By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article discusses a hypothetical scenario where the U.S. is attacked by foreign adversaries using masked attacks. It highlights concerns about the FBI’s ability to combat foreign espionage, particularly from China, due to budget cuts and shifts in priorities, potentially weakening counterintelligence efforts. Former FBI officials express worry about the bureau’s vulnerability, citing a decline in focus on traditional spy-hunting methods and a potential for decreased transparency. Concerns include proposed changes in counterintelligence leadership, while the FBI insists it is adapting to new threats, with some lawmakers seeking to overhaul counterintelligence.
Read the original article here
The FBI Spent a Generation Relearning How to Catch Spies. Then Came Kash Patel.
The very notion of the FBI’s counterintelligence capabilities being dismantled is, frankly, chilling. It seems like a betrayal of the trust placed in these agencies, a dereliction of their duty to protect the nation. This situation feels like a dangerous shift, potentially leading to a weakening of our defenses against foreign adversaries at a time when the threats are becoming increasingly sophisticated. The echoes of past failures, particularly those surrounding the September 11th attacks and the Wen Ho Lee case, are a stark reminder of what’s at stake.
The suggestion that Kash Patel and certain figures are revisiting strategies that failed in the past is particularly concerning. It feels like a step backward, a move that could potentially undermine the decades of work that went into rebuilding and refining the FBI’s spy-hunting capabilities. The comments from former FBI officials, even those who might align politically with certain figures, express a shared worry about the potential consequences of this course of action. They seem to understand the gravity of the situation and the critical need to maintain a strong counterintelligence infrastructure.
The discussion about the FBI’s potential politicization raises another important point. While the aim to “depoliticize” the FBI is a shared goal, it’s the specific actions taken to achieve this aim that are causing concern. There’s a fear that these actions are actively crippling counterintelligence efforts, especially when adversaries are constantly evolving their tactics. The focus seems to be shifting, moving away from core national security concerns towards other priorities. This re-prioritization could leave us vulnerable.
The comments also touch on the challenges Patel faces, not just from foreign adversaries but also from domestic rivals. The mention of potential infighting and competing interests within the government further complicates an already complex situation. The potential for foreign interference, whether from Russia, China, or other actors, is a significant threat that demands unwavering attention. The sentiment that “all our work is being destroyed” speaks to the frustration and concern among those who have dedicated their careers to protecting the nation.
There are concerns that the focus is shifting away from national security priorities to other, potentially less critical, areas. This shift may be making the nation more vulnerable, which is extremely concerning. It’s difficult to ignore the historical precedent; the approval ratings of a president can spike dramatically in the aftermath of a national crisis, which can lead to the abuse of power. The possibility that such a crisis could be exploited to further undermine democratic institutions and weaken our defenses is a genuine fear.
The idea that the federal government is faltering and that those in power are not truly on the side of the people is troubling. The question of whether the country is being deliberately weakened through foreign interference and internal corruption is a grim one. The references to potential breaches and the dismantling of cybersecurity divisions feed into this sense of vulnerability and a loss of trust. The need for those with information to come forward and shed light on these issues underscores the seriousness of the situation.
The notion of an “infinite game” where the goal is simply to remain in the game, collecting resources and playing the long game, is an interesting perspective. This perspective shifts the focus away from winning or losing to the goal of staying in the game, which is the long-term objective of Russia. There is a sense that the US, with its emphasis on short-term victories, may be losing sight of this crucial long game.
The comments show that many people believe that Russia, or some other foreign entity, is deeply embedded within the current administration. They express a distrust of those in power and a concern about the potential for betrayal. The idea that we are being played, that our own weaknesses are being exploited against us, is a recurring theme. The call for vigilance and the need to protect against a potential attack on American soil is palpable. There’s a strong sense of impending danger, a feeling that something bad is coming.