George H. Wittman: Writer on Current and Foreign Affairs

Developments in Syria in recent months have highlighted Russia's resuscitated expansionist ambitions under Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin's leadership and direction. Some say Vladimir Putin wants a return to the days of the Soviet Union. That may be true in the sense of size and world influence, but it certainly is not true in respect to the form of Marxist Leninism in which he grew up. To begin with, Putin personally enjoys the benefits of the highly advantageous capitalism in which he and other members of the Moscow ruling circles now participate. To be fair and accurate, this has been true in one form or another for decades. One could say the growth of sizeable personal fortunes within the Soviet hierarchy began following the end of World War II and the establishment of occupation zones. East Germany in particular became a honey pot for the Soviet civilian and military occupiers. Everything on their side of the demarcation line, and ultimately the wall, was for sal

The attack on Syrian poison gas-producing sites by U.S., British and French air and missile assets brought an immediate response from Congress that the American president should have had a special Congressional authorization beforehand. The administration countered that it had adequate prior authorization to take this step. There has been much political coin made of the Trump administration, in particular, using the implied and actual threat of military action as a means to coerce unfriendly governments into conforming to American wishes. Certainly North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions fall into this category. In reality, the United States has used both the threat and fact of military action without formal congressional approval in many instances in the past. There are standing authorizations that exist currently against terrorist and terrorist-related activities and support, but the precedent for strictly presidential action dates back to Thomas Jefferson. He ordered t

Major nations always make intelligence assessments of both friendly and opposition leaders. In most instances these analyses are required to be simple, direct, and where possible, in unbiased terms. What follows is an attempt to reproduce such an analysis. While Donald Trump was never in military service, he did graduate from military school. He never forgot that experience. In fact there are indications that in his mind his military school background is equivalent to actual military service. There are those among his detractors who suggest that such self supportive fantasy exists generally within his thought process. This is a phenomenon of projection not unknown among political leaders. His actual psychological makeup tends to be analyzed depending upon the source's political orientation. One thing appears to be an area of agreement: Donald Trump is a far more complicated personality than he allows himself to appear. "The Donald" is clearly a big man in size, and

It's hard to reconcile the diametrically opposite public identity with which Bashar al-Assad is characterized as President of Syria with the quiet, soft spoken, even intellectual personality he projected as a medical student second son of his "hard as nails" political leader father, Hafez al-Assad. It is explained best by the words of a onetime close friend of the late President Hafez, "Family solidarity and honor is the driving force of Bashar al-Assad.": He gave up his dream of a life dedicated to medicine when his father told him of his older brother's death in an auto accident - and that it was Bashar's responsibility to assume the role of heir-apparent to the leadership of his country. Of course it all sounds honorable and self-sacrificing – and that would be true. However, it's straight out of Mario Puzo's story, The Godfather. That's closer to the environment into which Bashar was born and which he accepted. It was the world in whi

To begin with, it must be recognized that all legal travelers to-and-fro nations of intelligence interest are subjects of inquiry by US intelligence services, principally the CIA and FBI. However, other instruments of government security such as DEA and the various military intelligence agencies, as well as other governmental services that have international briefs, are also authorized to gather appropriate, and ofttimes classified, information on activities of foreign and domestic travelers. In fact, depending on interest in and personal ability to proceed, all major nations, and to some degree and interest, even minor nations pursue the same activity. In this regard, travel to and business negotiations with Russia by Donald Trump and his various representatives would naturally be a matter of interest for US embassy personnel assigned to track such contacts. Most businesses make a point of touching base with the State Department and the in-country embassies alerting the officia

Senate and House committees are still trying to figure out what went on regarding Russian intelligence activity during the 2016 US presidential campaign. The following is a review of what went on and what must be addressed in Helsinki. Of the thirteen Russians who have been indicted for involvement in attempts to affect the Trump/Clinton presidential election, only two were cited by press sources in New York and Washington to have travelled in the U.S. The indictment, however, indicates this reconnaissance was in the course of the operation as early as 2014. These agents were named as Anna V. Bogacheva and Aleksandra Y. Krylova, both of whom were said to have had backgrounds in cyber activity. Presumably, they were working for or with the Internet Research Agency of St.Petersburg that has been identified with two other Russian companies in the indictment. These ladies reportedly travelled across the US from California to New York City visiting seven states in between. The impl

In the world of foreign covert human intelligence (humint) the most disruptive circumstance that occurs is the advent of "civilian" assessment of a unit's operational record. (By the way, the domestic organization of this arcane activity may be different in locale and structure, but essentially the same in its personnel's reaction.) Underlying everything for field-level operational officers is the deeply ingrained belief that it's impossible for people who have never undergone the complex experience of direct participation in foreign intelligence covert operations to truly comprehend and assess the day-to-day functioning of a given project. Similar statements could well be made about many other challenging professions - from long distance truck driving to brain surgery. The only real difference is that the general public - and politicians in particular – actually think they know all that is pertinent to know about intelligence operations. In the modern age, I