Chertoff Praises Obama Security Measures

In a recent interview with NationalJournal.com, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff differed with two of his Bush administration colleagues -- backing away from statements by former Vice President Dick Cheney that President Obama had made the country less safe and slamming former FEMA Director Michael Brown as "obviously bitter." Chertoff had nicer things to say about the current White House, praising the Obama administration for continuing Bush-era policies like the Merida Initiative to fund anti-drug efforts in Mexico and invoking the state secrets privilege. Since leaving government, the former secretary has started his own security consulting firm, the Chertoff Group. Edited excerpts of his conversation with Alina Selyukh follow.

NJ: One of the issues you work on with the Chertoff Group is cybersecurity. Who do you think was behind the recent online intrusion onto the U.S. electricity grid?

Chertoff: The issue of attacks or intrusions on networks has been an issue we've been talking about for several years now. And without getting into things that are classified, obviously, some of these kinds of intrusions do come from other countries. Some of them come from criminal groups. Some of them just come from people who are hackers who want to prove that they can intrude in a network.... The key is to try to create a system that protects you from all of these groups.

NJ: You have previously said that the next generation of warfare will involve fluid attacks and extremism. Where do cyberattacks fit in?

Chertoff: From a security standpoint, you have to cover everything. You don't have the option of saying we're going to pay attention to one thing at a time. No question, cybersecurity is going to be at the top of the list -- largely, or significantly, because we've made big strides in physical security and the cyber piece is the last big element that has to be addressed.

NJ: Congress is now working on a Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would give very broad powers to the president to prevent or address a cyberattack. How would you feel about the president having so much power?

Chertoff: Clearly, the federal government has an obligation and the authority to secure its own networks, whether they be military or civilian. When you're dealing with nongovernment networks, however, for the private sector, you have to balance between the desire to enable the private sector to protect itself but also not putting the government in the position of looking like it's going to be the censor sitting astride the Internet.... I don't know that the culture of the Internet is going to be hospitable to the idea of the U.S. government saying, "I'm going to monitor everything that goes into your private space."...

We've seen a lot of controversy over, for example, government activities in the area of eavesdropping, and I think that was really mild compared to some of the proposals being discussed about the Internet. I would just be cautious here about trying to suggest that the government should play a really large role in this space. I think it's got to be cooperative, not mandatory.

NJ: One of the proposals involves giving the president power to shut down some Internet traffic completely.

Chertoff: That's a concern. I mean, you really need to ask yourself the question: First of all, should it be lodged in the White House as opposed to an operating agency? Second, obviously, the ability to shut down or wall off government systems is one thing; the ability to shut down or wall off private systems is something else. It's one thing to warn people that they should shut things down; it's another thing to require them to shut it down. And then if you do shut it down, who decides when you open it up again?...

I can tell you having been involved with the security-versus-civil liberties discussions over things that we had in the last eight years, this discussion is going to be much more, shall we say, vigorous and perhaps even adversarial than any of the stuff we've seen previously.

NJ: Michael Brown recently talked to Politico, and they asked him what he'd do if he was temporarily president. He said he'd dismantle DHS and return its components to their previous status or legacy departments. What's your take on that idea?

Chertoff: You know, there is almost nothing Michael Brown could say that would be of interest to me. I think he is obviously bitter, and I'm not going to comment on that any further.

NJ: Someone else's comment I'm curious to know your opinion about: Dick Cheney recently blamed Obama's administration for making the country less safe by turning the fight against terrorism more into a law enforcement problem. Do you agree?

Chertoff: I actually think the best take on this is that of President Bush, who has said he's not going to get in the position of sitting on the shoulder of his successor and starting to criticize. I think that's a very good position.

Speaking more generally, I'm pleased with the fact that President Obama's administration is going forward in a very measured way in looking at all the tools that we've used in dealing with terrorism. The new president has talked about closing Gitmo, but he hasn't been in a rush to do it.... They are not just throwing over everything that went before. They are protecting secrets that need to be protected. They are not relinquishing the authorities that are very important.

NJ: So you don't think the country is less safe?

Chertoff: Right now, from my standpoint there's a lot of continuity. And I think that's a good thing.

NJ: One of the top safety issues these days is the violence and flow of drugs and arms along the Mexican border. If the White House came to the Chertoff Group seeking advice on dealing with the problem, what steps would you prescribe?

Chertoff: I'm pleased to see, again, here the Obama administration is actually doing a lot to build on [programs begun by the Bush administration] and continue to amplify that.... What I would say to the new administration is: Do it fast. We passed the Merida Initiative, I guess, last year, and from what I read, not much of the money has gotten down there yet. And I understand that's because it's a cumbersome process and everybody has to worry about the procedures. But the bad guys don't wait on the procedures.

NJ: Your firm works with private-sector companies as well as governments. Do you foresee the potential of working with the U.S. government?

Chertoff: I obviously have certain ethics restrictions, but I could see down the line doing work for the federal government, but also state and local governments.

NJ: Foreign governments?

Chertoff: Again, depending on our legal and ethics restrictions. And, of course, we want to only work with governments that are friendly to the U.S. I think there's advice we can give to our friends and allies overseas about the things they can do to protect themselves against the kinds of attacks that we saw on Mumbai or Lahore or other parts of the world.

NJ: With a former admiral on board, I'm sure your group has discussed the issue of recent Somali pirate attacks. If the White House, again, had come to you for advice, what would you have told them?

Chertoff: First of all, terrific accomplishment for the Navy to take the pirates out of the way like they did. That was just superb operational activity. The problem remains, however. You've got a huge ocean, and I don't think there's any way you can swarm the ocean indefinitely with warships. So you've got to look at a couple different ways to deal with the problem. One is, the merchant vessels themselves will to have to take more responsibility for protecting themselves. There are some capabilities out there that they can deploy; even if you don't get to the question of arming people or putting armed people on vessels, there are things they can do to protect the vessel with non-lethal force.

But also, you've got to look at the root of the problem, which is the disorder and almost anarchy in certain parts of Somalia. We've got to have the ability at some point to incapacitate where the pirates are having a safe haven. And if that means using some kind of a force, I think that's got to be on the table. ... I think working with our allies we do have to come up with a strategy that ultimately lops off the head of the octopus of this piracy epidemic.

NJ: Should NATO send forces to Somalia to defeat pirates?

Chertoff: You've got to look at a possibility of finding some way to disrupt the safe haven that the pirates have found.... You cannot take off the table the use of force. If you go back to the Marine Corps hymn, what's the "shores of Tripoli" about? Well, that was Thomas Jefferson sending the marines in to wipe out pirates. That's part of the history of America, part of the history of the world maritime system. And we should not take that off the table.

NJ: So what does it mean for security when one week you have a sophisticated cyberattack and the next, a pirate hijacking?

Chertoff: It means global security is going to become more and more diverse -- the challenges are going to become more and more diverse. And therefore, it's going to become more and more important to have a comprehensive strategy to deal with threats to security. It's not just a question of traditional warfare; we've got to look at the whole spectrum of international threats. With globalization comes global disorder, and security in the 21st century is reimposing order on the world.