MILNET: Those In The Know

MILNET: Those In The Know
Interview with Ryan Mauro

A series of interviews with people "in the know". Not your average guy off the street, and not someone being paid to "spin" the message. These are people who have "been there" in the strictest sense of the word.

Who are these analysts we have been hearing about recently. This briefing asks questions of the first analyst we have interviewed, Ryan Mauro, Ryan is a knowledgeable geo-political analyst in the commercial field (www.WorldThreats.com) whose expertise was recognized quite early in life and today provides guidance to companies wishing to get an insight into conditions where they are shipping their goods or sending their people. Ryan has a clear and apolitical approach to his analysis that is not only refreshing, but also reminds us that a good analyst focuses on what the evidence tells them rather than creating wild theories to match bits of evidence one likes versus evidence one wishes to ignore. We think you'll find his interview as well as another where we talk with a former military intelligence analyst.

Bolded = MILNET Chief Editor Michael Crawford
Non-Bolded=Ryan

Some people will look at your bio and think you are just a bit precocious. What do you owe your keen insight and "ahead of your time" knowledge?

There's a notion among people that achievements by youth usually rely upon pure intelligence. I do not consider myself exceptionally intelligent, and like others, struggle in areas of my schoolwork. What I have that others don't is determination, devotion, and most of all, direction.   Starting early had its advantages. Once I got on the Internet, I couldn't help but look up potential answers to questions I've always had. I taught myself to like research. Starting at a young age meant I had no ideology, as my family was non-political. In fact, I remember in fall 2000 being able to locate all the Middle Eastern nations, but being unable to name the candidates on each side of the presidential race.

As an analyst, what do you think are the key assets of your profession?

The best thing to have is always devotion. You need to like the subjects you're researching--so much you occasionally do some work in your spare time. As a result, you talk to more people, and become a "truth seeker". From devotion, comes objectivity. You begin to love your topic so much, that you have no problem criticizing policy-makers on any side of the aisle, because your primary motive is not to help an agenda.

How would you interpret apparent U.S. Intelligence Community failures in light of information on WMD in Iraq?

Intelligence on Iraq, as well as most foreign countries, was flawed. I do not think anyone can look at the present situation and be completely satisfied. Recognizing that, I have been amazed at some of the analysis regarding the WMD.

First off, most people don't know that banned missiles and chemical weapons from the Iran-Iraq War have been found. Most people don't know that very small quantities of biological weapons have been found. Most people don't know--and this I find most disturbing--that even if no WMD "stockpiles" are found, the Duelfer report basically confirmed Saddam Hussein was able to produce-on-demand.

Personally, from my studies, as can be seen on WorldThreats.com and my forthcoming book, I believe that the WMD stockpiles Saddam Hussein possessed are in other countries--mainly Syria but also Iran, Lebanon and probably Libya. I have spoken with sources who have seen Israeli satellite photos confirming that in the months before the war, convoys were seen being sent into Syria from Iraq. Syrian defectors have confirmed the existence of Iraqi WMD in Syria, and Israeli intelligence as well as American Army Intelligence seems to be onboard with the theory.

Duelfer and Kay both said themselves that if this theory was true (and they confirmed they had "evidence" but not "proof" that the theory was true) it would explain the WMD situation inside Iraq.

How do you separate opinion from analysis? Or is analysis simply "educated" opinion based upon a series or culmination of facts?

People need to realize that it is extremely rare to find a news article without built-in analysis. If it isn't there inside the text, then analysis was used to decide which pieces of information should be in the article. So the problem is getting to the bare facts from all sides--reading between the lines and comparing it with other articles.

Thus, one can conclude that analysis is really just educated opinion. Regarding analysis, I don't think the fact that analysis is a form of an opinion is contested--it's the level of objectivity in that analysis that is contested. All analysts have to deal with that.

If you could travel anywhere in the world, what spots would you like to visit that would aid you in your current activities?

I would like to travel most to either Iran or Saudi Arabia. In Iran, you have an underestimated hatred of the mullahs. I've said time and time again that the Iranian people could become our best ally in the War on Terrorism. I am appalled there isn't more obvious actions being taken to help them. Even if Iran wasn't a threat, it is simply selfish for America to stand by and watch such a freedom-loving people be abused, just waiting for the opportunity to enforce change. It is this same attitude that is causing us problems in Iraq, as in 1991 we encouraged rebellion and then left our friends inside Iraq to get smashed by Saddam Hussein.

In Saudi Arabia, there is a majority of people sympathetic to the ideology of Osama Bin Laden. Yet we simultaneously see demands for women's rights and democracy. I would love to study where this desire for freedom is emerging from.

What has been the most important or impressive event in your life as an analyst?

I think anyone my age would say 9-11. I had studied nation's militaries, and state-sponsored terrorism as well. I realized there was a terrorist threat that was emerging in growing strength, but I was still surprised when it happened. Luckily, due to my age, I had already established in my mind that terrorism was state-sponsored. I hadn't been politicized, and also hadn't been taught to follow the idea that after the fall of the USSR terrorism was simply "a law enforcement issue". The months following 9-11 caused me to ask why people couldn't understand the state-sponsored element of the War on Terror.

Why do you think people pay for analysis like yours? Is this an expanding field?

I don't think the field is expanding but it is shifting. I am disappointed that it takes events like 9-11 and the war in Iraq to force companies and elements of the government to put more resources towards geopolitical analysis. In one sense or another, every gathering threat has been underestimated or completely been misunderstood by the majority of analysts. Most recently, we heard that the agencies were surprised at the speed of China's nuclear program. Fresh minds are needed.

I think people, more specifically companies, pay for geopolitical analysis because they recognize how fast everything is moving. In my situation with Tactical Defense Concepts (www.tdconcepts.com), I was hired because I had no agenda, had time to do research, and at least my boss said I had a fresh outlook. For them, I did general geopolitical work and helped research "threat areas" for shipping.

Have you ever considered a career in the government intelligence field? Why or why not?

I have considered a career in such a field. However, at this moment I am backing away from seeking it out. In the intelligence communities, there is an apparent problem called "over compartmentalization". I analyze huge regions and the world as a whole. Understandably, that is not what the agencies want so much as experts in smaller regions, knowing everything about that small area from the language to religion to food. Then that information and analysis moves up and according to some critics, where analysis becomes flawed. Having never been in the CIA, I cannot personally confirm that.

I have heard countless stories about agendas and rivalries in the intelligence communities--particularly in the CIA. Leaks are often the results of these agendas and rivalries. I've heard much about people being ruined as a result of the internal politics of the agencies.

Have you really explored the possibility of a government "wide area, wide topic" analyst position or is your avoidance due to having found such jobs simply do not exist?

I've found that, to my knowledge, they don't exist. And if they do exist, you first have to go through being an "extremely specific" analyst in one part of the world and then you climb up. I've also found that most analysts have a history in the military, or in special forces deployment. This is understandable, but as a non-military researcher it makes things tough for me to get into that circle It'd like to be in.

The 9/11 Commission staff exposed some information that indicated a high level Al Qaeda Lieutenant traveling through South America. This has led some to conclude that South America may not only be a location for Al Qaeda strongholds (Peru for instance) but also a means to reach Mexico and then across the border into the U.S. What is your analysis of those two theories (stronghold and path to Mexico for infiltrators)?

I think this has been going on for a long time. I've read reports of copies of the Koran, some with frightening writing, being found along the Mexican border. Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, the lieutenant you mention, is believed to be the current operations leader for Al-Qaeda efforts in North America. He is believed to have met with local criminal gangs in order to smuggle things into the USA. We know Hezbollah and other groups have ties to smugglers as well.   However, I'm surprised at how some are ignoring the Canadian border. Intelligence that I've seen has shown that this route is most common for terrorists.

To follow up on that, how would you assess the nations in South America as far as hideouts or recruiting grounds for multi-national terrorists (ignore the locals for now)? Have you looked at the MILNET analysis?

Your report is highly accurate, and is a breath of fresh air. However, there is a startling element to this that everyone seems to be missing. As my website has reported extensively on, there is a Marxist-oriented bloc emerging in Latin America. It certainly appears Cuba is behind this as Cuban personnel could be seen in the key ministries of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Once Chavez came into power, on an anti-Western and pro-Marxist platform by the way, evidence began emerging that Venezuela was playing a role in assisting the Marxist rebels and terrorists of Colombia. We also now know that defectors are reporting how Venezuelan security is being ordered to deceive Western intelligence about the activity of Hezbollah. And finally, we know Chavez, according to his personal pilot, gave $1 million to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda after 9-11 when the war in Afghanistan began. The bloc then extended to Brazil.

Change of subject, somewhat...Do you have a solution in mind for the Mideast?

It will take a long time. The most crucial step in the right direction is success in Iraq, which is already resulting in reforms throughout North Africa and the Middle East. The key is to stop the state-sponsored terrorism. We need to dry up the resources of the Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists, which can only be done by shutting down Iran and Syria's assistance. We need to keep pressuring Saudi Arabia, but I believe we are making progress there. That would dramatically decrease the power of the terrorists and allow for more moderate figures to emerge. Arafat cannot be removed by the Israelis or foreign powers. He has to collapse from within. I believe that once we stop the state sponsorship of terrorism to a large degree, it will allow for more reforms. Most regimes in the area convert their peoples' anger at them by blaming it on America. The rush of freedom will help change this, as people can channel their energy into productive, successful lives.

New region: Asia: China, Japan, the Koreas -- what does it look like to you today, and are there indicators for the near future we need to be paying attention to? How do India and Pakistan play, both in terms of their failures to stem proliferation and their long term effects on their neighbors to the south and east?

My research indicates that China is indeed a threat, and trying to become a superpower. At the same time, there is great internal issues and the economic system is bound to collapse. I think we need to watch China closely, and if we play our cards right, could very well keep a stable, competitive relationship that won't be Cold War-like. The main issue isn't Taiwan--the main threat is if China will provoke conflict in order to cause a nationalist backlash to solidify the Communists' power.

Regarding North Korea, I am quite optimistic. That regime cannot last long. I wish we would help the dissidents and freedom-fighters there as well, to help bring down the current regime. I do not feel war there is necessary, as the current Proliferation Security Initiative strategy could bring them down. The North Koreans are strapped for cash, having lost two markets they rely upon--Iraq and Libya. The interception of illegal goods is a strategy that can work.

I am also optimistic regarding India and Pakistan. Musharraf genuinely is fighting terrorism. The problem there is the large amount of radicals in the intelligence services and to a lesser degree, the army. It's hard to fight the terrorists when your own people leak them your plans. Musharraf is supposedly reforming the religious schools that create radical ideologies. Unfortunately, Musharraf has to play a balancing act--slowly purging the agencies but being careful not to destabilize his own power.

MILNET publishes annually a Flashpoints article that looks at the entire world, and attempts to indicate the potential hotspots. Do you do this kind of analysis and if so, what are World Threat's top five hotspots?

I do a monthly analysis on all current events. It'd say WorldThreats.com's five hotspots are:

Iran (where the huge discontent there is going unreported by our media)
Iraq
Afghanistan/Pakistan border
Syria
Saudi Arabia.

Iran: John Kerry says the President is at fault for the current situation. Is any President at fault or is there a more serious problem in the world's approach to non-proliferation? For instance, how do you characterize the U.N. versus independent non-prolif organizations effectiveness? Is the U.S. Congress culpable? Where do you draw the lines between appeasement, proper diplomacy, or time for direct action?

I am disappointed that the President is currently not assisting the freedom-fighters of Iran, unless there is some secret operation going on. I think Senator Kerry's plan, on the other hand, of giving the Iranians nuclear fuel "as a test" is foolish. This happened with North Korea in the early 1990s. Iran will still be able to produce nuclear weapons as if we did nothing. It is unclear if Kerry would help the freedom-fighters or work for sanctions, either.

I think that independent non-proliferation alliances like the PSI are most effective. There are simply too many competing interests in the UN to allow for an effective intelligence pool. The UN acting in concert with us on the issue means we're forced to cooperate with countries that have no interest in the issue at all. I look at the UN as a way for other countries to restrain us, although some UN functions may be praiseworthy.

In a geo-political sense, is the pre-emptive security protection concept a valid notion in a world that hopes to move away from violent confrontation or is violence the stick that goes with the diplomatic carrot -- neither separable to operate in a real world?

I disagree that Iraq was a "pre-emptive" war. In my mind, Iraq had been at war with us for years--we just refused to acknowledge it. By sponsoring and even directing terrorists, they ARE attacking us--they just don't have Iraqi flags. People seem to be stuck with this idea that the War on Terror has borders--and thus people like Saddam could be contained. Saddam's Iraqi military forces were contained, but his intelligence services and the terrorists he sponsored were active in other countries. He was not contained.

Ryan Mauro began his career at the unbelievable age of 11 with hobby research on the geopolitical affairs of several countries. This effort quickly turned into more than a hobby. In December 2002, Ryan was hired as the youngest geopolitical analyst in the country (at age 16) by Tactical Defense Concepts (www.tdconcepts.com), a maritime-associated security company. This was only the begining for Ryan, as his full bio shows.

Copyright ©, 2004, Michael G. Crawford for MILNET