In March of 1983, midway through his first term as President, Ronald Reagan famously called out the former Soviet Union as an “Evil Empire,” and cautioned that a recently proposed nuclear freeze was a “dangerous fraud,” designed to reward the Soviets for their unprecedented military buildup in the years prior. Although he openly called for peace, the Cold War had led him to believe that the only way to secure peace was through strength. From Korea to Vietnam, Reagan had witnessed America fight in two separate wars to stop the advancement of Communism and the Soviet agenda. And so for him it was simple, the Soviets were the single biggest threat to the safety and security of America, and they could not be trusted.
With the fall of the Soviet Union in the early nineties, it appeared to signal the end of a decades-long feud and the vanquishing of an enemy. But as we’re all now well aware, the 2016 Presidential election showed quite clearly that our age old nemesis, mother Russia, remains an evil empire, once again intent on perpetrating a fraud on the American people. The difference this time around, however, is that our former-celebrity turned President isn’t warning us of the dangers, but is trying to convince us to look the other way instead.
According to the de-classified joint briefing prepared by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security in January 2017, we know without question that Russia had a clear candidate preference in the election, and that ultimately, they got their man into the oval office. Their efforts focused primarily on leaking private emails and spreading digital propaganda (fake news), a new twist on an age old tactic regularly employed by their comrades of the past. While we can only speculate at the true motives of their leader, Mr. Putin, there are signs to suggest that they may be linked to oil, gas, and energy.
Although now fired in Apprentice like fashion (most likely for calling his boss a moron), the initial choice for Secretary of State by the current Presidential administration, Rex Tillerson, and Mr. Putin shared an extensive history. Tillerson and Putin were basically business partners on a $3 billion deal between Exxon Mobil and Russian energy giant Rosneft (75% government owned) back in 2011, and in 2013, Tillerson received the Order of Friendship, the highest award given by the Russian government to a foreign citizen. Though he denied under oath any knowledge of lobbying against Russian sanctions during his confirmation hearings, a disclosure report shows that Exxon spent $3.44 million on lobbying efforts in 2014, which included efforts concerning the Russian Aggression Prevention Act and the Ukraine Freedom Support Act.
Yet despite this all but apparent perjury about his company’s lobbying activities, his very public history with Russia, and a lack of any political, diplomatic or military experience (the typical qualifications of the position), Tillerson was amazingly still confirmed as our nation’s top diplomat by 56 of our Senators. Though a moot point now, the absurdity of this result in the wake of Russian election meddling is a crystal clear example of how partisan politics, rather than the interests of the American people, really control what happens in American government. I mean seriously, if you had just been briefed by the entire U.S. intelligence community less than a month earlier that Russia had openly interfered in our Presidential election, and now along comes a nominee who has an extensive business history with Russian government officials, is an unconventional choice with no traditional experience, and the job is to administer our nation’s foreign policy, how do you not reject him in favor of literally anyone else without such glaring red flags? And how does this choice not raise red flags about the individual who nominated him? If ever there was a time when the confirmation process should have screened out a bad nominee, this was it. But instead, America got a former big oil executive and Putin’s business partner as our Secretary of State (at least for a little while).
While much of the world is working to combat climate change, reduce carbon emissions, and embrace alternative energy sources, Russia has a drastically different perspective, given its financial dependency on oil and gas. According to Bloomberg calculations based on Russian Finance Ministry data, oil and gas represent at least 50% of the country’s total revenue, and have for the past decade. Given this reliance, any major global shift away from fossil fuels would be catastrophic to the Russian economy. And as if they needed any added incentive, the continued warming of the planet has started opening the Arctic Ocean north of Russia, which once was unnavigable due to ice, is now becoming a prosperous waterway. So when we look at the overall energy policies of our current Presidential administration, including withdrawal from the Paris Accord, the continuous appointment of individuals who deny climate change, and purposeful suppression of the topic, it begs the question, who exactly are these policies designed to benefit?
The declassified joint U.S. intelligence community briefing of January 2017 identified that one major Russian motive for interfering in our Presidential election was to “undermine public trust in the democratic process.” As a former KGB agent during the Cold War, it’s not difficult to speculate about the disdain Putin has toward America and our allies, who he openly blames for the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. is not a lone victim to election interference, as others throughout Europe have also been subjected to Russian meddling. Regardless of whether the true motives are tied to economic interests, eroding trust in the American democratic process, or both, it is readily apparent that Russia is just getting started, and their interference efforts will continue to plague our future elections. Specifically, the 2017 joint intelligence briefing labeled it as the “New Normal” and stated very definitively that:
“Moscow will apply lessons learned from its campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts in the United States and worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.”
At the time of its publication, the bulk of this intelligence briefing focused on the propaganda and influence efforts. It did, however, give a brief mention to the ongoing Russian efforts to research US electoral systems and related technology as early as 2014, and indicated that ahead of the 2016 election:
“Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards.”
Rather than expand on this topic or the scope of the access gained, the declassified public briefing quickly concluded, without any further explanation, that the Russian efforts had not targeted vote tallying systems.
More details eventually emerged several months later in June 2017, but only through the disclosure of a classified NSA report leaked to the press by an employee of a government subcontractor (Reality Winner). The leaked report revealed that sophisticated spear phishing attacks were launched by Russian military intelligence, targeting private U.S. companies who supply voter registration software. Once these private companies were compromised by the Russian hackers, the attacks then targeted 122 members of local state and county government organizations responsible for using the voter registration software and administering the election. Unlike the public declassified briefing, this classified report drew far less definitive conclusions concerning the extent and success of the attacks, essentially leaving the matter open-ended:
“It is unknown whether the aforementioned spear-phishing deployment successfully compromised the intended victims, and what potential data could have been accessed by the cyber actor.”
After reading this internal assessment by the NSA, compared to the public briefing, one can’t help but wonder, what would happen if there were actual evidence to show that the results of an American election were falsified? Would we do it all over? Who would hold office in the meantime? What if only one State, or just a few, were hacked, would the results still count? Even more importantly, would the American people be informed, or would it be kept hidden from us to maintain stability and prevent mass unrest?
Perhaps the only thing we can be sure of in this whole Russia mess is that the integrity of our future elections is under attack, and it appears to be genuinely at risk. All indications are that we are drastically underprepared to deal with the Russian threat or the fallout if they are successful, and unless we do something soon, we risk losing trust in the system, the process, and our government altogether.
Complicating the issue is the fact that our elections are regulated exclusively by state law, meaning that as a nation, we maintain 50 separate voting systems. Though there is a limited amount of oversight at a federal level through the Election Assistance Commission, the system guidelines offered by this Commission are voluntary for the States to follow, and are hardly adequate measures to protect against sophisticated attacks from an organized and cunning enemy. The scary truth is that the security of our elections is in the hands of private companies, most of whom you or I have probably never heard of, along with our local governments and state legislatures. From a pure funding standpoint, each of these groups lacks the monetary resources necessary to effectively combat this threat. The sovereignty of our states, which throughout our history has helped to keep an essential balance between national and local interests, is a glaring weakness in the context of cyberwarfare, ripe for exploitation by those who mean to do us harm.
Instead of protecting one single system, we are left to try and protect a patchwork of 50 systems. And so long as we remain divided in this respect, we cannot reasonably expect to protect ourselves. You see, even if some, or even most of the states are successful in their defense efforts, if others aren’t, then we all still lose. If, however, we can come together, and formally commit to a national electoral platform which incorporates the latest and the best security technology, then we might stand a fighting chance to preserve the integrity of our elections and trust in the system.
Personally, I am no technology expert, but you don’t need to be to have heard of blockchain. A rapidly emerging technology, blockchain is what underlies Bitcoin and other digital currencies, and is where huge money is being invested by the leading companies across virtually every industry, like Microsoft, IBM, JP Morgan, and thousands of others. With high profile data breaches becoming increasingly more common, nearly every company is looking to fortify their cybersecurity efforts. And when we look to the industries with the most sensitive data, and who need the highest levels of protection (technology, financial services, healthcare), we see they have been the quickest to adopt blockchain. The key feature to this technology is its ability to prevent manipulation through mass replication of data. Basically, blockchain records transactions across multiple computers so that the record cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent blocks and the collusion of the network.
Given this natural ability to preserve the integrity of digital transactions, it’s not surprising to see there’s already a start-up company (Follow My Vote, Inc.) seeking to incorporate blockchain into voting technology, promoting it as a “secure and transparent online voting solution for the modern age.” But if the plea for donations that immediately pops up on the company’s website is any indication, funding for these efforts appears to be a critical issue. And so it seems that if we’re relying on the private sector and our state governments to come together and bring us a viable solution to the problem, we may be waiting for a while.
The one government wasting no time to incorporate blockchain into its elections, however, is Russia. Used locally in Moscow, and used in connection with exit polls conducted in the 2018 Russian presidential election, this technology is being actively tested by the Russian government now. I suppose it only makes sense that if you’re going to make it your business to meddle in the elections of other nations, you’d better protect your own elections from counter-attacks by those looking for retribution.
Only with direct funding from our own federal government can we ever hope for a single secure national electoral system, and only with direct federal intervention can it be developed in enough time to prevent further erosion of public trust in the system. With a military defense budget of over $800 billion in 2018, it’s clear we’ve placed a high priority on protecting the security of America and preserving our way of life. But despite the fact that our elections are being openly attacked by a foreign enemy, and the massive impact that these attacks are capable of having on our nation, we are not allocating billions toward defending our elections, we’re not allocating anything. And ultimately, if we lose the integrity of our elections and the trust of the people in the system, the enemy will have won, and the American way of life will be forever changed.
While money and resources are the key components to building the system, once in place, ongoing monitoring and maintenance will be just as critical to ensure that the system remains a secure and reliable means of administering our democracy. When we look to the existing agencies of the federal government, the agency best suited to be the caretaker of a digital electoral system seems to be the National Security Agency (NSA). Currently tasked with handling cybersecurity for the federal government, and with an official motto of “Defending Our Nation. Securing The Future.” it would seem like a natural fit. Unfortunately, as we have learned in recent years, however, this is an agency with a checkered past, and one that has proven that “Big Brother” really is watching.
Originally founded in secrecy in 1952 pursuant to a classified executive order, the NSA has grown exponentially since its inception. Not only is it the largest employer in the State of Maryland, but it’s also the State’s largest consumer of electricity, with its 2007 totals reported to have surpassed the entire capitol city of Annapolis. Unlike its intelligence counterpart, the CIA, which was created by Congress pursuant to public law, the NSA was created by the President pursuant to no particular law, and lacks a defined legal mandate to guide its activities.
Following the Watergate scandal, which included the misuse of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978. FISA was aimed at bringing oversight to America’s spying activities through the creation of a special court tasked with determining the lawfulness of agency actions. As outlined in a 2013 Washington Post article, however, the FISA court’s oversight relies primarily on the self-reporting of violations by the NSA. Even the chief judge of the FISA court admitted that the court is “forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided,” and “does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance.” Given this flimsy approach to oversight, which is basically the equivalent of the honor system, coupled with a lack of defined parameters, and literally billions in resources, we really shouldn’t be all that surprised to learn of the numerous transgressions of the NSA.
According to the documents famously leaked by Edward Snowden, it was divulged that not only is the NSA collecting phone, email, and internet data on all of us, but they were also spying on hundreds of millions of private foreign citizens and governmental leaders. With efforts targeting enemies and allies alike, the agency has listened in on countless diplomatic conversations, and even gone so far as to tap the cell phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and spy on the Vatican ahead of the selection of Pope Francis, proving that literally no one is off-limits. It doesn’t stop there though, as they are not just passively watching, but actively hacking and carrying out offensive cyberattacks, with more than 230 conducted in the year 2011 alone. Let’s stop and think on that for a minute. How would we feel if we learned that a foreign government was listening in on our President’s cell phone calls or hacking our computer systems? Of course we would be outraged, and rightfully so.
It has even been reported that the WannaCry ransomware attack, which swept across the globe back in May 2017, resulting in an estimated $8 billion in losses, was caused in large part because of the NSA. Ahead of that attack, the NSA reportedly discovered vulnerabilities in the Microsoft operating system, but rather than alert Microsoft (an American company and domestic technology leader) to these security weaknesses, the NSA kept this information secret, so it could be exploited for its own use. Ultimately, the details of the Microsoft vulnerabilities were exposed, either through a leak or a hack at the NSA, and so too was the security of thousands of companies around the world.
If ever there was an agency in need of re-purposing, the NSA is the poster child. So why not give them the direction and purpose they so desperately need? Let’s hold them to their motto, and instruct them to defend our nation and secure our future by protecting our electoral system, instead of hacking our social media and infringing on our civil liberties. The NSA has the expertise and the resources, and the system needs a dedicated team to keep it safe. So let’s kill two birds with one stone, and make the NSA an agency that serves a vital purpose. In doing so, we can transform it into an agency that we can be proud of, instead of one that we’re ashamed and afraid of.
Ultimately though, evolving our democracy is about more than just modernizing our electoral system to protect it from our enemies, or even reigning in a wayward agency with a history of transgressions. It’s about healing the past, and starting over anew. Elsewhere in his famous “Evil Empire” speech, Reagan acknowledged that, “Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal.” And he recognized, “The glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past.”
In the context of the speech, Reagan was referring primarily to the ugly history of slavery and racial inequality in our country. But when we take a look back through our history, we find that our evils are not limited to these areas alone. Depending upon the specific criteria utilized, we find that America has been engaged in active military conflict for somewhere between 50-90% of its history. Even when we’re not doing the fighting ourselves, we’re supplying weapons and resources to help decide winners and losers.
More recently, there’s a strong argument to be made that American actions in the Middle East enabled the rise of ISIS through the power vacuum left behind after the Second Gulf War. For those that remember, we were told that the war in Iraq was being waged to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but as we know now, there were none to be found. This means either (a) we were lied to about the true motives for the war by our own government, or (b) they screwed up royally in going to war over bad intelligence. Considering that an estimated 180,000 – 200,000 Iraqi non-military civilians have died since the U.S. led invasion began in 2003 (according to figures published by the Iraq Body Count Project), either possibility is appalling and wrong on so many levels. When you add in the contributions of ISIS in the region, and the mass exodus and humanitarian crisis that resulted, the sickening truth is that the actions of America in the Middle East helped set into motion a series of events with horrific consequences.
Meanwhile, our other active military campaign in Afghanistan, has been ongoing for more than 17 years, and appears to have reached a stalemate. According to recent reports, the situation has gotten worse instead of better, with body counts on the rise and the Taliban controlling nearly 40% of the country. This, despite the fact that we have poured more than $780 billion into our efforts there. When combined with the $800 billion spent in Iraq, it seems like such a waste considering the results. It’s so sad to think about how much potential good could have been done with over $1.5 trillion dollars, but instead our tax dollars were spent on weapons, death, and an almost two decade long military occupation of foreign lands. We’re told these efforts are necessary to protect our freedom, but at what point are these efforts no longer justified? As heinous and reprehensible of an act as 9/11 was on our country, to put things into perspective, that attack took the lives of 2,996 Americans. The total number of persons who have died on all sides as a result of the responses in Iraq and Afghanistan is more than 500,000.
Most of us probably don’t think of ourselves as a warlike people or view America as a warlike nation, but for many outside of our borders, the evidence points to the contrary. Although I personally have never served in combat, my guess is that nearly all who have, did so with the hope that peace would eventually be achieved through their efforts. The unfortunate irony, however, is that America has never enjoyed any prolonged period of peace throughout its history. And looking ahead, it seems unlikely we ever will, unless that is, we can do something to break the cycle of violence.
The Constitution provides the office of the President with the title of Commander in Chief and the ability to direct our armed forces. The power granted is not absolute, however, as the power to declare war is vested in the Congress. Since the beginning, the true lines of division between the President and Congress in this area have been somewhat murky. In total, we’ve used military force abroad more than 100 times in our history, but declared war in only five (5) instances: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars, and World Wars I and II.
President-initiated military action (without direct Congressional approval) dates as far back as Washington and Jefferson, and though often debated, has generally been regarded as acceptable based on the intent of the framers. When the Constitution was drafted in the late 1700s, a declaration of war was regarded as a formality intended to solidify a nation’s commitment to a conflict which had already started through a series of initial skirmishes or after battles had already occurred. Within this context, it seems that the original text of the Constitution allows the President the ability to deploy our military forces at will, without the need for Congressional approval. It does not, however, provide any detail about when a vote by Congress is needed to declare war.
Following the “conflicts” in Korea and Vietnam, the latter of which lasted nearly 20 years, Congress sought to limit the military powers of the President when it passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973. Although initially vetoed by then President Nixon, the veto was overridden by a supermajority of Congress and the Resolution passed anyway. Since its enactment, however, this Resolution has been viewed as controversial and possibly unconstitutional. Because the division of military power between the President and Congress is a topic addressed in the Constitution, the argument is that this division of power cannot be altered by ordinary legislation, but rather it requires a formal Constitutional Amendment.
The War Powers Resolution stipulates that the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action, and it forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days without a Congressional authorization or a declaration of war. Given the somewhat shaky foundations of this law, however, in some cases past Presidents have ignored its mandates. And though it was successfully utilized to obtain Congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq in 1991 and Afghanistan in 2001, it has failed to bring about any true clarity to the uncertainty left behind by original text of the Constitution in this area.
Regardless of how we reached this point, or what the original intent was, the fact remains that President-initiated military action has resulted in the deaths of millions of people, and has had a major impact on America and the rest of the world. In the case of Korea, it seems we are still feeling the effects of the decision of President Truman nearly 70 years later, when we consider that hatred of America that was preached in the North as a direct result of our country’s intervention into their civil war.
Whether Truman or any of our past Presidents were right or wrong, justified or not, is not the point. Rather, the point is that the use of military force has far reaching consequences that affect all of us. And so when it comes to situations of this magnitude, where lives are literally at stake, don’t we the people deserve the right to make these decisions, rather than having a single individual make them for us? And perhaps even more importantly, don’t our brave servicemen and women, who are risking their own lives, deserve to know that the cause they’re fighting for has the support of a majority of their country?
As we look back at Vietnam, not only did our government use a draft to randomly select young men to unwillingly fight and die in a distant jungle, reminiscent of a real life Hunger Games, but the cause, like Korea before it, was to intervene in another nation’s civil war. And for what exactly, to stop the spread of communism? Well guess what, the communists eventually won, despite the sacrifices of so many young men and their families. And making matters even worse, for those who were fortunate enough to live, their homecomings were marred by the sad reality that most of their country didn’t support their efforts. After risking death and undoubtedly watching friends die, it had to be gut wrenching for the returning soldiers to see Americans openly protesting their efforts, forcing them to question whether their sacrifices were really worth it.
But just as our soldiers were not wrong for dutifully following orders and doing what was asked of them, neither were the protestors who exercised their 1st Amendment rights in an effort to try and effectuate change. So if neither were in the wrong, then the only logical choice for the blame in Vietnam seems to be the system itself, which allowed an unpopular and unsupported military effort to proceed. The killing of other human beings, when not done in defense to an attack, goes well beyond simple foreign policy. For the sake of our country and for those who valiantly serve it, the worthiness of the cause should be decided by a majority of the whole of the nation, rather than a single person elected to office.
If any more convincing was needed, look no further than our current President, who I’ll simply refer to as No. 45 (mostly to try and avoid any possible trademark lawsuit). In No. 45 we find a President who is historically divisive. Though he has the support of his loyal base even in the face of his childish antics and bully behavior, he stands in stark contrast to the values and views of many others throughout the country. But despite this vast disapproval by so many, it still doesn’t change the fact that No. 45 is the one at the helm of our military, and that he alone has the power to affect us all for years well beyond his term in office.
Whether it’s No. 45, or someone else down the line, there are inevitably going to be times when the views of the person we elect President are not aligned with prevailing views of the nation. But unlike other unpopular policy decisions which can be changed or reversed in future terms if needed, the death, destruction, and endless echo of military violence cannot be undone. And so if Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan collectively aren’t enough of a reason, then let the bravado of No. 45 be the wake up call to show why it’s time to formally limit the military powers of the President.
Even if we don’t agree with the actions of our political leaders, the reality is that those actions reflect upon us, and the people are the ones who ultimately pay for the sins of our government. History has proven that even the most powerful empires fall in the end, and if we hope to escape the same fate, we must do something to change our ways. We can no longer accept being kept in the dark by our government for the benefit of our security, and we can no longer turn a blind eye to the effects of American actions on the rest of the world.
By putting the decision making authority for military action into the hands of the people, perhaps we can begin to move past our nation’s “legacy of evil,” as Regan referred to it, and start to heal old wounds. Although we cannot undo the past, we can send a message to the rest of the world that things have changed, and that a new day has dawned in America. We can show that we are not a ruthless, self-serving and murderous people, but rather the vast majority of us are a kind and compassionate people, who genuinely value life, liberty, and equality for all persons.
Although there are no guarantees that the people will always make the right decisions, it’s become clear the old way of doing things isn’t working. Violence breeds violence, and we are seeing more of it everywhere we look, both at home and abroad. Through a shift in power to the people, however, there is hope that we can break this cycle that has plagued America throughout its history. Through the evolution of our democracy, we can embark on a new path for our nation, in the hopes of preserving a better future for us all.
Recent Comments