (The Syrian government must feel pretty foolish now about helping the US government hold and interrogate prisoners and terror suspects after 9-11, given the way the US has turned on Assad.)

I'm sure this will all be cleared up when the Russians provide the transcripts. They do have a long tradition of honesty.

Sitting outside the USA all I can really say is that this all looks so bizarre except for one thing.

Sending out a General to absolutely deny that anything happened, to actually say he was there all the time and nothing of the sort happened. And then mere hours later there are tweets which say (and I paraphrase) "Yes I did it and so what I can if I want". That is way past bizarre. It's like for some reason someone wanted to make McMaster look like a monkey.

As far as the OP goes,we are starting to get indications:

link

link

There was a rebuttal by LtGen H.R. McMaster, who was there for the entire discussion.

"At no time — at no time — were intelligence sources or methods discussed, and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known,"

So no, there wasn't a disclosure of classified materials in the first place.

Frankly, you'd think that potential methods of terrorism and countermeasures for them would be on everyone's "widest possible dissemination" list, not "share only with friends"…

That should have those Israelis breathing sighs of relief,then.

@Hafen von Schlockenberg
+1

The Secuity Correspondent on the BBC – who is usually exceptionally well informed – said that British security services would be horrifed, and take actions accordingly.