SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
A journalist was accidentally added to the Signal chat group discussing U.S. military attack plans on Houthi targets in Yemen. In the aftermath of that leak, revealed by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, U.S. spy chiefs appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe denied any wrongdoing.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
JOHN RATCLIFFE: I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn't transfer any classified information.
SIMON: That's been the position of the Trump administration, but what's been the effect in the shadowy arena of espionage? Steven Cash is a former intelligence officer for the CIA and Department of Homeland Security. He also worked on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff for the late Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein. He's also a member of a group called the Steady State, more than 250 national security officials committed to protecting the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Thank you for being with us.
STEVEN CASH: Happy to be here.
SIMON: Was this a serious security break?
CASH: Short answer is yes. This is an example of the type of security breach that all intelligence officers and all military people fear could happen.
SIMON: When you say an example, something done inadvertently or not even with the knowledge or how so?
CASH: The damage of this kind of release of information, it doesn't really matter if it was done intentionally, negligently, recklessly. It's the effect which is at least potentially catastrophic in the near term and could be extremely damaging in the mid and long term.
SIMON: How so?
CASH: Well, in the short term, if somebody's listening, it's telling them where the airplanes are, where they'll be in the future, what they're going to do, how long they're going to do it, and how they're going to do it. And if you're looking to shoot down an airplane, that's the kind of information you want to have. But the implications can be long-term. All of this network of interrelationships between intelligence and the military and diplomacy are based on trust. And if you're not sure that the information is being handled professionally and carefully, you can't trust, and that means you're going to have to second guess. You're going to have to take extra steps, and there may be things you can't do or won't be able to do because of that.
SIMON: You're suggesting people won't be able to speak candidly, or at least will be reluctant to?
CASH: Well, within the bubble of the U.S. government, they're going to be afraid to talk candidly or accurately and planning our operations overseas. If the team can't talk to each other and is worried that somebody will drop the ball, it makes it very hard to accomplish our aims. But it also makes it hard for the people outside of the U.S. government to share information or intelligence with us. It could be another nation or somebody who - just an individual who wants to share information with the United States government to prevent a terrorist attack or prevent some terrible event. It's going to make people think twice.
SIMON: What about the argument that some in the administration have made that, look, the operation succeeded, so what's the damage?
CASH: Well, the men and women who make operations happen are the best in the world and the best ever. But they're not the only parts of the team. And the fact that nobody happened to pick this up is dumb luck. And, you know, the old expression, no harm, no foul, that doesn't count in this business. No harm, no foul is not a principle you want to organize your national security around.
SIMON: Mr. Cash, as a former intelligence officer, are you worried now about our intelligence hierarchy and military operations?
CASH: Yeah, I am. I mean, I think there's going to be implications of this particular incident, but I think that's repairable. What worries me more is that this incident and the response to the incident doesn't make me feel comfortable that whatever the problems are, are going to be fixed because I see the cavalier, amateurish way that this particular incident was handled. I'd feel a lot better if somebody said, OK, we messed up, and we're going to look at it, and we're going to fix it. But no - I don't see anybody saying that. In fact, the closest I get is, we're going to keep doing whatever we please here. That really worries me.
SIMON: Steven Cash, former intelligence officer, thanks so much for being with us, sir.
CASH: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
