FP: Scott W. Carmichael, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Carmichael: Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak about Ana's case. Jamie, I think it's important to educate the public about espionage, and particularly about Cuban intelligence operations targeted against the United States. I look forward to your questions.
FP: Ok, before we get into Ana’s case, let's start first with the effect that Cuban intelligence operations directed against the United States have on our collective security. Can you talk a bit about that?
Carmichael: The American people should be very concerned about this issue. Cuba may indeed be but a small island which poses no credible military threat to the United States. But the intelligence threat which she poses is enormous. It is enormous because the Cuban intelligence service (CUIS) is very professional and capable; CUIS is highly motivated to penetrate the United States government; it has demonstrated past success at accomplishing that mission; the relative ease with which CUIS recruited Ana suggests that it would be relatively easy for CUIS to recruit others among us, and, given their capability and motivation, we must assume that they have done so; finally, and most importantly, the government of Cuba almost certainly shares intelligence obtained from agents among us with other governments whose interests may be inimical to our own. That information can be used against us. It can be used to kill our kids in uniform.
FP: Tell us the relative ease with which the CUIS recruited Ana.
Carmichael: Ana was recruited in 1984. Back then, she was a 27 year old graduate student at Johns Hopkins University's School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C., and she was employed on a full-time basis by the Department of Justice as a processor of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeals. She held a Top Secret security clearance while so employed, and that clearance was based on the results of an FBI background investigation.
Ana was very vocal about her disagreement with the Reagan administration's policies vis-à-vis Central America, back then. When the Cuban government learned of her views, through their many eyes and ears in the Washington, D.C. area, they simply asked Ana whether she would be willing to assist them. She agreed. And it was just that easy for the Cuban Intelligence Service to recruit her. If you were to ask Ana today whether she felt disloyal to the United States, she would probably tell you that she meant no harm to the United States, but only wished to support the Nicaraguan people and the Cuban people in their pursuit of freedom from American influence. She would not regard her own actions as disloyal.
FP: What did the Cubans ask of Ana?
Carmichael: The Cubans suggested to Ana that she might be of greater assistance to their cause if she had a job which provided access to information which had great value to Cuba. Ana acted on their suggestion by applying for employment with a number of federal agencies in Washington, D.C. Since she already held a Top Secret security clearance, along with a bachelor's degree from the University of Virginia and a master's degree from Johns Hopkins University, she was a very competitive job applicant. DIA hired her in September 1985. She was already a fully recruited Cuban spy, by then, and she continued to serve as their spy from within DIA for the next 16 years.
DIA did learn about Ana's views regarding the US government's policies in Central America. The security office addressed those views on several occasions, back in 1986 and 1991 and, again, in 1996, and a number of security officials even expressed serious concerns about her suitability for access to sensitive information. But in the end, risk-management judgments were made in her favor. After all, many people disagreed with the Reagan administration's policies in Central America back then (remember the Iran-Contra affair, and Congressional disagreement with the administration's policies and actions in Central America during the late 1980's?). Disagreement with government policies did not equate to disloyalty. And no evidence existed at that time to suggest that Ana Montes was a spy, so she retained her security clearance.
It's a complicated issue. I might add that, in a general sense, her co-workers liked and respected Ana, and her supervisors absolutely loved her. She seemed to be a tireless worker, with a great work ethic and attitude, who more than carried her share of the work load. In fact, she appeared to be a model employee. And in March 1994, Ana successfully completed a polygraph examination, even though, by then, she had already spied for Cuba for ten years. Don't ask me how she managed to do that. But she certainly appeared to be a great employee, and only one of her colleagues ever voiced counterintelligence concerns about Ana directly to the security office at DIA.
FP: What made you suspicious of Ana?
Carmichael: In a nutshell, it was one of her colleagues. His name is Reginald Brown. Reg first approached my wife to express concerns about Ana. That was in April 1996. My wife was employed by DIA at the time; she and Reg were very good friends and colleagues at work. My wife referred Reg to me, since I was employed by DIA as a mole hunter and it was my job to resolve counterintelligence concerns about DIA employees. Reg was very hesitant to speak with me, at first. He was concerned that he might be wrong about Ana, and he didn't want to point a finger of suspicion at an innocent person. But I assured Reg that I would act discreetly; he then confided to me his growing concerns that Ana might be a spy.
I interviewed Ana later that year to resolve concerns raised by Reg regarding Ana's involvement in some very specific actions which had occurred earlier in the year. Reg thought that Cuban intelligence might have directed Ana to act on those occasions. Well, Ana answered my questions very satisfactorily, and we were able to determine that, in fact, Cuban intelligence had not directed Ana to take action in any of the incidents cited by Reg Brown. She seemed to be 'good to go', and it appeared that Reg was wrong in his assessment of Ana Montes. But during my interview with Ana in 1996, she did leave me with a nagging 'gut feeling' that something was not quite right about Ana Montes. Several years then passed. In the fall of 2000, I learned that the FBI had reason to believe that there was a Cuban spy operating in Washington, D.C. I approached the FBI and managed to persuade them that Ana might be the person they were looking for. They agreed to open a case, and the rest is history.
FP: Can you expand a bit on who Reg Brown is.
Carmichael: Reg Brown has been an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency for about 20 years, now. He is still employed by DIA, and he happens to be a very good friend of mine and my wife. Reg Brown is an analyst. He is one of many employees of DIA whose jobs are to collect bits and pieces of information about the capabilities and intentions of potential adversaries of the United States. Analysts review that information to form judgments about foreign plans and intentions.
During the late 1980's and early-mid 1990's, Reg Brown's specialty was counterintelligence, and his particular focus was Cuba. His mission at DIA was to assess the affect that Cuban intelligence operations, worldwide, might have on US military operations worldwide. So, for example, if the United States military planned to conduct operations, say, somewhere in Latin America, Reg would determine as best he could, what the Cuban intelligence service might plan to do, if anything, to counter or interrupt American military operations in the region. Reg was not a mole hunter or a spy hunter - his job was not to find spies among us - but he did have a sense of Cuban intelligence operations and the affect that those operations might have on the United States. Reg Brown and Ana Montes were both Cuba specialists, in a sense, even though they tended to focus on different issues regarding Cuba. Reg and Ana did not work together, in the same office, but they were colleagues and they did occasionally interact on common/Cuban issues. You could say that Reg knew Ana professionally, at work.
FP: So tell us how Ana was arrested. What were some of the first serious clues? How did you end up cracking the case and getting her?
Carmichael: Many details of the investigation remain sensitive. But I can tell you that the intelligence community had reason to believe that a Cuban agent existed, perhaps somewhere within Washington, D.C. A tiny tidbit of information was known about that agent.
I learned about that tidbit of information in August 2000, and realized instantly that Ana was among many, many people in Washington, D.C., who matched up well with that particular piece of information. I combined that knowledge with Reg Brown's gut feelings about Ana, and with my own gut feeling about Ana - developed during my November 1996 interview with her - to persuade the FBI to take a serious look at the possibility that Ana Montes was indeed a Cuban agent.
We had no 'evidence', per se, that Ana was a mole. In fact, there was good reason to conclude that Ana Montes was an unlikely suspect. But we were patient, and we worked well together behind the scenes to gather information about Ana's activities. In a sense, we made our own luck, by being persistent and vigilant. We conducted a very discreet, behind-the-scenes investigation into Ana's activities for about a year.
During the course of that investigation, the FBI collected a great deal of circumstantial evidence of Ana's espionage activity - including a number of telephone calls which Ana placed to telephone numbers known or suspected to be affiliated with the Cuban intelligence service.
The investigation was terminated somewhat prematurely owing in part to 9/11. President Bush had declared a Global War on Terrorism, and ordered the Department of Defense to prepare a plan to attack Al Qaeda's base in Afghanistan - Operation Enduring Freedom. The Defense Intelligence Agency was naturally involved in the planning for that operation, and Ana had been selected by her supervisors (who were ignorant of our investigation) to serve as a team leader for DIA analysts who were scheduled to receive detailed war planning documents on Saturday 22, September 2001. We could not allow Ana to gain access to that material, of course, so a decision was made to place her under arrest during the mid-morning hours on Friday 21, September 2001, at work, before she could access the war plans.
We ran a bit of a ruse on her, to separate Ana from her co-workers, by calling her down to the office of DIA's Inspector General on a routine matter. When Ana arrived, she was met by the FBI case agents, who placed her under arrest.
She didn't say anything at all, and she showed no emotion whatsoever. As she was about to be escorted from the building, I stood in her path for a moment to allow some members of the arrest team to pass by. Ana certainly knew who I was. I had interviewed her just four years earlier, and during that interview I suggested to Ana that she might be a Cuban spy. I am certain that she walked away from that interview convinced that she had managed to slip by me. As she stood directly in front of me, she averted her gaze and refused to even look at me. She remains unrepentant, to this day.
FP: How did Ana affect those close to her?
Carmichael: Ana's family members and her former boyfriend were victims of her espionage activity. They neither knew of her activity nor even suspected that she was involved in espionage. In fact, Ana went way out of her way to ensure that they did not find out. It is unfortunate that her family members and former boyfriend may have been tainted by Ana's actions - in that sense, they were unknowing and innocent victims. The impact had to be deep and lasting. I doubt they will ever fully recover. Ana's actions were extremely selfish, on many levels, and she is paying for the damage (exceptionally grave) which she caused to our collective security, but she can never repay the damage that she caused to her family and her former boyfriend.
Her co-workers were devastated by Ana's arrest and her actions. They felt betrayal both on professional and personal levels. Remember that, Ana worked intimately at DIA with a small group of people - all Latin America specialists. She had worked for many years alongside them, seated right next to some of them, daily, for up to 15 years. A number of them broke down when she was arrested, and none of them will ever be the same. The psychological impact upon them ran very deep. Many of them felt that their work for almost two decades was for naught, because Ana compromised everything that they had worked on, throughout their professional careers. They might as well have stayed home rather than work throughout the entire period of time of her espionage activity. The man who actually hired Ana in 1985, continued to serve as her supervisor for the entire period of her espionage activity at DIA, for 16 years. Can you imagine how he felt when she was arrested? He used to hold Ana up to others as the model employee to be emulated by everyone - the perfect employee! He was devastated by her betrayal.
FP: Can you expand a bit on the damage she caused? What exactly did it entail?
Carmichael: Well, to put it into perspective, remember that Ana Montes was widely recognized throughout the entire US intelligence community as their senior analyst on Cuba. She held a Top Secret security clearance, with authorized access to Special Intelligence - which derived from extremely sensitive sources - throughout her 16 year career as a spy. She had access to our innermost secrets, and she gave everything away to the Cuban intelligence service, for free. She didn't charge them a nickel for that information, and never received any payment for her services to them. The bottom line is that she caused 'exceptionally grave' damage to our national security. Every source and method used by the United States government to collect information about Cuban actions and intentions was compromised. Everything that we knew about Cuba and suspected about Cuba, and everything that we did not know about Cuba, was compromised.
Everything that we planned or intended to do regarding Cuba, was compromised. They had us thoroughly wired. All of our 'contingency plans' regarding Cuba - which the public commonly refers to as 'war plans' - were compromised to the government of Cuba. If the United States military had been directed to take any kind of military action against Cuba throughout Ana's 16 year career, the Cubans would have been ready for us, and could have inflicted casualties on our forces, as a result.
Ana was plugged in to the Seat-of-Government level intelligence and policy apparatus in Washington, D.C., and she was therefore able to provide to the Cuban government true insider information concerning everything that the American government knew, planned, or thought about Cuba. And much more.
Ana had at her fingertips, through our computer systems, instant and direct access to the US governments innermost secrets about just about every other nation on earth. It is an unimaginable amount of extremely sensitive information. A mountain of insider information. And Ana was in a position to give it all away. The true damage to national security, though, might be measured in terms of the compromise of such information not only to Cuba, but to Cuba's friends around the world. You see, we can imagine that Cuba shares information with her friends - with Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and the People's Republic of China, and others. Ana's information could easily have been spent by the government of Cuba like currency, shared with Cuba's friends in order to advance Cuba's own interests.
Some of the countries which I mention above are not entirely friendly toward the United States. Sharing sensitive information with some of those countries could result in the death of American war fighters around the world - American kids in American uniforms. That is the bottom line on damage assessments when espionage occurs.
FP: So in the context of this story and all of its consequences, how would you say that your book demonstrates how Cuba, despite its small size, is a major security threat to the United States?
Carmichael: My book conveys to the reader the relative ease with which an otherwise intelligent person of great potential can be recruited by a professional and capable Cuban intelligence service to serve the interests of the Castro regime, and thereby cause great harm to the United States.
If the Cubans did it once, we must assume that they have done it many times, over the years - and that, therefore, many Ana Montes's could be among us today. The information which such agents provide to the government of Cuba can be shared by the government of Cuba with any other nation or group of people on earth, including nations and organizations which intend us harm.
It would be naïve to imagine that Cuba does not do so. Cuba represents a major security threat to the United States, not because of her military capability - which may be minimal - but because of her proven ability and dogged determination to recruit agents among us in order to do us harm.
FP: What are your overall views of the FBI? Should we have confidence in the agency?
Carmichael: The FBI deserves our full confidence and support. True, that agency must be held to account for systemic failings and weaknesses, and it is also true that individual employees occasionally falter - the agency is not perfect, but in toto it remains the most effective law enforcement agency in the world, and it faithfully serves to shield the American people from threats to their freedom.
FBI Special Agents and support employees are absolutely top notch - intelligent, well trained, motivated, and dedicated to their mission. They want to do a good job for us, and to do that in a lawful manner. I've worked directly with the FBI on national security matters, on an almost daily basis, for more than 20 years - I therefore have some experience in working with that agency, and I know what I am talking about.
Confidence in the FBI translates into cooperation with the FBI. The American people need to have sufficient confidence in the FBI to cooperate by sharing information with the FBI. In this case, by providing investigative leads to the FBI concerning CUIS operations in the United States. We need people like Reg Brown to step forward and express their counterintelligence concerns, and thereby give professional investigators - FBI agents - an opportunity to address and resolve those concerns. The FBI is good, but they can't do it alone. They need information with which to work, and the American people - especially federal employees, but not solely federal employees - are their best source of information about suspected espionage activity. People therefore need to step up and cooperate with the FBI by volunteering information about suspected espionage. Let's stop bashing the Bureau, and instead support the good people of that agency who work for us.
I was not at all surprised to learn, after Ana's arrest, that a number of people in her life questioned the government's employment of Ana Montes at all, given her views toward US government policy, and that a number of colleagues in the intelligence community expressed not surprise at her arrest but some sense of vindication of their own feelings and views about Ana Montes prior to the arrest ('I knew it! I told you so! I'm not surprised!), and that some colleagues had even warned others of their suspicions or concerns that Ana might be a spy - and yet, none of those people (except Reg Brown) stepped forward to express those concerns directly to the FBI or to agents of DIA's security office, who could have taken steps earlier to resolve concerns about Ana. People who harbour suspicions need to have confidence that the FBI will handle those suspicions in a responsible manner, and that the FBI will work quietly and discreetly behind the scenes to resolve those concerns. We might catch a few more spies, earlier, if people who harbor suspicions or concerns step forward.
The FBI performed magnificently in this case.
FP: Let’s get back to Ana Montes. Why is she unrepentant? What is the mindset of this particular individual who served a monstrous tyranny?
Carmichael: She continues to believe that she did the right thing. I am not psychologist, but I believe that Ana simply must continue to hold onto that view. Otherwise, she would fall apart. She has so rationalized her own actions that she is now incapable of viewing those actions in terms of the harm that she caused.
I believe the final chapter in my book puts her actions into a proper perspective. The final chapter is entitled, Death of a War Fighter. It recounts the circumstances of the death, during the early morning hours of 31 March 1987, of a young American Green Beret in El Salvador. His name was Greg Fronius, and he was assigned to train El Salvadoran Army troops in basic infantry tactics at their army base in El Salvador. During the early morning hours of 31 March 1987, that base was overrun by Cuban-backed insurgent forces, and Greg was killed in action while very heroically defending the base from that attack. Greg received the silver star for his actions that morning, and, believe me, he earned it.
Ana Montes visited Greg's base just weeks before the attack took place. She returned to Washington, D.C. after that visit and met with Cuban intelligence officials to tell them everything that she had learned during her trip to El Salvador. We don't know exactly what Ana told the Cubans about Greg's base, but it could have enabled them to better prepare for their attack on that base. I believe that Ana Montes shares some responsibility for the death of that young man - one of America's finest war fighters; a Green Beret who was just doing his duty. Ana Montes was quite literally sworn to support that young man, but she chose instead to betray him; and he subsequently, perhaps consequently, died at the hands of Cuban-backed insurgents. How could she do that? I don't know. I can't relate to it. But I do believe that, if Ana Montes were ever to accept some measure of responsibility for that young man's death, she would fall apart. But, psychologically, she simply won't go there. She can't 'go there'. She chooses, instead, to stand by her belief that she did the right thing. It's twisted, I know. But there it is.
FP: I wonder if Ana Montes is going to read Against All Hope by Armando Valladares while she’s in prison. She used the freedom and prosperity given to her by her nation to damage her nation, to bolster a fascist regime and to help torture courageous heroes such as Armando. I guess some human beings voluntarily choose to live a spiritual life in a sewer.
Scott Carmichael thank you for the tremendous service you have done and continue to do for our nation and for freedom. It was a privilege to speak with you.
Carmichael: Ana will always be a True Believer. She will always believe that her actions were morally correct. As intelligent and well-educated as she is, Ana may nevertheless be incapable of seeing the truth that she betrayed everyone - her family, her friends, her co-workers, and all Americans who entrusted their collective security to her.