In part to play devil’s advocate, and in part because if one theory is right my hat is off to this administration as an op like this has not been pulled off in a decade or two. I have suspicions, but will note that I will wait to see what comes out — and will also note you need to pay close attention to phrasing then. For now, enjoy some thoughts sparked by an online discussion with Tony Katz (website) this morning. I may have to do a little tap dancing in spots, but…
Three scenarios came to mind when I first heard about this. Let’s take a look at those options.
First, that this was done as a deliberate effort to harm the administration. Given the amount of resistance, malicious compliance, and theatrical temper tantrums (and threats to sell info to our enemies) it is a valid concern. Mitigating it is that Michael Waltz (not to be confused with the other) is hand-picked by Trump, former Greenie Beanie, former Congrescritter, etc., etc., etc. Still needs to be investigated, but would be surprised if this was the case.
Second, that this was done accidentally. Plausible. Very plausible even. Stuff happens and it would not be the first time someone got added to an e-mail or other chain that proved embarrassing. It has happened a couple of times to me, and in one case I was glad for the confirmation of where I stood and what was happening in regards one situation. Embarrassing (and a potential liability) for them, good intel for me. I’m sure some of you can add some similar situations in the comments. If it was an accident, a whacking of knuckles or such is warranted.
The third option is where this gets fun. Let’s start with something almost everyone who has been around government knows, but also ignores to some extent.
The fact is, governments send each other messages by a variety of means. There are the official messages, couched in careful diplomatic niceties, that always accent the positive even when those governments hate each other’s guts. You play nice as that is expected and it’s usually a good way to keep tensions at a point just short of war. It’s a way to shore up relationships, or to strengthen them. I will caveat that smart people realize that governments do not have friends, they have allies — some good, some not so much.
However, official channels are limited and usually anything but frank. J.D. Vance’s comments to European leaders a few weeks ago were refreshingly frank for many of us, and considered a breach of proper manners by many officials. It is rare for such comments to be made in any official capacity. Which is why, for not years but even centuries, there have been unofficial channels.
Such activities have often been lumped in with the history of intelligence operations, which is not really where they belong (IMO) but if interested you can find some fascinating examples in European history. To be honest, if you look at Japanese history there are some good examples. It is also worth noting that when there wasn’t such, or something happened to that channel, bad things like unexpected wars or “accidental” battles took place. Net result, wise leaders (or those who served as éminence grise or consigliere) made sure such were in place.
The fact is, since it can’t be said in public that Government A thinks Government B (especially if they are ostensible allies) is a bunch of corrupt poopy-heads that are being stupid, you need a means to get that message to the other side unofficially. There are other such messages that often need to be sent, usually along the lines of “we see you” and “don’t do that again.” Then there’s a third level of highly unofficial when accidents happen that never happened. Governments rarely admit to losing people, aircraft, subs (or being responsible for same) in circumstances that never officially happened. Nor will we discuss the disappearance of agents, operatives, or others; nor the discovery of the bodies of such on doorsteps or in staged compromising circumstances.
Instead, for today, let’s focus on the need to get unofficial information between governments. If you want a number of examples, look at the information flow between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. There was quite a bit of unofficial flow, which ranged from carefully staged leaks (or, possibly, operations on par with The Man Who Wasn’t There in WWII) to using businessmen and journalists as conduits. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, a LOT of essential discussion was channeled through a journalist both sides trusted.
It is important to note that not all of these conduits were aware they were being used to send messages. Sometimes it was a one-time thing, sometimes it was done as a part of normal business operations so as to keep the person in the dark. And, sometimes, it is rumored, it was done to some poor sap that had PO’d one side or another and got used and was figuratively (and literally) disposed of afterwards.
Sometimes, using someone is made very easy by the person being used. They can be greedy, needy, of limited trustworthiness, or other flaws that make it easy to use them. You know them and their flaws, their triggers, etc. Some of the people used before have been, er, interesting, to be polite. They also have spanned the strata of society.
Which is why I find it believable that Jeffrey Goldberg may have been a “deliberate accident.” If you wanted to get the word to some allies that patience is running thin with them, that their freeloading needs to stop, that some potential major changes are heading their way, and do so in a way that made such clear without it being an official communication, you could count on him to get it out.
I’m willing to bet a donut or two that he had already contacted any number of European leaders or his contacts in their offices to share this information. The man hates Trump and his admin with a passion, and he would see this as a means to hurt them. Keeping quiet in this case is something I don’t think he literally do. So, get in touch, share, reeeeeee a bit, and probably let them know he was going to publish but give them some time so they were ready to pounce when the time came.
Now, he has gone public and if the message didn’t get sent before it sure has now. Everyone knows what the admin thinks of various governments and entities. I will note that I have not read every word; but, what I have read is not classified nor a war plan. It may have given Goldberg a couple hours notice of what was going to happen, but nothing that could have prevented it. In short, it is really a nothingburger operationally, and the only concern lies in which scenario is correct.
A final thought on this track is that by going public Goldberg has, IMO, AD’d himself as he jammed his pistol into his pants. He on some levels burned a source; he verified what a lot of people thought of him and his trustworthiness; and, he has verified that he will put politics ahead of national interest. This is going to burn him even with people who “officially” support him right now in the long term. In the twisty murky world of leaks and sources, burning a source for almost any reason puts people off on trusting you. If you know someone can’t keep a secret, you don’t share truly important things with them. If you show you are a partisan hack to the world, even those on your side are going to start treating you as such.
That what has happened is effectively a self-immolation, is just icing on the cake from an ops standpoint. When I said on social media yesterday that things fit, this is what I am talking about. You know the messages got out, you know some of the results, and in the process you let an avowed enemy do harm to themselves.
So, I tend to be a bit suspicious that this could have been a very deliberate accident. As for what it really is, we likely won’t know for a while. One of the things I have loved about the current Trump administration is the lack of leaks. They have been amazingly good at OPSEC, which again, is a tick in favor of the third option.
It is a point to consider, and I hope you will do so. We will find out the truth someday, and it will be interesting to find out for sure. I would be cautious accepting anything announced right now: it is custom to some extent to “obfuscate” or flat out lie immediately, especially if it can make an op work even better. Right now, my bet is this just doesn’t get mentioned and the comments made so far are all that are made. It would be the smart move, and so far Trump and company have been smart. We will see.
UPDATE I: Corrected a type, be to bet.
Getting hit by lightning is not fun! If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, feel free to hit the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo, use the options in the Tip Jar in the upper right, or drop me a line to discuss other methods. There is also the Amazon Wish List in the Bard’s Jar. It is thanks to your gifts and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.
I thin your 3 scenarios are good ones. I wrote about this over at Chicago Boyz, more from a media perspective as an example of them “chipping” the Trump administration. There are two curious threads that have yet to be pulled. Why Signal and why Goldberg?
Signal is a pretty secure app, the one thing it can do that a DoD, “high side” system cannot do is easily is let outsiders in. In this case it is being played in the media as the security problem. It also provides the opportunity to let someone in and see what you want them to see
Why Goldberg? There is probably guy who is a bigger anti-Trump crap weasel on the planet. Remember 2020, Aisne-Marne and suckers? He’s also honcho on the leading intellectual star TDS the Atlantic.
I find the scenario of using this “breach” as a way of delivering a message to the Euros and others as a little too cute but I keep coming back to pieces which just don’t fit. I just found Goldberg’s prose in his article curious as well, attesting to his skeptical thought process a bit too much. To be honest Goldberg doesn’t seem to offer much proof to claim he saw what he said he saw
They key is why using Signal? Has this been a pattern before? If this is a one-off or a rarity than we have a strange coincidence of opportunity meeting Goldberg. My conclusion is that someone, perhaps malicious or duplcivtious, wanted Goldberg on that chat.
I think its more likely than not that the inclusion of Goldberg was accidental, but the choice to use Signal was deliberate, but based on the unspoken belief that the speakers were smart enough to talk around classified information and any listeners were too stupid to add two and two and get four.
In my career I worked with a bunch of Allied Intelligence officers and a few former foes, and I found them to be highly intelligent and capable of doing math without taking their shoes off. Hubris is rightly considered a sin.
Many of the USAID and different agencies employees on leave were talking about using Signal to communicate secretly out of Trump admin’s reach, as if no one could ever listen-in or retrieve what they were talking about. Which seemed VERY naive. I don’t think Trump’s people would ever think Signal is that secure or would be so naive. Doesn’t seem likely. But who knows. Seems more likely it was some kind of set-up, like you said.
“The Man Who Wasn’t There” was a Coen Brothers movie,
I think you mean “The Man Who Never Was”.
Too clever by half. This wasn’t an intentional move by Waltz. But neither is it such a big deal. Move on.
I think it was an accident, but I also think it was fortunate. First, people at this level don’t set up their own chats. They have people who do that. The mistake was made by a staffer. To me, the question isn’t “How did a staffer plug the wrong initials into the chat gr0up?” The question is “Why did a supposedly loyal staffer have Goldberg on speed dial in his Signal app?” It would be like a VP at a company having a corporate espionage officer of another company on speed dial. I can think of only two possibilities — the guy was *supposed* to be feeding stuff to the media, or the guy was part of the resistance and outed himself. Having been in government a long time, I tend to assume a screw up unless otherwise indicated. Thus, I think that a staffer who might have been a significant liability in the future just outed himself early on with little real damage.
Alternate fourth theory: a group of TDS weasels deep within some flavor of No Such Agency has cracked Signal well enough to at least do traffic analysis, figure out that this particular Signal chatgroup might be interesting, and add Goldberg to the group while making it look like Waltz (or his staffer) did it.