Tomorrow, secrets of Area 51 will be revealed.

Okay, not quite all. But more than you’d expect. The International Spy Museum is hosting a special (and free!) documentary screening and author discussion tomorrow evening at 6:30 p.m. in conjunction with the National Geographic Channel. Annie Jacobsen is a contributing editor at the Los Angeles Times Magazine and an investigative reporter whose work has also appeared in the National Review and the Dallas Morning News. Her two-part series “The Road to Area 51” in the Los Angeles Times Magazine broke online reader records and remained the “most popular/most emailed” story for ten consecutive days. Her findings resulted in both a new book, AREA 51: An Uncensored History of America’s Top Secret Military Base, and a companion National Geographic special, Area 51 Declassified.

Jacobsen has been busy prepping for her book tour, which kicks off at the Spy Museum, but managed to squeeze off a few answers to WeLoveDC regarding Area 51, its purpose, and what really went on at America’s most well known Top Secret facility.

Annie Jacobsen, author of AREA 51: An Uncensored History of America’s Top Secret Military Base; photo by Michael Hiller

The idea for tackling the subject started innocuously enough. “In 2007 I was at a Christmas Eve dinner when an eighty-eight-year old scientist named Edward Lovick leaned over and said to me, ‘Have I got a good story for you.’” Jacobsen was surprised, as she had always known Lovick as a designer of airplane parts for most of his career. “As a national security reporter, I hear this line frequently—my work depends on it—but what Lovick told me ranked among the most tantalizing things I’d heard in a long time.”

What Lovick told her was that he wasn’t really an engineer but a physicist. More shockingly, he had been a physicist who had played a major role in helping the CIA develop in the area of aerial espionage. “The reason Lovick could suddenly divulge information that had been kept secret for fifty years was that the CIA had just declassified it,” she said. Why the secrecy? Lovick admitted that much of his secret work took place at Area 51. The top secret facility has gone by many names: Groom Lake, Dreamland, Paradise Ranch, Home Base, Watertown Strip, and Homey Airport. Nonetheless, it was confirmation that the facility was indeed real.

The admission triggered Jacobsen’s investigative nose. “I wrote to the assistant secretary of defense requesting an official tour of the Groom Lake Area,” she said. Lovick had told her that the CIA had given up control of the place decades earlier. “My request was formally denied, on Department of Defense letterhead, but oddly with the words ‘the Groom Lake Area’ separated out in quotes attributed to me, so as to make clear the Pentagon’s official position regarding their Nevada base: that locale may be part of your lexicon, they seemed to be saying, but it’s most definitely not officially part of ours. When I learned that the name Area 51 was still classified, that the government has never officially admitted that it actually exists, I sought to learn why.”

What developed over the course of the next few years was an accumulation of over 50 Area 51 veterans, including scientists, pilots, and soldiers. “Each man came to me by referral, starting with Lovick,” she said. “They are a small fraternity of soldiers, spies, scientists, and engineers who before this book were known only among themselves because so much of what they did was classified. On average, the book’s characters are in their mid-eighties, making the present day the third and final act of their lives. That so many individuals opened up with me, relaying their triumphs and tragedies, their sorrows and joys, has been an experience of a lifetime. Why me remains somewhat of a mystery.”

AREA 51: An Uncensored History of America’s Top Secret Military Base; photo courtesy Annie Jacobsen

The concept of a secret facility is not uniquely American. Every nation has at least one facility similar in nature, if not in scope or direction. The Soviet Union had its own copycat facility, NII-88, which was directly involved in the development and launch of the Sputnik satellite. Another Soviet facility, Novaya Zemlya, is suspected to be the site of full-scale underground nuclear testing. Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in North Korea is a suspected site furthering that country’s nuclear experimentation. And don’t forget Syria’s secret Al-Kibar site that was supposedly destroyed by Israel in 2007 in a nighttime aerial attack.

These days, the words “top secret facility” and “nuclear” go hand-in-hand. Area 51, as Jacobsen discovered, was no different, despite the facility’s place in conspiracy theories involving alien bodies and UFOs. “The truth is that America’s most famous secret federal facility was set up to advance military science and technology faster and further than any other foreign power in the world. And it still does that today,” said Jacobsen. One of the main thrusts of the facility’s purpose was harboring and developing nuclear technology, often under the oversight of the Department of Energy.

Contrary to popular thought, Area 51 was often the sight of multiple agencies conducting various technological experimentation. The projects were often compartmentalized through various systems of control. The CIA occupied and controlled a portion of Area 51 during the better part of the Cold War, developing their aerial reconnaissance programs like the U-2 and A-12 Oxcart. The Department of Defense uses it repeatedly for testing new aircraft and weapon designs, including the Have Blue (later the F-117 Stealth Fighter) and B-2 bomber programs.

‘Slide42′
courtesy of ’scopeland’

But more sinister are the implications that other secret projects have occurred there. One of the agencies involved was the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Department of Energy). The DOE has a different way of keeping secrets that runs completely contrary to standard governmental protocols. “In other words, the nuclear agency maintains a parallel body of secrets classified based on factors other than presidential executive orders. It is from the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 that the concept ‘born classified’ came to be,” said Jacobsen when asked to elaborate. “Even more terrifying is the Atomic Energy Commission’s ‘Restricted Data’ classification, which allows secrets to originate outside the government through the ‘thinking and research of private parties.’ The company’s ‘thinking and research’ would be ‘born classified,’ and even the President of the United States would not necessarily have a need-to-know about it.”

Jacobsen asserts that the DOE’s misdirection continues even today. “It is no coincidence that the agency behind some of the most nefarious and dangerous operations in U.S. history has changed its name four times. First it was called the Manhattan Project, then it changed its name to the Atomic Energy Commission. In 1975 it was renamed the Energy Research and Development Administration, or ERDA, and in 1977 it was renamed again, this time to the Department of Energy. Finally, in 2000, America’s nuclear weapons agency got a new name for the fourth time: the National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, a department nestled away inside the Department of Energy,” she replied. “At the DOE website you will see that the organization prides itself as ‘the government department whose mission is to advance technology and promote related innovation in the United States,’ which makes it sound more like Apple Corporation than the federal agency that created 70,000 nuclear bombs, did untold damage to the environment, and conducted thousands of covert medical experiments on human beings without their consent.”

Jacobsen’s book goes into further detail regarding the medical experiments conducted at Area 51 and those done elsewhere by the AEC. These were uncovered by an advisory committee tasked by President Clinton in the 1990s after reporter Eileen Welsome exposed the agency’s plutonium experiments on children in Massachusetts.

‘GM “Old Look” Bus’
courtesy of ‘dave_7′

Primarily, however, the collective public curiosity is more on the possibility of aliens and spacecraft housed at Area 51. It’s not a topic that Jacobsen shies away from, either. The short version? As far as she knows, there are no alien bodies or alien spacecraft at the Nevada facility. She explores the Roswell incident from a different perspective: the crash was most likely a Russian plane; the alien bodies, Russian pilots. “I can only tell you what was told to me by my source, a man who himself worked on this rogue program, under the direction of Vannevar Bush and the Atomic Energy Commission,” she replied. “My source is an eyewitness to the Roswell crash remains, which came from Russia. He received them at Area 51, with four other EG&G engineers, and he worked to reverse-engineer this craft—he took it apart and put it back together again. But my source also told me—with no room for misinterpretation—that at Area 51, at Area S-4, he worked on the experiments with the human beings who were the pilots inside Stalin’s craft.”

So how then did Robert Scott Lazar, a 29 year-old scientist, get it wrong? Lazar appeared on a Las Vegas news show in 1989 with an investigative reporter and told the world he was a former Area 51 employee. He admitted to working on an alien spacecraft and had been shown an autopsy photograph of the alien pilot. He had also apparently witnessed scientists examining a small, live being that could have been an alien. None of Jacobsen’s interviewees ever recalled meeting Lazar, and none of them verified Lazar’s claims.

Jacobsen poses a comprehensive answer to Lazar’s claims in the book, involving governmental deception campaigns and an example from the 1940s testing of jet aircraft and gorillas. “In 1942, when the jet engine was first being developed, the Army Air Corps wanted to keep it secret,” she said. Airplanes at this time flew strictly through propeller propulsion, so the concept of seeing a plane fly without one is a mind-boggling one. “Every time a test pilot took a Bell XP-59A jet aircraft out on a flight test over the Muroc dry lake bed in California’s Mojave Desert, the crew attached a dummy propeller to the airplane’s nose. The Bell pilots had a swath of airspace in which to perform flight tests, but every now and then a pilot training nearby on a P-38 Lightning would try to get a look.

“Rumors started to circulate at local bars and pilots wanted to know what was being hidden from them. According to my interview with Edwards Air Force Base, chief Bell test pilot Jack Woolams got an idea. He ordered a gorilla mask from a Hollywood prop house, removed the mock-up propeller from the nose of his jet airplane, put on the gorilla mask, and took to the skies,” she said. “When a P-38 Lightning came flying nearby for a look, Woolams maneuvered his airplane so that the Lightning pilot could look inside. Instead of seeing Woolams, the pilot saw a gorilla flying an airplane—an airplane that had no propeller. The stunned pilot landed and went straight to the local bar and ordered a stiff drink. He told the other pilots what he’d definitely seen with his own eyes. His colleagues told him he was drunk, that he was an embarrassment, and that he should go home. Meanwhile, the concept of the gorilla mask caught on among other Bell test pilots, and soon Woolams’s own colleagues joined the act. Over the course of the next few months, other P-38 Lightning pilots spotted the gorilla flying the propeller-less airplane.

“Some versions of the historical record have the psychiatrist for the Army Air Corps getting involved, helping the Lightning pilots to understand how a clear-thinking fighter pilot could become disoriented at altitude and believe he had seen something that clearly was not really there. No one dared go public because everyone knows that a gorilla can’t fly an airplane.”

Jacobsen posits that a similar situation happened with Lazar. “Perhaps Lazar drew the only conclusion he could draw based on the information he was given,” she said. Lazar had told the reporter he had been hired specifically to work on an outer-space craft at Area 51 and was shown the photo on purpose. “I believe Lazar may have been the subject of a deception campaign. Look what happened to him when he went public with his story. Lazar lost his job and was run out of town. In written correspondence with me, Lazar has stated very clearly that it’s been difficult for him to be taken seriously as a scientist because he is known as ‘the UFO guy.’”

‘Going There’
courtesy of ‘Claire L. Evans’

According to Jacobsen, the UFO conspiracy, even today, still serves a viable function for the CIA. She states in the book that the CIA’s handling of UFO secrets is more a form of strategic deception than any type of coverup. “Look at the agency’s second director, General Walter Bedell Smith, who set UFO policy for the CIA in the early 1950s. Bedell Smith was an extraordinarily capable man, very powerful and trusted by the President. During World War II, Bedell Smith had been General Eisenhower’s chief of staff. After the war, he was Truman’s ambassador to the Soviet Union. Whatever the Russians were up to, Bedell Smith had access to it,” she said. “When he took over as director of the CIA, he told the National Security Council that the UFO craze sweeping the nation was a dangerous thing. That the American public was susceptible to ‘hysterical mass behavior’ as had happened in 1938 with the radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds.

“Bedell Smith had to have known about Stalin’s hoax with the flying disc sent over New Mexico,” Jacobsen continued. “In declassified CIA papers, he expresses concern that the Russians could be planning another UFO hoax to cause panic, overload America’s early-warning air-defense system, and make room for a sneak nuclear attack. He put together a group called the Psychological Strategy Board to start a ‘debunking’ campaign meant to reduce the public’s interest in flying saucers. He even suggested getting the Disney Corporation involved. This backfired. People were far too interested in UFOs to disregard them; it’s the same today. Presently, it serves the CIA to allow the myth of UFOs and aliens to prosper because it keeps the proverbial eye off the ball: Stalin’s flying disc and the child-sized aviators who were inside.”

There’s a lot more within the pages of Jacobsen’s book than just top secret programs and UFO-like conspiracies. She forces the reader to look hard at the moral and ethical questions that arise from such secrecy. Ranging from the American use of Nazi scientists after World War II to the abuses of the AEC to nuclear proliferation, Jacobsen delves deeply into Area 51’s deceptions and power plays, examining its effect on the American psyche. Is Area 51 still needed today? It’s a tough question to answer, and one Jacobsen doesn’t try to resolve. Instead, she takes the information gained over the course of interviews and declassified documents and lays them out before us in all their ugly glory. While we may find some of the answers we’ve sought, the questions that arise from those answers force us to continue looking, both at and beyond Area 51.

The Area 51 Declassified screening takes place tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. at the International Spy Museum, 800 F. Street NW. A roundtable discussion with the author and a few of her sources will occur after the screening. The museum is located one block from the Gallery Place/Chinatown Metro station on the Red, Green, and Yellow lines. The screening and discussion is free to the public. Copies of her book will be on sale after the program and a book signing is planned.

I met Rachel a while back at a media preview at a local restaurant. At this point, many moons later, I don’t even remember which one, but we became fast friends and I began my raging obsession with this wonderful woman. Rachel writes about restaurants for Washington Flyer, but as we got to know each other, our conversations would always go back to one thing: boys. We’d talk about her love life, she’d give me solid, calm advice on mine, and I quickly learned she was writing a book on her experience dating.

I even got a sneak peek at the manuscript, and so when she finally got a publish date for her book, The Science of Single: One Woman’s Grand Experiment in Modern Dating, Creating Chemistry, and Finding Love, I was thrilled. So now that the release date of her book is TOMORROW, I thought I’d finally share one of my favorite people with you all.

Katie: How long have you lived in DC? When and why did you move here?
Rachel: I moved to DC almost 8 years ago (though I grew up in Northern Virginia and lived in Arlington for a few years after college). I’d just spent a year in NYC, and after offering up my first born to live in a shoebox walk-through bedroom on the Upper East Side, rent control in Adams Morgan tasted pretty sweet. I can’t say I choose to live here for an specific reason except I wanted to live in a city, it was a simple move and DC is more my speed.

What do you love about DC?
The pace. The seasons, especially fall. When the town clears out over the holidays. Seaton Street NW (it’s so freaking cute). I’m kinda into the DC flag right now. In general, how cool this city has become. I mean, we have food carts.

What would you change about DC if you could?
More vegetarian restaurants and voting representation.

Tell me about your book – why did you write it?
To be frank, I seriously used to suck at dating. I found the entire process of finding dates and going on dates to be trying at best. And then, after one particularly bad date, the guy, uh, jogged away from me. He didn’t stop to say goodbye or hug or anything. Just picked up his pace to get out as quickly as possible. It was humbling to say the least, and while his reaction to our date was probably more about him than me (I’d like to think), it got me thinking that there had to be a better way. So I decided to really put myself out there and make a project of dating; perhaps if I treated the entire thing like an experiment, I could detach myself from the outcome and actually learn something rather than becoming distraught over every dating “failure.” My book is an account of what happened when I tried out all the different ways of dating–online, singles events, blind dates. I also hired a matchmaker and a dating coach, read dating self-help books, and even went to other cities to date.

In your book you try out dating in other cities. What did you figure out about DC versus other similar American cities?
If I’m totally generalizing, dating in DC tends to be a bit more … stiff and formal when compared to, say, LA. Mostly though, I realized that dudes are the same no matter where you go. And I don’t mean this in a negative way.

Are you still single? If so, who is your ideal man? Where do you think you would find him in DC?
I am currently dating. My ideal man is up for anything, unpretentious and not bothered by the fact that I write about dating. I used to wish I would find this ideal man waiting for me on my stoop, bearing a bouquet of peonies, perhaps even serenading me. I’ve since recovered from this fantastical thinking and I meet most guys I date online.

What’s the best first date spot in DC?
Anywhere with exposed brick, low lighting, that’s not too loud and preferably within a 10 minute walk of my apartment because I am lay-hay-zee. Places that come to mind that might have one or all of these criterion (not including proximity to my neighborhood): L’Enfant Cafe, Room 11, and Smith Commons, which is just about to open on H Street NE.

What’s the worst first date spot in DC?
The Holocaust Museum. Do not go there on a date.

How do you think unique aspects of DC, like the Metro or the National Mall effect the dating here?
You’d think the Metro would be a great place to meet someone, but every time I walk into a station, everyone’s on their phone or has their head buried in a book. If people would just look up and take a gander around them, I wonder how many Metro Matches there would be. In fact, I think Metro should launch a personals program! They could make money off that instead of raising fares. And then we could have working escalators. I digress… The Mall is an amazing green space for picnic or Frisbee dates, which, to me, are the perfect kinds of dates. The museums around the Mall also are solid date spots (and free!). I like the idea of being able to move in and out of conversation as I walk through an exhibit. When you date around a lot, the across-the-table stare down gets mighty old.

What’s your best advice for DC singles?
Slow down, smile at the cute girl or guy next to you, put a profile up on an online dating site (preferably one that does not indicate that you work and play hard – please, for the love of all that is holy, don’t write that), and, in general, take a percentage of the focus that you’ve applied to your wildly successful career and place it squarely on your dating/personal life.

Rachel’s book, The Science of Single, is available for pre-order now on Amazon, and is released tomorrow. You can also get your very own copy at a number of local bookstores, or stop by Rachel’s book talk at Politics and Prose (5015 Connecticut Ave., NW) on January 9 at 5 p.m. to hear her discuss her book. Rachel is also available on her blog, as well as on Twitter.

Ask someone on the street about Native American history and more often than not, they’ll most likely recall the “Thanksgiving story,” the Indian Wars of the late nineteenth century, “Custer’s Last Stand,” or probably the (abysmal) movie Dances With Wolves. It’s an era of our nation’s history that I think many know little about – or choose to look the other way – and I cannot blame them for it. It’s not a pretty period of history, nor is it exactly the United States’ most proudest collection of moments.

When I saw the National Museum of the American Indian’s (NMAI) press release regarding the variety of activities in celebration of Native American Indian Heritage Month, one of the events that caught my eye was today’s lecture with NMAI Director Kevin Gover and museum historian Mark Hirsch. They were speaking regarding a book the Smithsonian released last year, American Indians, American Presidents: A History, edited by Clifford E. Trafzer. While I couldn’t attend the lecture, I had wanted to interview both Director Gover and Mr. Hirsch regarding the book and its impact but despite both NMAI and my best efforts, we couldn’t quite make things work out.

Nonetheless, I decided to forge ahead with a look at this book – even though it was released last year – for a variety of reasons. Native American history is a subject very close to me, for starters, and is an era of history I feel is mostly glossed over in classrooms. The struggle of Native Americans during this country’s formation and rise to power is something that cannot be ignored and, I believe, contains lessons for our future as a nation and as a people.

So I asked NMAI for a copy of the book, eager to see what new perspectives awaited within. And…I was left wanting.

‘Indians at dedication (LOC)’
courtesy of ‘The Library of Congress’

From the book jacket:

Here, for the first time, is the little-known history of the American Indians and American presidents, what they said and felt about one another, and what their words tell us about the history of the United States.

In a nutshell, though, it’s not.

The book is separated into five chapters, plus an overlong Introduction. Each chapter focuses on an era and covers the entire span of the United States, from revolution to present day (which is to say, late 2008; there’s no look at Obama’s presidency yet, just a quick blurb about his positioning during his election run). And each chapter is written by a different historian.

I so dearly want to dive in and pull out tidbits of information, divulging them here for you to discover and chew on…but I can’t. It’s not really all that possible with this book. It reads, by and large, like a standard college history textbook. Certainly the important dates and points of various events are covered, but in general terms. And every single presidency is discussed, though very little in depth. The Native American personalities are snapshots; quick names, dates, and tribal affiliations scroll by, sometimes with a point here or there, but with little cohesion. It is, simplistically, a large timeline with small asides here and there to various presidential quotes or citations regarding their Indian policies.

‘President Garfield and his Cabinet’
courtesy of ‘Cornell University Library’

For someone who has never really followed this era of history, it’s appropriate. But it’s not engaging. This period of time is rife with emotional kindling, from families and tribes torn asunder with no respect to personal rights, to the forced “civilization” of Native children, to underhanded and greedy tactics by various people (on both sides) simply to claim land – and its natural resources. Personally, I still find Dee Brown’s excellent Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee a better perspective of the era, an emotionally charged account of various events during the nineteenth century. Because to really understand this era, these tragedies and trials, simple dates and places just don’t cut it. It’s a tale that requires an immersion of our heart and soul, in order to understand it with our mind.

And I think that’s what disappointed me the most about it – I was expecting something to further fuel speculation and thoughtful discourse, and received basically another history textbook. While Trafzer tries in the Introduction to tie all of the sections together with the common thread of the question of sovereignty, the fact is that not every chapter addresses this question. It’s a hot-button issue with all Native American nations (and has been since the first Europeans landed on America’s shores) but it remains an afterthought in this sprawling work of history.

To the book’s defense, however, it is trying to capture a very convoluted, twisted path into a cohesive package, and that’s not easy. Every tribe has its own unique dealings with the U.S. government, and its own perspectives. Not only that, every presidential administration has its own perspectives and dealings with the Native American nations; some moreso involved than others. Trying to document every single viewpoint or dealing that Natives have had with every presidential administration is a strenuous undertaking, never mind attempting to put issues on the table for dissection and discussion. In the end, the book simply tries a little too hard to stretch beyond what is a solid recounting of Presidential history regarding Native Americans.

There is some redemption within its covers. The colorful sidebars of various people, objects, and events are nice diversions from the overarching, dry text. It is here the book really shines; the sidebars are more intimate, personal, and engaging. I do wonder that if the book had more of that tone and content present, it would’ve matched up more to what I had hoped it would be.

‘”Walking Eagle”‘
courtesy of ‘Nevada Tumbleweed’

The value of understanding how much of a role Native Americans have had in our nation’s history is incalculable. Both for good and for ill, it’s tied into the soil of this country and feeds our future actions. While it’s good that books like American Indians, American Presidents: A History exist, it’s not nearly enough. They only barely scratch the surface, whetting the appetite (or overwhelming it). If you’re new to this realm of understanding, it’s a great primer. But to understand the conflict, the people, the essence? Dig deeper. You’ll find that the plight of Natives in this land will touch your heart and your soul – and both our country and our humanity will be better for it.

If you want to learn more about the people, the culture, and the continuing story of the Native Americans, your best starting place would be the National Museum of the American Indian. There’s tons of events still going on this month, so make sure you check out their Events calendar for more information.

Lyndon B. Johnson’s photographer Yoichi Okamoto disappeared behind the President to make this image. Okamoto would have been below the eye line of almost all of the reporters in the room. (LBJ Library/Yoichi Okamoto, p. 118); courtesy National Geographic

Photographs. They’re a common form of expression in media today; they’re everywhere. To many, none are more relevant or as communicative as those taken of the President of the United States. We see them every day in the paper, on websites, on television. “Pictures are worth a thousand words,” says the old adage; none more so true than those of the most powerful and important position in these United States.

But what about the men and women behind those shots? Ever wonder about them – who they are, how they do what they do, what it takes to get “that shot”? John Bredar recently published The President’s Photographer: 50 Years Inside the Oval Office. Bredar primarily chronicles Pete Souza, President Obama’s chief photographer (and former photographer for President Ronald Reagan), through the book while discussing the unique ins and outs of the position with past photographers. We managed – with National Geographic’s help (and a review copy of Brader’s book)- to catch former Presidential photographers Eric Draper and David Hume Kennerly and find out a little bit more about who some of these special and unique individuals are behind the lens.

Access to the President “behind the scenes” by photographers is, in the sense of Presidential history, only a recent development. “Do we really need someone following the President of the United States around every day with a camera?” Bredar asks in his book. When photographer Edward Steichen approached President Lyndon Johnson about it, he posed a simple question: “Just think what it would mean if we had such a photographic record of Lincoln’s presidency?”

Considered by many to be one of his iconic images— so far—Pete Souza captured a private moment between President Obama and the First Lady on a freight elevator in Washington’s convention center, Inaugural night 2009. (Pete Souza, The White House, p. 6); courtesy National Geographic

Presidential photographs have been taken, both in public and private moments, since the inception of photography. Johnson’s presidency, however, was the first to have such comprehensive coverage of his public and private life during his term, a tradition of sorts that has continued through today. Yoichi Okamato, LBJ’s chief photographer, is held up by many as the “godfather of presidential photography,” setting a high standard that every chronicler since has tried to equal. And just like photography, even getting to be in such a position can be an exercise of “right place, right time.”

Eric Draper came up through the ranks as a news photographer, with a career path that went from community and local news in a small town to national stories and then traveling the world with the Associated Press. After covering the 2000 Presidential campaign, he found himself in the right place at the right time: “When I discovered I had a shot at being [President George W.] Bush’s photographer, all I had to do was ask.”

David Hume Kennerly came up through a similar, but slightly different route to become President Gerald Ford’s photographer. “I started the old fashioned way – I went from a high school photo job, to a small paper, to the Oregonian, to a wire service (UPI), to LIFE magazine and then TIME, to chief White House photographer,” he said. After his stint with Ford, he returned to TIME and then moved on to Newsweek. “Following that path these days is a more difficult one due to the fact that many newspapers have gone out of business, and there are fewer editorial positions available.”

George W. Bush chief photographer Eric Draper’s images from 9/11 tell a riveting story. He described it as one of his hardest days as a photographer. Desperate for information that morning, President Bush takes notes while TV news coverage of the burning towers plays in the background. (Eric Draper/ George W. Bush Presidential Library, p. 172); courtesy National Geographic

The challenges these photographers face can be difficult, though Kennerly thought his position covering politics tends to be easier than other public arenas. “One of the biggest difficulties is just getting people to cooperate with a request to take their photo. In Hollywood, for instance, there are layers upon layers of people whose job it is to ‘protect’ their clients, so getting to actors for a photo shoot has a high degree of difficulty,” he responds. “They also want to own the rights or approve the photos. I don’t like working there. Politicians are easier to deal with generally, and it is one of the reasons I like covering politics.”

Bredar’s book is full of the various challenges many of the photographers have had to face, from long days to surprise schedules to sudden, world-changing events. When Draper interviewed for the job, for instance, Andy Card (Bush’s Chief of Staff) explained that “‘working at the White House is like trying to drink water through a fire hose.’” It’s easy to get exhausted only reading about Pete Souza’s routine just to capture on a daily basis those photos we take for granted every day.

The job can be physically demanding, too, a constant challenge that Draper found during his time in the White House. “It was always challenging to physically keep up with the President Bush, especially during domestic and international motorcades,” he recalled. “He walked fast and greeted people very quickly at events. I was always running and some times jumping out of moving vehicles in order to stay in the bubble.”

David Hume Kennerly made this picture the day before the Carters moved into the White House. Taking a last tour of the West Wing, Betty Ford told him she’d always wanted to dance on the Cabinet Room table. A former Martha Graham dancer, she slipped off her shoes, hopped on the table and struck a pose. (David Hume Kennerly/Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library p. 133); courtesy National Geographic

Constantly on the go – and on call 24/7 – these men and women behind the camera tend to wear several photographic hats, from portraiture to candid. Adaptability is essential, though each has their own favorite approach. “I’ve never been that good at staging photos and much prefer shooting events or situations as they unfold,” says Kennerly. “I’m always looking for that moment that reveals something about a person’s character in the context of what they are doing.”

Draper agreed. “Some days I would be a portrait photographer. Other days a I would be a documentary photographer. When the President would ride his mountain bike at the ranch I felt like a sports photographer,” he said. “Some situations I had to control like a movie director telling the President and a visiting world leader where to stand and what to do. Once the posed photos were out of the way I could fade into the background and become the fly on the wall and capture real storytelling moments.”

Both Draper and Kennerly told me that objectivity was essential, regardless of what hat they wore. “I’ve always tried to keep my personal opinions out of affecting my photos. It may be ‘Old School,’ but it’s the way I was brought up in the business,” says Kennerly. Their job is that of a chronicler for future history, which requires setting aside personal opinions and focusing on the events within the President’s bubble.

Draper recalled a moment during his time with Bush that summed up his approach, the day the President made the decision to commit troops to Iraq. “I followed the President from the Situation Room where he had just made the decision out to the South Lawn,” he said. “I could see the emotion in his face. His eyes were red from holding back tears. I waited while he walked the entire circle of the South Lawn drive with his two dogs. I made the image of him walking towards me then he spoke to me. ‘Eric, are you interested in history?’ Shaking in my shoes I replied, ‘Yes sir.’ He said, ‘The photos you taking right now are very important.’ Just has he said those words Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld walked out to meet the President in front of the Oval Office door.”

President Obama has said this is one of his favorite photos. White House staffer Carlton Philadelphia brought his family in to meet the President, and at one point, his son declared that he’d been told that he and the President had the same haircut. President Obama bent over so the child could get a better look. (Pete Souza, The White House, p. 24); courtesy National Geographic

“A picture is worth a thousand words, but most Presidents are going to be a lot more candid if the broader public can’t hear those words,” says Bredar in the introduction to his book. The still image is still the most powerful one, he argues, and the camera the least intrusive to record our surroundings. It also allows the photographer to ignore and omit the conversations occurring around them as they record history. Kennerly said “Working discreetly around people is one of the keys [to being successful in this job]. It’s especially important that you not talk about conversations overheard during shooting ‘behind the scenes’ assignments, particularly sharing that information with reporters. A photographer is akin to a lawyer—privileged information needs to stay in the room.”

The President’s photographer is therefore not a journalist nor a reporter. They are ’silent archivists,’ recording time as it plays out on the Presidential stage – both the personal and the public. Says Souza in the book’s Forward, “I usually tell my friends that, following in the footsteps of those who came before me, I am trying to make timeless photographs that people can look back upon in 50 years. But I recently listened to a long-ago presentation by Okamoto when…he said not 50 years but 500 years. Wow! I thought. Imagine someone combing through my photographs on President Obama in 2510. That really makes me realize that this is visual history I am recording with my camera. I will do my best to take that to heart every day.”

Tomorrow night, National Geographic is holding a private screening their new television special, The President’s Photographer, which will air publicly on Wed, Nov. 24 on PBS (check local listings). The short film, which shadows chief White House photographer Pete Souza, ties into Bredar’s book and will be followed by an open discussion with Bredar and several past White House photographers, including Eric Draper, Robert McNeely, and David Valdez. The event is sold out.

At noon on Thursday Sept 30, Emil Draitser will be discussing his latest book, Stalin’s Romeo Spy, at the International Spy Museum. The discussion and book signing is free.

In the 1930s, Dmitri Bystrolyotov was handsome, fluent in several languages, a sailor, doctor, lawyer, and artist. He was also a spy for Josef Stalin and the Soviet Union. A charmer, he seduced many women in Europe – including a French diplomat, the wife of a British official, and a Gestapo officer – to discover their countries’ secrets for the Soviets. Caught up in Stalin’s purges in 1938, he then spent twenty years in the Gulag and came face-to-face with the true regime for which he had once spied.

Author Emil Draitser was a former journalist in the Soviet Union and now a professor at Hunter College in New York. He shared a little about Bystrolyotov and some of the more fascinating facts of Stalin’s “Romeo Spy.”

‘Soviet’
courtesy of ‘Katie@!’

Stalin’s Romeo Spy was more formally known as Dmitri Bystrolyotov. What was a ‘Romeo Spy’ and what qualities made him such a great one?

Draitser: ‘Romeo spy’ is a term for a spy who uses his male charms to seduce and recruit a foreign woman to become either an agent or an accomplice in getting security-sensitive information. As Bystrolyotov told me when we met, at the time of his operation in the West, he was “young, good-looking and knew how to treat a lady.” He was brought up in an aristocratic family, and that provided him with skills of highly respectful, thus very seductive, skills of relating to women. Among those who succumbed to his charms were a French Embassy employee in Prague, a wife of a British Foreign Office functioner, and an SS-Hauptscharfuhrer. His seduction of the last one was especially done masterfully, for the woman was disfigured from childhood, and pretending to fall for her looks was impossible without raising suspicion.

What kind of information was Bystrolyotov able to provide to his handlers over the years?

Draitser: Several key bits of information -

1) Czechoslovakian cutting-edge technology, armament potential, and foreign policy,

2) Diplomatic secrets, codes and ciphers of Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and other countries,

3) A list of French Nazi sympathizers recruited by German military intelligence (Abwehr) around 1935,

4) French intelligence data on German war preparation and intelligence network in the mid-30s,

5) A special delivery correspondence between Hitler and Count Costanzo Ciano Sr., the secret designee to replace Mussolini in case of his sudden demise, in 1934,

6) Samples of Italian weaponry and gas protection gear for examination by Soviet military experts in 1935,

7) Hitler’s four-year plan of rearmament of Germany in 1935, and

8) Military and industrial capabilities of French African territories from 1935-36.

Besides being a great spy, Bystrolyotov was also quite a Renaissance man. What were some of his more impressive accomplishments?

Draitser: He wrote two novels, two screenplays, and 12 volumes of memoirs. He also produced a number of painting and drawings, samples of which could be found on the book website.

At the height of Stalin’s purges, Bystrolyotov was arrested and tortured. What effect did this have on him both physically and mentally?

Draitser: They crushed his teeth and permanently injured his ribs, two of which had to be removed later on surgically. He had scars of beating on his stomach. He suffered from high blood pressure and periodic heart failure. But he was a man of tremendous will power and high spirit. His camp experienced made him realize the true nature of Stalinism which he equalized with Nazism.

You had the opportunity to meet Bystrolyotov in the years before his death. Which of the many his faces was one you had the pleasure of meeting?

Draitser: During our meeting, he was charming and cultivated me as a possible depositor of his life story, which he couldn’t make public in his time and in his country. Three decades later, his calculations that some day the world will know about his life proved to be right.

Tomorrow at noon, meet author Malcom Nance as he discusses his latest book An End to Al Qaeda at the International Spy Museum. The author seminar and book signing is free to the public.

A 27-year intelligence and combat veteran of modern counterterrorism warfare, Nance lays out a comprehensive plan that would defeat Al Qaeda in less than twenty-four months without a single violent military action. His proposals include waging a war against the fear Al Qaeda has stoked, drastically reducing heavy military operations that kill civilians in the process, and relying more heavily on counterintelligence to root out terrorist groups.

‘Transporting Supplies in Afghanistan’
courtesy of ‘isafmedia’

Your book argues that one of the major failures of the war against Al Qaeda has been in the war of ideas. How do you define Al Qaeda ideologically?

Nance: Ideologically, Al Qaeda are a religious cult. They are not a legitimate religious-based resistance or political movement. Like many other cults they are led by a charismatic leader who has reinterpreted a mainstream religion to suit his personal beliefs. That means Al Qaeda has all the legitimacy of Soko Asihara’s Aum Shinrikyo of Japan or Jim Jones’ People’s Temple in Guyana. They have just been more successful in operating on a global scale. Unfortunately, because their beliefs are based on a global religion practiced by 1.5 billion people, they have been misclassified as just another extremist faction within Islam. This is a fundamentally flawed. My book details the mass of doctrinal evidence, that is taken from al Qaeda’s own statements and writings, that Al Qaeda’s ideology is in direct conflict with traditional Islam. Their doctrines and practices are outside the fringes of even the most radical fundamentalist practices of Islam including the fundamentalist practices of Wahabism and Salafism in Saudi Arabia. One of our biggest mistakes is confronting them as if they had military, religious and political legitimacy and acting as if Bin Laden was the spokesman for the Muslim world.

Al Qaeda operatives are foot soldiers of a cultist view that traditional Islam itself must be destroyed. Al Qaeda members believe that the Muslim world must reengineered into a militant force of 1.5 billion suicide martyrs who will then defeat democracy in a clash of civilizations. Muslims the world round have rejected these beliefs as unIslamic but we never listen to their rejections.

Al Qaeda operates on a cult philosophy best called Bin Ladenism. This is the sole operating philosophy that combines the beliefs of numerous radical ideologues and strategists such as Ibn Wahab, Sayyid Qutb, Mohammad Faraj, Abdullah Azzam, Omar al-Rahman, Al-Suri, Maqdisi, and Ayman al Zawahiri et al into the mission of destroying traditional Islam and obligating all Muslims to wage a perpetual holy war against the rest of the world to establish a new Islamic caliphate. The core component of that war is that all must sacrifice their lives to win the world for Bin Laden’s version of Islam.

The Saudi government, Al Qaeda’s most hated foes, refer to them derisively as neo-Salafists or more plainly, un-Islamic heretics. Note: Al Qaeda views the most ardently religious, ultra orthodox Saudi as a raging libertines.

‘Joint Resupply Mission in Southern Afghanistan’
courtesy of ‘isafmedia’

One of your keys to defeating Al Qaeda is something you refer to as “counter-ideological warfare.” What and how is this implemented?

Nance: Counter-ideological operations and warfare (CIDOW) is a form of information warfare where the ideological tenets of an enemy, in this case an illegitimate religious cult, are attack with all means of both hard and soft power using the entire spectrum of diplomatic, intelligence, information, military and economic power. Since 9/11 this field has been entirely ignored or misused to influence mainly the American public about the success in the war on terror. In misusing CIDOW, Al Qaeda has been given 10 years to cultivate its target market, convert and recruit people who would, with the facts at hand normally reject their murderous message as legitimate. CIDOW targets the real center of gravity of this group. It destroys the legitimacy of ‘why they fight’ and forces them to confront and explain their own illogical actions.

If the United States were to place CIDOW on an equal level with kinetic military operations (much in the same way that the Defense Department places tactical psychological operations in its battle plans) the meaning of why AQ fights would be damaged to the point that they would be forced to not only withdraw from the cyber battlespace, where their viral propaganda, supporters and messages go unhindered. Today AQ views and projects themselves to their constituency as happy romantic religious warriors who can take a righteous battle to their American foes for God. However, if they were more accurately described as the corrupt cult of one man who actively seeks to destroy traditional Islam and kill anyone including any Muslim man woman or child who gets in their way; that would destroy their base of support. Al Qaeda themselves has warned that should America get wise to this game they could be “crushed in the shadows.”

Are there any historical examples you would cite as a successful model for this tactic?

Nance: Yes, the “sahwah” or Awakening campaign against Al Qaeda in Iraq by the Iraqi Ba’athists insurgents in 1986 2006, was a spontaneous uprising against what Al Qaeda believed in and why they were fighting. The Iraqi insurgents were formerly privileged Sunni Muslims with a high level of education that fought the US forces in an effort to resist an invasion and occupation. However, AQ’s senior leadership, after being convinced by Abu Mussab al Zarqawi saw Iraq as the new central battlefront to defeat the American army in the heart of the Islamic world and thus inspire a pan-Islamic jihad. Until the AQI members started killing ex-Ba’athists tribal leaders and imposing their radical ideology on the Sunnah community, the insurgents were happy to let them attack the American forces. Once the Sunnah insurgents saw their traditional way of life and tribal structures under attack by the Bin Ladenists, they decided that working with the Americans and Shia’s was better. With their assistance AQI was decisively defeated in less than a year. Done right, we could reproduce these results across the world in 24 months of operations. It would not be the beginning of the end; it would be the end of AQ.

‘Insurgents Lay Down Weapons’
courtesy of ‘isafmedia’

After the recent events at Abu Ghraib, the inability to close Guantanamo, and the ongoing torture argument, how difficult will it be for the US to retake the high ground in this debate against Al Qaeda?

Nance: It is critical to have mutual respect between the Muslim world and the West for each party to achieve their own defensive goals. The Muslim world should be given the opportunity to revisit our grievance for the 9/11 attacks and the errors which angered them must be heard with serious regret. But to do that we must reset the bar on how America is seen by the Muslim world. We can also use CIDOW to put forward the image of what America is and who Americans are truly. Right now Bin Laden is better at defining America though our missteps.

AQ is an existential threat to Islam but getting this message across means re-framing who we are and what we believe. We also have to help the Islamic world get past Abu Ghraieb and Guantanamo by owning up to transgressions such as torture. We have the same goals as the Muslims, get rid of this infectious virus that could expand and topple Islamic traditions. However, before we can begin a major CIDOW campaign we need to allow that our past actions may have been rash. A simple apology could undo a decade of damage but many Americans still feel nothing wrong was done by choosing torture or war as a first option. Al Qaeda relies on American reticence and violence to spread their ideological virus to men like Major Hassan, Omar Farouk Abu Muttalab and other non-traditional converts like Jihad Jane.

This Saturday, Charlie Higson will be signing copies of his latest work in the Young James Bond series, By Royal Command. Higson collaborated with Ian Fleming (creator of the British superspy James Bond) to plant the seeds of how James went from being a regular schoolboy to the world-renown Agent 007 of Britain’s secret service.

Higson is a prolific British actor, comedian, and author. His television credits range from writing and performing in BBC comedies such as The Fast Show, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased), and Swiss Toni. Before tackling the young Bond series, Higson wrote four other novels in the early to mid 1990s: King of the Ants, Happy Now, Full Whack, and Getting Rid of Mister Kitchen.

The Young Bond novels are aimed at younger readers, concentrating on James’ school days at Eton. There are currently five in the series; Silver Fin was released in the U.S. in April 2005, followed by Blood Fever, Double or Die, and Hurricane Gold. His latest, By Your Command, was released in hardcover in the U.K. in late 2008 and only recently arrived in the U.S. through Hyperion Press. He has since written The Enemy, a young adult horror novel, currently released in the U.K.

The International Spy Museum is hosting Charlie Higson for an author signing this Saturday from 2 – 4 p.m. The museum shared with WeLoveDC a recent interview they had with Higson about his latest Bond novel.

‘Fleming, Ian Fleming’
courtesy of ‘Paul Baack’

How did you come to write the young James Bond series?

James Bond first appeared in a series of books written by Ian Fleming nearly 60 years ago, and although Fleming died some time back his family still look after the character he created. It was their idea to do series of books about Bond’s early life and they spoke to a number of writers about the project, both adult thriller writers and established children’s authors. I’d written some crime books that they knew about and they knew I was big Bond fan and had three boys of the right age so they checked me out and luckily they chose me, for which I will be eternally grateful. To be allowed to play in the world of Bond is a real honor and a thrill.

How much did Ian Fleming leave behind as clues for the life of the young Bond?

Very little, Fleming wanted to create the ultimate fantasy figure, a guy that all guys would want to be, so he didn’t tie him down with a boring domestic life, Bond lives in hotels, eats in restaurants, travels the world and seems to have no family or friends. It’s only in one of the last books – You only live twice – that Fleming tells us anything about his early life, when Bond goes missing presumed dead and an obituary is printed in the Times newspaper. This tells us briefly about Bond’s family and schooldays and was really all I had to go on.

What challenges did having Bond grow up in the 1930s pose to the writing?

I obviously had to do a lot of research to get the details right, but the time was so interesting that it gave me lots of plot ideas. There was a lot of political unrest in Europe at the time with the rise of fascism and communism, there was lots of plotting and counter-plotting going on so it was perfect for James Bond to get involved in. It was a great backdrop and there was a lot of space to go off and have wild adventures.

Which of the six actors to play Bond on screen would best represent the future of the young Bond in your opinion?

You know there’s a little bit of all of them. The toughness and charisma of Sean Connery, the old school upper class charm of Roger Moore, the seriousness of Timothy Dalton, the suaveness and style of Pierce Brosnan and the bruiser appeal of Daniel Craig. I guess the only one not in there is poor old George Lazenby. In the end though my Bond grows up to be Fleming’s Bond, the guy from the original books, who is different to the screen Bond in many ways.

Like

Unlike

Gail Harris was assigned by the U.S. Navy to a combat intelligence job in 1973, becoming the first woman to hold such a position. When she retired at the end of 2001, she was the highest ranking African American female in the Navy; her career spanned 28 years of leadership in the intelligence community, from the Cold War to Desert Storm to Kosovo. Her last challenge was in developing policy for the Computer Network Defense and Computer Network Attack for the Department of Defense. She recently authored A Woman’s War: The Professional and Personal Journey of the Navy’s First African American Female Intelligence Officer and will be at a special program at the International Spy Museum tomorrow night at 6:30 p.m. She’ll share her unique experience and perspective in providing intelligence support to military operations while also battling the status quo, office bullies, and politics.

After the jump, a brief Q&A between the International Spy Museum and Gail Harris.

‘Uniformity 2′
courtesy of ‘Kevin H.’

From the age of five, you expressed a desire to be an Naval Intelligence Officer. How did you come to this decision at such a young age?

I was watching a WWII themed movie called Wing and a Prayer with my father. After watching a character played by the actor, Don Ameche, give the pilots on the USS Enterprise an intelligence brief, I decided then and there to be a Naval Intelligence Officer working with aviators. I can only describe it as an inner knowing that never went away. As corny as it sounds, I KNEW that was what I was meant to do.

You have been involved in military conflicts all over the world; what stands out as the most dramatic moment of your military career?

This is really hard. I’ve spent a couple of days thinking about it. There is no one dramatic moment just a series of moments. Every assignment had tremendous dramatic highs and lows. From my first assignment when I could provide the flight crews information that would allow them to find and track Soviet submarines carrying ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads en route positions off U.S. coasts. We needed to keep track of them in the event the Cold War ever went Hot. We had to be in a position to destroy them before they could launch their missiles. During my second assignment where I was part of the Seventh Fleet Intelligence Staff, when we were able to warn our aircraft carriers when the Soviet Union was sending airplanes, ships, or submarines to track them. During the first Gulf War where I briefed flight crews of what threats to avoid such as surface to air missiles or artillery as they carried out their mission. During my last assignment when I had to convince many in the intelligence community that cyberwarfare was a real threat and the intelligence community had a major role to play. It was all dramatic. The lows where when I came up short.

One of your assignments for the Defense Department included intelligence support for the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, South Korea. This task involved extensive coordination with U.S. and South Korean military, intelligence, and civil agencies. What kind of challenges did this pose, given all the cultural differences and jurisdictional issues?

Actually this was one of my easier tasks. The United States and South Korea have a very good and long standing military to military relationship. My Deputy was a South Korean Colonel for instance and I had other South Korean military men as well as U.S. troops working for me. All of this made the coordination relatively easy. Additionally the South Koreans wanted the Olympics to be a big success so they were more than happy to give me all of the support I needed. I didn’t have any problem with the Korean law enforcement agencies either. Everyone acted as one team. As for the jurisdictional issues, it was never a problem, we intelligence types focused on any potential threat that North Korea or terrorists might make to disrupt the games and the law enforcement types focused on civil disputes. We set up systems to share information and keep each other in the loop.

‘Philco 212 wiring’
courtesy of ‘Marcin Wichary’

One of your last assignments dealt with the issue of cyber warfare. Where did you see our overall preparedness in regards to digital security upon retirement and where do you see it now?

At the time of my retirement, we were able to make some necessary beginning steps but were not prepared to fend off a major cyber attack. What we had done was focus on three areas. We developed an intelligence collection plan for the intelligence community. The purpose of an intelligence collection plan is to tell people what type of information needs to be collected to determine the capabilities potential enemies have to use cyber warfare. We also set up a system to determine under what circumstances would the intelligence community put out intelligence reports. It sounds like a no-brainer but no one had worked on that issue. Finally we developed agreed upon procedures to share information using the same or interoperable data bases. This was no small thing in that many of the larger intelligence organizations did not want outside organizations to have access to their computers and/or data. In spite of this we still were a long way off from being able to combat a cyber attack.

Today there are still major problems and I believe a cyber Pearl Harbor is possible if we don’t get out. For instance, United States Strategic Command is the Department of Defense lead for cyber warfare. They are only responsible for defense of military computers. U.S. Homeland Defense is responsible for defense of government computers and can call on Strategic Command as needed but there is no one organization responsible for all of government and all of the civilian infrastructure. Currently our cyber defense gurus can detect and deal with a cyber attack once it happens but they cannot detect an attack ahead of time. In military terms we need to develop a situational awareness capability where we can see the attack coming and prevent it.

Your book is inspiring on a number of levels and to just about every audience. What do you hope people take away most from your story?

I hope for three things. That people have a better understanding of how all of the intelligence community works not just the CIA, one of 16 organizations. As part of that I hope they appreciate the thousands of people many in their late teens and early 20’s who watch our back 24/7. These are truly unsung heroes. Second I hope to encourage young people to choose intelligence as a professional. Finally I want to encourage everyone to follow their dreams. My dream appeared to be impossible for many reasons, yet I followed in spite of the odds and lived everyone of my dreams except one…I never got to walk across the deck of an aircraft carrier in the rain with “Anchors Aweigh” playing the background.

Tickets are still available for this event at $12.50 per person. Contact the Spy Museum for more information at 202.393.7798.

Tomorrow at noon, the International Spy Museum is having a lunchtime discussion with journalist Shane Harris on his new book, The Watchers: The Rise of America’s Surveillance State. In his new book, Harris tracks the government’s elusive quest to build a computer system that can sift huge amounts of electronic data for signs of terrorist activity. First proposed by national security adviser John Poindexter in 1983, reopened after the 9/11 attacks in a program called Total Information Awareness (TIA), and publicly banned by Congress in 2003, TIA was recreated as a classified program at the National Security Agency and is now a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s national security policy. Drawing on unprecedented access to the people who pioneered this high-tech spycraft, Harris contends that despite billions of dollars spent on this digital quest since the Reagan era, the government still can’t discern future threats in the vast data cloud, but can now spy on its citizens with an ease that was impossible and illegal just a few years ago.

A quick interview with the author after the jump.

‘Spy School’
courtesy of ‘Ghost_Bear’

Who are the Watchers?

SH: The Watchers are five men who’ve played extraordinary roles in building, and in some cases tearing down, computer systems that can ingest and analyze huge amounts of electronic information about terrorist threats. Their quest is to “connect the dots” about future threats to the United States. Most of these men have worked behind the secretive veil of the intelligence community at some point in their career, but they all share a common thread: their most important work became the subject of intense public scrutiny, which is rare in the spy world.

Chief among the Watchers is retired Admiral John Poindexter, the narrative protagonist of the book. The story begins with him as deputy national security adviser to Ronald Regan in 1983. After a terrorist attack on Marines in Beirut, Poindexter set out to build a system that could detect the signals of impending crises in the databases of government intelligence. He continued that quest after the 9/11 attacks with a controversial program called Total Information Awareness. The other Watchers are Michael Hayden, the one-time director of the National Security Agency; Mike McConnell, ex-director of national intelligence; a software designer named Jeff Jonas, who worked briefly with Poindexter and then became one of his most prominent skeptics; and a former Army major named Erik Kleinsmith, who was the lead analyst on a secret data-mining program code named Able Danger, which may have detected the presence of Al Qaeda operatives in the United States months before September 11, 2001.

So who’s watching the Watchers, then?

SH: We have a new generation of Watchers today, and I’m sad to say that they’re mostly watching themselves. The system of oversight we’ve set up in the United States, which is supposed to provide some check on executive surveillance authority, gives tremendous deference to the intelligence agencies to collect information on just about anyone they choose. While there are significant checks to guard against unwarranted monitoring of American citizens’ phone calls or email exchanges, they’re not sufficient for our current data-driven world, in which there are few meaningful impediments–technological or legal–to acquiring information about people. One way or another, the government can get this data. And often, it’s the seemingly innocuous information that is the most revealing. For example, you can learn more about a person’s day-to-day activities and his personal connections by examining his phone logs than by actually listening in on his phone conversations. The former class of data is, legally and technically, easier to get than the latter. The government knows this.

But perhaps we shouldn’t be so concerned about the government’s massive collection capabilities. We live in an era of accessible information, after all. And for the most part, people like that, because it helps us communicate, move about, and shop more easily. Our laws are mostly focused on collecting data, rather than what government agencies actually do with it behind closed doors. And that’s where we need to pay more attention. We should set up new rules for how the Watchers use information about us. We should employ technology to keep tabs on them. We should, in fact, start watching the Watchers with the very same tools they use to watch us.

‘Hi-tech hedge’
courtesy of ‘mattwi1s0n’

Is Admiral John Poindexter the new Dr. Strangelove? Or, to put a modern spin on it, should we learn to stop worrying and love Big Brother?

SH: It’s tempting to think of him that way. And when I first met him, I was expecting an evil genius character straight out of Cold War fiction. But I quickly realized that he is far more rational, thoughtful, and decent than his most ardent critics have portrayed him. I don’t propose that we stop worrying about Big Brother–but neither does John Poindexter. In fact, when he conceived of his Total Information Awareness system after 9/11, privacy-protecting technologies were at its core. He imagined a system in which all identifying features of the data–names, locations, etc.–would be encrypted, so that an analyst using a TIA program would not know the identities of the people underlying all the information on his screen. If the analyst could form some basis of reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a person in the data was engaged in terrorist plot, then the government would have to get a judge’s approval to “unlock” the encryption and see who was really behind that anonymous information. It was a radical proposal, and it would have built a tangible measure of privacy protection into government surveillance. Sadly, when the Congress pulled the public funding on Poindexter’s programs, and shifted them into the classified intelligence budget, they did not continue the research on privacy. That was a mistake.

Who came up with the idea for the all seeing eye pyramid in Information Awareness Office (IAO) logo? Clever design or Masonic plot?

SH: Not a clever design, definitely not a plot. Robert Popp, Poindexter’s deputy, came up with it. He’d been going back and forth with an artist, whose designs had left Popp uninspired. As Popp told me, his secretary came into his office to deliver a sandwich from a nearby deli. She put the sandwich and Popp’s change down on his desk. Popp looked over and saw a $1 bill, with the Great Seal on the back–a pyramid topped by a large eye. He had a kind of eureka moment. The eye would stand for the letter I in Information Awareness Office. The pyramid was in the shape of an A. So, he had the first two letters of the acronym. For the O, Popp thought, what better symbol than a globe? Global vision, global security, global awareness. So, “IAO” became an eye atop a pyramid casting its gaze over the world. Popp ran the idea by Poindexter–he liked it. To this day, Poindexter doesn’t see why people reacted so strongly to the image, why they found it so menacing and ominous. I’ve explained the reasons to him several times. He doesn’t agree.

What should be learned from the case of the “underpants bomber” about the progress of the Watchers?

SH: I’m afraid this case tells us the Watchers are losing ground on their fundamental goal. The government has become very good at collecting the dots about terrorism, but not at connecting them. The Watchers always believed they had to do both. But in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it became easier to amass huge databases of information than to build sophisticated tools for making sense of that data. This latter challenge has always been harder, and our intelligence agencies are still struggling with it.

This author debriefing and book signing happens at the International Spy Museum at noon on Thursday, Feb. 18. It is free and open to the public.

Like

Unlike

“Certain death lay ahead if the least hint of my intended desertion got about.”—Igor Gouzenko

In September 1945, a cipher clerk named Igor Gouzenko walked out of the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa, Canada with secret papers and a plan. For Western intelligence, Gouzenko’s defection, and the layered information he shared, ushered in a new era of cooperation against a common foe. Tonight, join Amy Knight, author of How the Cold War Began: The Gouzenko Affair and the Hunt for Soviet Spies, to hear her ground-breaking findings. She was the first to explore recently de-classified records of the Gouzenko case in Canada, Britain, and the United States.

Ms. Knight is a well-known specialist on Soviet/Russian intelligence; in addition to her discussion, guests will also have a chance to see artifacts on loan from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service related to the case. The event is co-sponsored by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Embassy of Canada in celebration of the 25th anniversary of CSIS and in recognition of the collaborative and enduring security relationship between the United States and Canada.

A brief Q&A with Ms. Knight, after the jump.

Who was Igor Gouzenko, and why did he defect?

Igor Gouzenko was a code clerk for the GRU, Soviet military counterintelligence, in Ottawa, Canada. He defected in September 1945 with a large number of secret documents by turning himself in to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Gouzenko’s defection had a huge impact, contributing to the growing Cold War between the Soviets and the West because he had clear proof that the Soviets had an extensive espionage operation in North America.

Beyond the documents Gouzenko defected with, how did the western intelligence agencies utilize him afterward?

Gouzenko’s training as a cipher clerk as such did not offer any unique technical opportunities to learn more about Soviet espionage, but his broader knowledge about what the Soviets were up to was seen as invaluable to western intelligence. However, his use to the west gradually declined because his knowledge became outdated. He lived with his large family under an alias in a town near Toronto and became very embittered with Canadian authorities, who he thought did not treat him fairly. The Soviets never attempted to go after Gouzenko, as far as I know. Stalin reportedly ordered that Gouzenko be left alone because an act of retribution would make the Soviets look bad.

Defector: Igor Gouzenko and the Start of the Cold War begins tonight at 6:30 p.m. at the International Spy Museum. Tickets are $12.50 and may be purchased online or in person.

Like

Unlike

This fall marks the 100 year anniversary of the founding of MI5, Britain’s counter-intelligence and security agency. As a celebration of the agency’s storied success since its inception at the turn of the 20th century, the service has authorized the publication of an official history by Professor Christopher Andrew of Cambridge University. This Thursday, November 12, the public is invited to meet with the author as he discusses his new book Defend the Realm: The Authorized History of MI5 (here’s the Kindle link) at the International Spy Museum from noon to 1 p.m. Attendance is free.

Prof. Andrew reveals the precise role of MI5 in twentieth-century British history: from its foundation in 1909, through two world wars, and its present roles in counterespionage and counterterrorism. He describes how MI5 has been managed, what its relationship has been with government, where it has triumphed, and where it has failed. Defend the Realm also reveals the identities of previously unknown enemies of the United Kingdom whose activities have been uncovered by the agency and adds significantly to our knowledge of many celebrated events and notorious individuals while laying to rest a number of persistent myths.

A brief chat with Professor Andrew after the jump.

‘Cabinet War Rooms’
courtesy of ‘avinashkunnath’

Your book has been billed as the “authorized history of MI5.” Did you really have unrestricted access?

While writing the book I was made a member of MI5. The jacket shows me entering MI5 HQ, the first such photo ever authorized. I was given unrestricted access to all the 20th century files I asked to see. Even when the contents could not be quoted, I was anxious to try to ensure that conclusions based on files which could be cited were not contradicted by files too sensitive to quote

The British government historically has not been very favorable toward the public transparency of its intelligence agencies. Is this book as a watershed event?

I think so. Until 1992 the British government refused to admit it had a foreign intelligence service (MI6). MI5 did not even begin releasing its WWI files until 1997.

One-hundred years creates a lot of paper. How did you manage this monumental task?

I had wonderful part-time researchers based in both MI5 HQ and at Cambridge. We were, I hope, able to identify the main priorities in the files–and to interview a large number of former MI5 staff

Were there any particular mysteries you set out to solve?

Lots! I think I’ve identified an MI5 agent who succeeded in an operation even James Bond wouldn’t have attempted. And I hope I’ve shown that some of MI5’s first double agents (one of the areas where it’s had greatest success) were American.

In this country when intelligence crisis or failures occur, the idea of creating an American MI5 emerges. What advice would you give us?

In Britain separating the police force from the security service (which has no power of arrest) is seen as important. But the US has a different constitution and what works for the UK isn’t necessarily the best solution for the USA. What is important is that the two intelligence communities continue to work closely together in the era of transnational islamist terrorism as during WWII and the Cold War. Few Americans, I think, realise that J Edgar Hoover was an honorary British knight (‘Sir J Edgar Hoover’, though as a US citizen he could never call himself that)!

Like

Unlike

At noon this Thursday at the International Spy Museum, Jennet Conant will discuss the exploits of one of Britain’s key agents of the “Baker Street Irregulars,” a group of agents formed under the British Security Coordination. The BSC was created by Winston Churchill as the British mounted a massive, secret campaign of propaganda and political subversion to weaken isolationist sentiment in America and manipulate Washington into entering the war against Germany.

Conant will discuss at this special author’s discussion the exploits of Roald Dahl from his book The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington. Beloved now for his books Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and James and the Giant Peach, in WWII Dahl used his dazzling imagination for espionage purposes. His dashing good looks and easy charm won him access to the ballrooms and bedrooms of America’s rich and powerful, and to the most important prize of all—intelligence.

The author took a moment to answer some questions posed by the Museum.

‘I spy with my Metro eye …..’
courtesy of ‘christaki’

Your title “Irregulars” refers to a fascinating group of British agents in Washington during World War II? These agents run by William Stephenson included figures such as David Ogilvy, Ian Fleming, and Ivar Bryce. Why choose to focus on Roald Dahl?

I chose Dahl because unlike Ogilvy and Fleming he never wrote about his years as a spy and I believe very few people knew about this fascinating chapter of his life until my book out. Also, he was tall, handsome, and charming, exceptionally witty and bright, at times bitingly sarcastic, as well as being a very badly-behaved bachelor in his day. In short, just about perfect from a writer’s point of view.

Why did the British intentionally recruit authors for espionage?

The BSC didn’t just recruit authors for espionage—they tapped actors (such as Leslie Howard and Marlene Dietrich), directors and producers (Alexander and Zoltan Korda), singers (Noel Coward), even magicians (Oskar Maskelyne)–anyone skilled in the art of seduction, deception and manipulation. As it happens, authors—from the likes of C.S. Forester and A.A. Milne to Dahl–were a cut above the average copy writer and could churn out particularly good propaganda. Authors were also naturally good agents, born with a beguiling manner that invited confidences, an eye for telling detail, an ear for juicy gossip. Also, having a famous byline provided natural cover, and allowed the authors to discreetly gather and pass on information without revealing their true agenda. With their country’s survival at stake, the British brought out their big guns, literally and figuratively.

How effective was Dahl as a British agent in DC?

Dahl’s effectiveness as an agent might be debatable, but there is no denying that he was a real operator. One has to admire the speed with which he managed to ingratiate himself with the highest levels of Washington political and society, from Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Vice President Henry Wallace, and political up-and-comers from Lyndon Johnson to Harry Truman, who became his regular poker buddy. He had access to very high level political chit chat, all of which he piped straight back to his bosses in London. Dahl’s intelligence was just one of hundreds of sources that flowed into the BSC, but it added up to a tidal wave of information.

The debate continues to rage over who was the inspiration for Ian Fleming’s James Bond. Who was the inspiration for Dahl’s Willy Wonka?

I think Dahl himself is the wide-eyed Willy, but there is a school of thought that the character of the fantastically rich, powerful owner of the Chocolate Factory is based on Charles Marsh, the Texas newspaper tycoon who befriends Dahl during the war and becomes his lifelong friend and patron.

Join Jennet Conant from noon to 1 p.m. on Thursday, Sept 23 at the International Spy Museum. Tickets are free.

Like

Unlike

In 1993, former KGB officer Alexander Vassiliev was permitted unique access to Stalin-era records of Soviet intelligence operations against the United States. Vassiliev subsequently shared the notes he took with Library of Congress historian John Earl Haynes and Emory University professor Harvey Klehr. Together they have written an extraordinarily detailed and shocking account of the KGB’s espionage successes in America, including penetrations of American government and industry at the highest levels. The authors expose Soviet spy tactics and techniques and shed new light on many controversial issues, including Alger Hiss’s cooperation with Soviet intelligence, KGB recruitment of muckraking journalist I.F. Stone, and Ernest Hemingway’s meetings with KGB agents. Join John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, authors of Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, at a special free lunchtime chat and booksigning event at the International Spy Museum on Thursday, August 20 from noon to 1 p.m. (No tickets required.)

A special Q&A with the authors after the jump.

Q: At one time, your work on Venona led to the identification of approximately 350 Americans having a “covert relationship” with the Soviet Union and that only half of which were ever identified. Have those number shifted significantly over the years?

The KGB documents recorded in Alexander Vassiliev’s notebooks provides real names for 72 of the cover names in the deciphered Venona cables which the FBI could not connect to a real person. However, the notebooks also refer to several dozen other Soviet intelligence contacts in the U.S. where only a cover name is given and no real name provided. So, the number of unidentified is down considerably, by about 50, but a significant number remain.

Q: What in your opinion was the single greatest success of Soviet Intelligence within the US?

Easily the greatest success for Soviet intelligence was its atomic espionage. In developed a number of excellent sources in both the American and the partner British atomic program. In the U.S. the most important sources were Klaus Fuchs and Theodore Hall at Los Alamos with lesser but still significant sources being Russell McNutt and George Koval at Oak Ridge and David Greenglass at Los Alamos. In Britain the KGB developed two excellent sources, Melita Norwood and the physicist  Engelbert Broda. And Fuchs was first recruited in Britain and continued to spy for the USSR after he returned to Britain from his assignment at Los Alamos.

Q: Debates still rage over figures such as Oppenheimer or I.F. Stone being spies? Where do you draw the line from conversation to complicity? And were they?

Oppenheimer was a leading target of KGB recruitment starting in 1942 because of his secret membership in the Communist Party. But the KGB never succeeded in even contacting him. It was not until late 1945 that the KGB believed the information from several of its sources who knew Oppenheimer that he had not only dropped out of the Communist Party in  1942 but by 1945 was strongly advocating American atomic policies that were incompatible with Soviet goals. By 1950 Oppenheimer was on a roster of “leading reactionary scientists” to be discredited in a KGB disinformation campaign.

As for Stone, the Vassiliev notebooks show that he was recruited in 1936 and assisted the KGB until late 1938 and perhaps into 1939 but then sometime in 1939 the connection was broken. The KGB attempted to re-recruit him in late 1944 but the evidence is unclear on whether this re-recruitment was successful. As a journalist (and a young one in the 1930s, Stone had no access to government or technical secrets. But the KGB like to recruit journalists to undertake other espionage tasks, tasks that are essential for a successful spying operation but not particularly glamorous. Stone worked as a courier linking professional Soviet KGB officers to American sources and assisted in identifying and recruiting sources.

Q: What still remains the biggest mystery?

The biggest mystery are the operations of the GRU, Soviet military intelligence. With by late 1930s and 1940s, the KGB was the largest Soviet foreign intelligence agency, GRU’s operations remained significant. We know far more about KGB operation in the United States because of several key KGB defectors (notably Elizabeth Bentley) and the accident that most of the deciphered Venona cables were KGB and only a few were GRU. And Vassiliev’s notebooks are drawn only from the KGB’s archive. Of GRU, we know very little. George Koval, for example, was a GRU agent who penetrated the Manhattan atomic Project, but we know of him only because the Russian government decided to public give him a posthumous medal for his atomic spying.

Like

Unlike