Pod Save the World - Republican Congressman Will Hurd

Episode Date: September 13, 2017

Tommy talks with Will Hurd, a Republican representing Texas’s 23rd Congressional District, who served in the CIA for nearly a decade. They discussed Hurd’s role at the CIA, what motivated him to run for office, the Iran deal and ISIS.

John. Hi, Tom. Welcome to Pod Save the World. It's good to be here. This is your first non-ad appearance. I know. We're right here in our office. Well, yeah.

Crican Media HQ. It's a historic day because this is the first time I've ever used our news studio, and it's awesome. It's also the first Republican who's come on Pod Save the World. It's the first Republican elected official that's come on any Quircad Media podcast. We were nice. It was Congressman Will Hurd. He represents the 23rd district in Texas, which is like San Antonio to El Paso. The guy was in the CIA for nine and a half.

half years. Badass. It serves on the Select Intelligence Committee. We talked about what he did at the CIA. We talked about why he got into politics. We talked about the Iran deal on his take on it, and ISIS and social media and how he used to chase down al-Qaeda guys in Pakistan and do all kinds of interesting stuff. He's a very smart, impressive guy. There was a great Politico profile on him that listeners should check out if they like

this interview. He's somebody who seems got a very bright future in the Republican Party, despite being extremely moderate for Texas. That's exciting. Yeah, it's cool. Republicans come on our podcast. Yeah, Adam Kinzinger, you're from Illinois. I know Illinois.

I know Peoria. Come on on on. We're not some fucking propaganda machine over here. Yeah, we're nice. Mostly. Here's the interview. My guest today on POS of the World is Congressman Will Hurd. Congressman Hurd is a Republican representing Texas's 23rd congressional district.

He serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Before being elected to Congress, he served in the CIA for nine and a half. half years. So that committee assignment, among the many others, is fitting. Congressman, thank you so much for coming on the show and for being willing to talk to a bunch of former liberal Obama hacks when you are a Republican. It's my pleasure. I appreciate you talking about issues of national security and foreign policy. It's something near and dear to my heart and something important for all Americans to understand and know about. I agree. So while you were in the CIA, You reportedly worked undercover in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.

I know you can't get into a ton of detail, but I think it's useful to try to demystify what these jobs are a little bit so that people don't think it's just Carrie Matheson. Can you talk a little bit about what your job was day to day? What did you do over there? Sure. So my technical title, I was a case officer or operations officer. And when I was in, it was called the Directorate of Operations. Now it's the National Clandestine Service.

And I was the guy in the back alleys at 4 o'clock in the morning collecting intelligence on threats to the homeland. I was the dude recruiting spies and stealing secrets. And it was a fantastic job. And I always like to let people know that. When it comes to the DO or the National Clandescent Service, they are the collectors of last resort. If you can't get a piece of information any other way, using any of the other intelligences, or if you couldn't get it through diplomacy or if you don't understand if signals intelligence which is the NSA and taking something out of the air if you can't get

information one of those other ways you call the National Clandescent Service of the CIA to get it from a human and so my job was handling our you know existing folks that were giving us information to help us understand National Security issues. And second, it was, you know, what I like to say, new business. So we would be tasked with trying to understand the plans and intentions of the Haqqani network in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And, you know, my, you know, someone like me in my unit was responsible for trying to find the people that can ultimately help answer those questions. So it was a pleasure to work on some of the most important national security issues of the day. My career started. I drove my

Toyota forerunner from San Antonio to Washington, D.C., the day of the USS Coal bombing in the Gulf of Aden in Yemen. And I ended up being the desk officer for Yemen. So I helped support the field from headquarters pretty much immediately after that attack. And then, you know, we just, you know, remembered the, what, 16th anniversary of 9-11. And on September 12th, 2001, I was like the fourth or fifth employee in the unit that ultimately prosecuted the war in Afghanistan. So Al-Qaeda and terrorism was a topic that I spent a lot of time focused on during my career. I read that you were inspired to get into politics to run for office because you briefed some

members of Congress who just didn't understand basic facts about foreign policy, like the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. First of all, for anyone who doesn't know who may be listening, can you explain that difference? And more importantly, like, why is it important? Or rather, why is it dangerous for a lawmaker or a counterterrorism official to not understand that fundamental distinction? Sure. And let me set some context for that. And that was just one of many. In addition to collecting intelligence on threats to the homeland, I had to brief members of Congress and other elected officials. And I was pretty frustrated with the caliber of our elected leaders. And I was in Kabul, Afghanistan.

A bomb went off in front of our embassy, took out a section of our wall, killed some local guards. And my unit was responsible trying to figure out what happened. And this happened at 0.3.30 in the morning. And later that evening, we had a congressional delegation of members of the House. permanent select committee on intelligence. And that evening I was supposed to brief these members and I walk in. And the first member I hear is saying, is the CIA going to cut this briefing short so we can get to the bazaar to buy some rugs? Oh, my God.

So, yeah, I'm annoyed going into the briefing. Then we get in the briefing and this member had been on the committee for five years, asked, and this is about 2007, 2008, by the way, why was Iran not supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan the way Iran was supporting other groups in Iraq? And, you know, I start explaining the Sunni Shia divide. And he raises his hand. He says, heard, what's the difference between the Sunni and a Shia? And I'm thinking he's getting ready to make a really inappropriate joke. And who am I to deny him that opportunity? And my response was, I don't know, Congressman, what's the difference?

And I'm getting ready to go, you know, but I'm bum-bump, right? And he didn't know that difference in Islam. And I always say it's okay for my brother not to know that because he sells cable in San Antonio, Texas. But it's not okay for someone who's sending our boys and girls. was a place like Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen. And I don't expect, you know, Sunnis, you know, the split between Sunni and Shia began after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunnis believed that the next in line of the caliphate was Abu Bakr, who was Muhammad's father-in-law. But Shias believe that Ali was ordained by God to be the replacement.

And that is, so the friction between the two branches of Islam began back in 632 AD. Now, I don't expect every member of Congress to understand that story, but what you have to understand is that Iran, Shia, pretty much, you know, Iran, Lebanon, parts of Syria, Shia, a big part of section of Iraq. then you have Sunnis pretty much, you know, everyone else and that there is conflict between those two entities. You've got to understand that a Shia-backed government, Iran, is unlikely to support Sunni-based extremists, right? So these are some of the very basic elements that you have to understand when you're talking about the global war and terrorism. I think it's really hard for a lot of Americans and American officials to get beyond just geographical lines, right? You know, the difference between the Afghan and Pakistani. Then, you know, some people understand the difference within

religion and Islam. But what we really, in order to understand some of these areas, you have to go even deeper and you have to understand the tribal and cultural differences. And that's something that is frustrating when you have people back here in Washington, D.C., making decisions on spending billions of harder and taxpayer dollars that are making decisions on sending our brothers and sisters and moms and dads into harm's way. They should, if you're on the House Intelligence Committee, you should understand something that basic, in my opinion. And so that's, you know, my mama said to you the part of the problem and part of the solution. And so I decided to run for Congress. and I lost. I lost that first election by 700 votes. But it was really one of those things that I saw my time and the agency that was frustrating to me and I thought I can do a better job.

Yeah. You're not the first person that has expressed frustration at the lack of knowledge about that specific distinction. I remember in 2005, a reporter named Jeff Stein went around and asked a whole bunch of members of Congress, FBI officials, what's the difference in Sunni and Shia, not even going back to 600 AD, but like who sides with what country, the exact sort of basic distinction you were looking to get out of these lawmakers. And a lot of people didn't know. And it was very frustrating for him. And it speaks to a bigger problem, I think, which is like in intelligence and foreign policy generally, history. and nuance and context are so important. And CIA officers of students of history and nuance and context. And Washington is a place that is allergic to it. Does our screwed up political conversation doom us to have screwed up foreign policy debates? How do we fix it? Well, it's a great question. And I agree with your premise. I think what I have learned in my two and a half years in Congress is that most individual members, from all political stripes and walks of life, really want to do the right thing and really want to understand things. But the problem is when you don't have people that have an experience in these topics, it's hard to get educated on

it to make these decisions. And, you know, so I think we need more folks running for office on both parties that have a background or exposure to national security or foreign policy. One of the things I have a lot of young folks that come up to me and say, hey, what do I need to do in order to run for Congress? I say, go have a good job. You know, go get a job, go do something else, go have a career, go have an expertise, and bring that experience back into the organization. Because, look, my time in the agency is so invaluable in, you know, the work I do on

national security and cybersecurity. And, you know, I used to meet with an old, you know, one of the original. original Mujahideen, those are the folks that ultimately fought the Russians in the 80s in Afghanistan. And he would always tell me, he goes, Mr. Willie. You know, they always call me Mr. Willie for some reason. He said, you know, I've been a Pakistani for 50 years. You know, Pakistan has a country, a relatively young country. I've been a Muslim for 1,410 years.

But I've been a Pashtun for 3,33 years, right? And, you know, it's hard for us as Americans to understand how that has an impact on a people, on a behavior, on a group of folks. But it does. And so because I've had that experience, I'm able to bring that to the legislative process, which I think is important. And the only way is to continue, you know, I try to educate my colleagues. I try to spend time trying to explain my experience to folks and to help them better understand a particular issue. Presidents from both parties have declared expansive powers to conduct foreign policy. You've seen this from the, you know, sort of intel community executive side.

But in your view, now that you're a member of Congress, like, how should Congress factor into foreign policy making? What do you think Congress's role is? And do you think it's, you know, serving that role well? I think Congress's biggest role is in oversight. And I think, you know, it's funny. I'm rereading a book about George Washington's tenure as president. And J.'s Treaty was one of his biggest issues. And most people don't even know what that is.

And it started with what is Congress's role in foreign policy and what are the powers that are given to the president. And so it's always interesting to me. Many of the debates that we are having right now are the same debates that have been going on for the history of our republic. And for me, I think it's Congress has that oversight role, that oversight function, asking the questions, making sure that you're bringing executive branch officials to the Hill to ask and getting asked the tough questions on policy, why outcome and responses. I think we, you know, it's Congress's role to continue to shine a light on some of

these activities and ask those tough questions and being away from the day-to-day activity when it comes to prosecuting or implementing our foreign policy to give that kind of 30,000 foot view. I think that is critically important. You know, the debate about, you know, authorized use of military force and whether, you know, what role Congress should have in that and when it should be asked for and given, it's healthy to have these debates. whenever a administration, you know, changes. Yeah. One area that I think will be debated or discussed in Congress a lot is Iran. In 2015, the U.S. and several other world powers agreed to a deal that limited Iran's nuclear program in return for lifting international sanctions. And then every 90 days, the State Department has to notify Congress about whether Iran is complying with the terms of that deal. The IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says that Iran is complying. Reportedly, Trump's national security team, has recommended. that he keep it in place the deal and think that they're complying. The UK, China, France, Russia, Germany have made it clear they want the deal in place.

But President Trump's on record saying he wanted to declare Iran noncompliant 180 days ago, and he expects that by October they'll determine that Iran has violated the deal. You're an intel guy. Does that desire to declare Iran noncompliant, regardless of what the facts and experts say were you? Is that the wrong approach? Well, you know, this is such a. tricky topic because, you know, I fundamentally disagree with kind of the heart of the deal, right? And that goes from, you know, almost a decade of chasing Iranian IRGC-C-Koods force.

You know, it's basically Iranian militaries of special forces. And so I think there is ambiguity in the language of the deal. You know, the fact that IAEA inspectors are unable to go into military facilities because the Iranians have said that that would be a violation of their national sovereignty. That means that the IAEA is only allowed to go into places that the Iranians deem. Okay, based on the agreement the Iranians have up to, I think, It's either 23 or 27 days in order to allow inspectors to come in. That is problematic.

And I think, you know, some of the philosophy behind the deal that by the time these nuclear limitations that the JCPOA put on Iran, but by the time those were over, that the region would have changed so much that the Iranians would not be seeking nuclear. weapons. You know, I disagree with that premise. Now, the question is, what do you do? And the only way that we can deal with Iran is as a unified international community. And so, you know, taking unilateral steps when it comes to the JCPOA without the support of, you know, France and Germany and other folks that would, what we need in order to continue to put pressure on the Iranian regime is going to be difficult at best. And so, you know, how do you ensure that the inspections, you know, are operating and beginning

access to the places they need? And do we even know all the locations that the Iranians are doing their nuclear weapons development or testing on their ICBMs? Having come out of the intelligence community, I would say. that we don't know what we don't know. Yeah, look, I think that's fair. I mean, I think it's bullshit to deny access to the parks and site. I think we can't allow them to continue to test ICBM technology the way North Korea has.

The UN Security Council needs to do a better job of ratcheting down sanctions on that. But to your exact point, I mean, I worry that if we pull up or tear up the Iran deal, what comes next? I fear that it's more likely that the United States will become isolated by the international community as they continue to do business as usual with Iran than that. that we'll be able to bring along the other powers. And like, I agree with you. We should not trust the Iranians. I mean, I was there when we disclosed the secret goam nuclear site.

And that was thanks to great work by the CIA and liaison partners and other countries. But we need to stay on them. It's just, you know, I look at North Korea and I look at Iran where at least there's a process that allows the IAEA access to their nuclear facilities versus the black box in North Korea. And I worry that that's the alternative, you know? Look, it's interesting points because you're right. When it comes in North Korea, Kim Jong-un, the dictator there, is, you know, his number one motivation is to stay in power. And he believes the way to stay in power is to do what his father and his grandfather, the first leader, could not do. And that's getting nuclear weapons. And he believes that if he's able to do that, then the U.S. and the international community will deal with him differently. So we, you know, how do you create an environment in which Kim Jong-un's calculation is if he continues to pursue nuclear weapons, he won't be able to stay in power. And I think a push for dialogue is important. And I think

everybody has said that resolving things diplomatically is the preferred route. And one of the things that I learned when I was in the CIA is be nice with nice guys and tough with tough guys. And I think being tough with Kim Jong-un being tough with the Iranian regime. is important, but, you know, diplomacy matters. And that's why, you know, I'm a, so I was undercover as a State Department officer when I was overseas. I'm a big fan of the diplomatic core. Ryan Crocker was my ambassador when I was in Pakistan. And he always said, if you had more wingtips and pumps on the ground, you prevent boots on the ground. So putting more diplomats are important to understand these nuance to try to come to some kind of agreement that's good

for the United States and the rest of the world. You talked about when you were chasing down al-Qaeda in the mid-2000s, they would write physical letters and drop them on people's doorsteps to intimidate the population, to recruit new members, to spread their propaganda. Now ISIS can reach hundreds of thousands of people per year with the same kinds of messages on social media. So there has been this exponential leap in their propaganda capability with no commensurate leap forward for us and our ability to stop them. I'm wondering what you think we should do about this. You know, if this is the U.S. government's responsibility or if we need to lean on tech companies, like what's the path forward here? Together is the answer. And it's not, you know,

Secretary Tillerson is not going to be able to solve this problem with his Twitter feed alone, right? You know, we need to make sure that we're working with our moderate Sunni Arab allies. Muhammad bin Salman, the new crown prince in Saudi Arabia, has talked about how this branch of Islam is a civil war within Islam. You know, we need our friends to help with some of the counter messaging as well. We need the technology companies to help us understand, you know, how messages become sticky and how you can counter that. And we need to have a national strategy that includes public and private sector to deal with this. And this is not just a problem when it comes to fighting Islamic terrorism. It's something that we have to deal when it comes to combating a covert action from countries like Russia.

The Russians, it's very clear that they're involved, they were trying to involve and manipulate our elections. You know, we do not have a counter covert influence strategy in our country. in our government. And that's something that we need to be thinking about who is responsible for that. Covert disinformation or counter disinformation is a part of covert action, right? Covert action is the responsibility of the CIA. But the National Security Act of 1957, I believe, 47, 57, said that, you know, the CIA can't do those things in the United States of America. So who is responsible and who are the various elements responsible. And that is we need to do a better job.

I know, you know, countering violent extremism, CVE is one of the issues that the Department of Homeland Security is looking about and how you inculcate communities within the United States against this terrorist messaging. But we, you know, I think advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning can help us stop some of this messaging before it hits the error. waves. I think it also can be used to help make sure that we're focused on the right communities with the counter messaging. And so this can't be done by the government alone, but the government should be helping to focus the efforts of the private sector and the nonprofit community on the folks that are pushing a message, on, you know, the communities that they're trying to reach in order to tailor that. Because, look, I always ask folks, you know, what data?

do we celebrate when the global war and terrorism is over? And the best answer I've gotten is that terrorism is like influenza. It's something that we're going to always be dealing with. We can help, you know, um, help, you know, inoculate communities to this, but maybe one or two folks are going to ultimately get it. And we can crush ISIS. We can crush al-Qaeda. We can crush al-Shabaab. We crushed 17 November. But this ideology will always be there, and we have to be prepared to counter the ideology as well as laying the hammer down on the leaders of these organizations. Do you think can we counter propaganda when our politics is so broken that we have people who would rather believe Vladimir Putin or Russia claims about another candidate than the opposition political party? I mean, that's the part I can't wrap my head around in this last election.

You know, I think what I have seen in my own personal experiences is that people are looking for their elected officials to transcend D and R and focus on things that impact the American people. So I do believe we can, we must do better because if we don't, this is an existential crisis to our great country. And this experiment called America, it's only as good as the people that are in it. and we have to make sure that we're working together against these common threats. Congressman, I know you have to go. Thank you so much for talking in nuanced ways about complicated things. That seems like a rare thing in that city you're in now, so good luck. And thank you for being on POTS day of the world.

Awesome. Thanks for having me on. We've got to do it again. Yes, sir. Thank you.