Mr.David E. Sanger who is the Chief Washington Correspondent for The New York Times spoke to class 13-01 today. A 1982 graduate of Harvard College, Sanger has been writing for the Times for 30 years covering foreign policy, globalization, nuclear proliferation, and the presidency.
He has been a member of two teams that won the Pulitzer Prize, and has been awarded numerous honors for national security and foreign policy coverage.
Mr. Sanger is also an adjunct lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, where he is also the first National Security and the Press fellow at the school’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Mr. Sanger has written two books on US foreign policy. His first book is the New York Times best-seller The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power (2009), based on his seven years as the Times White House correspondent, covering two wars, the confrontations with Iran, North Korea and other rogue states, and America’s efforts to deal with the rise of China.
Mr. Sanger’s second book Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power is an account of how Obama has dealt with those challenges, relying on innovative weapons (such as UAVs and cyberwarfare, such as Operation Olympic Games) and reconfigured tools of American power
Today Mr. Sanger spoke about his book Confront and Conceal, he answered questions about publishing classified information and how it could affect national security. How do you feel as a soldier about journalists and former members of the military publishing classified information that could possibly affect national security?
He also went in depth about Syria and Libya and how the Obama doctrine affected how we responded to those states and how we are dealing with Iran. Do you agree with his interpretation of this?
Mr. Sanger also spoke about drone strikes in South Africa and Yemen and discussed what was said on Wiki Leaks. Should the Drone program be secret? Do you agree/disagree with him that it shouldn’t be kept secret.
Overall, Mr. Sanger’s presentation was very well received and was in line with what we are learning in class.
–MAJ Anthony Lee, CGSC
6 Comments on "NY Times Chief Washington Correspondent Visits CGSC"
I have to agree with andrewbeal and much what was discussed previously regarding the concerns of the leaked information and the immediate danger imposed to members of the DOD and the overall mission. There is clearly a balance between the American Public’s right to know what happened and protecting sensitive information. In many cases this information becomes no longer sensitive as time elapses but this must be determined by people with the training and knowledge to make this determination. The DOD has a responsibility to keep the public informed and the media has a level of social responsibility to protect this information as well.
My belief is that freedom of speech and freedom of the press come with inherent responsilities especially when talking about potentially sensitive topics. Too many people in the press and society at large have traded those responsibilities in exchange for sensationalism or the “big story”. As usual, only time will how damaging the release of this classified information will be.
Mr. Sanger is one of the more interesting guest speakers I had the opportunity to listen to since my arrival to CGSC. I found his talk interesting because of the experiences and views he shared with us from following and reporting on the President and his administration. MAJ Lee’s asked the question, “How do you feel as a Soldier about journalists and former members of the military publishing classified information that could possibly affect national security?” I think I have the same belief most military members have. I feel that current and former military members who publish classified information are wrong for doing so. No if, ands, or buts. Classified information is classified for one reason or another. We take an oath to safeguard classified information. I also think it is wrong for reporters to knowingly report classified information because of the ramifications that it can cause. They need to proceed with caution on whether or not they decide to write about it because of the affect it can have on the government and the individual people involved. I was pretty surprised to hear the reason Mr. Sanger gave for why classified information should be published. I believe the people of the United States have a right to know about the majority of what the government does but there are some things that do not need to be written about.
I concur with the above post in that the degree of familiarity that Mr. Sanger had with classified information was alarming. I firmly believe that the media has every right (even a duty) to thoroughly investigate and report on all matters of government. Obviously Mr. Sanger has excellent access to sources of sensitive information. It is these sources that I take issue with. We must do a better job of compartmentalizing and securing our information to prevent our adversaries from benefitting from diligent reporting by Mr. Sanger and his colleagues. I hope the leaks resulting in Mr. Sanger’s partial understanding of classified operations were the result of a deliberate and calculated plan to achieve an unobvious strategic advantage. However, the far more likely possibility is that a breach of operational security occurred. Our ability to effectively exploit the full capabilities of cyber will rest largely on our ability to do so in a way that mitigates the risk of reciprocity from our adversaries. It will be extremely difficult to do this if our adversaries can go to Amazon and download an e-book detailing our cyber operations. Hopefully, Mr. Sanger’s book is an anecdotal anomaly and not indicative of an endemic or institutional weakness in our operational security.
In response to MAJ Lee’s questions, below are some of my answers.
How do you feel as a soldier about journalists and former members of the military publishing classified information that could possibly affect national security?
As a MI officer, I feel that information is classified for a reason. The areas that are classified should remain classified unless downgraded either by the appropriate time or for reasons that determine that the topic is no longer classified. Unless they are cleared, journalists and former military members should not have access to classified information.
He also went in depth about Syria and Libya and how the Obama doctrine affected how we responded to those states and how we are dealing with Iran. Do you agree with his interpretation of this?
I felt that Mr. Sanger gave good reasons why we weren’t going into Syria. His explanation provided insight that the national media did not provide. As for Libya, he also gave good explanations. Mr Sanger’s understanding of the Obama doctrine analyzed how we are dealing with Iran.
Mr. Sanger also spoke about drone strikes in South Africa and Yemen and discussed what was said on Wiki Leaks. Should the Drone program be secret?
The drone program is a classified system and the link to U.S. operations is not made apparent in the media. I feel what is currently released in the media is the right amount since the story on drones does not provide full capabilities of the system. There is probably more drone coverage that has occurred than what is actually reported by the media. The capabilities of the drone program should remain classified since this could provide details to our adversaries. Some foreign nations have drone systems but the capabilities are not as robust as our systems.
I found Mr. Sanger’s comments and insights quite interesting, but alarming at the same time. I am concerned about operational security, specifically with regard to the use of cyber weapons. Cyber weapons are unique because once they are used, you’ve essentially given the technology to the adversary/target. As Mr. Sanger said, the US government has never officially claimed responsibity for the virus that hit Iran and one of the articles Mr. Sanger wrote for The New York Times titled, “Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran”, dated 1 June 2012 states the effort “remains highly classified”. If this is true, where is our OPSEC? The concept of drawing red lines seems to be in the news a lot these days. Where do we draw the red line between maintaining operational security and allowing freedom of information and democracy? It’s all very disturbing to me.