Author Christopher Kirchhoff, co-founder of the Pentagon’s Tech Innovation Unit, Advice for the Trump National Security Team to Deter Global Threats

November 28, 2024 By haddadmedia

Christopher Kirchhoff, tech adviser to multiple presidents, on Air Force One

Christopher Kirchhoff is co-author of “Unit X: How the Pentagon and Silicon Valley are Transforming the Future of War” takes readers inside the AI race for national security and private industry’s critical role. As the co-founder of the Defense Innovation Unit with his co-author Raj Shah, he created the Pentagon’s first permanent advanced tech outpost based in Silicon Valley and is assisting the current Department of Defense on technology efforts. In a new interview with host Tammy Haddad on the Washington AI Network Podcast, he gives a compelling case for the urgency to invest in next-generation technology, the threats from China, Russia and North Korea and lays out how the Trump Administration can drive technological advancement forward to meet a new set of global threats.

“The greater danger is not that AI itself will pose a danger to us, but that we won’t experiment with AI in national security applications,” Kirchhoff said. He described how hesitancy to embrace experimentation could leave the U.S. vulnerable to adversaries who are accelerating their technological capabilities.

Kirchhoff pointed to the war in Ukraine as a vivid example of how modern warfare is evolving. “We gave Ukraine 31 M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, the most advanced battle tank in the world. And in short order, in the last few months, the Russians have figured out how to engineer kamikaze drones. And today, more than half of those M1A1 tanks have been taken off the battlefield by inexpensive Russian drone strikes,” he explained. This, Kirchhoff argued, highlights the growing importance of adaptability and innovation in modern defense strategies. “That tells a new incoming administration that if you are running a military that’s built with a lot of tanks, you now are behind the power curve and you need to find new ways of experimenting with new weapons platforms to be able to compete.”

**Shortlisted for the 2024 *Financial Times* Business Book of the Year**

When asked about the Pentagon’s efforts to address these challenges and the urgency of now, Kirchoff replied saying, “we don’t have, unfortunately, 10 years to figure out how to master and deploy this new set of technology. Our adversaries are already hard at work, as we can see in Ukraine, in the Middle East, in the Red Sea, in China, and so we really have got to go fast and bring the best parts of these technology ecosystems together,” Kirchhoff said. He emphasized the need for urgency, explaining that initiatives like Replicator are essential for staying ahead of global competitors.

Kirchhoff also discussed the role of private-sector leaders like Elon Musk in advancing defense innovation. “Elon would like it if we called him the X factor in the incumbent administration, and he really is,” Kirchhoff said. He praised Musk’s contributions to autonomous systems and satellite networks, particularly their impact on conflicts like Ukraine. However, Kirchhoff cautioned against over-reliance on private actors. “The Department of Defense is not a private company. You can’t just fire three-fourths of the people that are there and start over. You have to work within the existing system,” he noted.

When asked about the changing defense landscape, Kirchhoff described the current moment as an inflection point. “We’re in a remarkable moment that its many parts collectively constitute an emergency because those collective parts tell us that our existing force structure, our existing military technologies are not able to defend powerfully and muscularly against these new threats, that it’s time to change the technology and the operating concepts that we’re using to fight,” he said.

When asked about the cultural shifts required to embrace new technologies, Kirchhoff called for a bold rethinking of how defense institutions operate. “The government model is that you’re not willing to pay technologists market rate, you’re not going to get any of the good technologists working in the government,” argued Kirchoff. “Now, if you’re a taxpayer, I would want a really great set of technologists working in the government, helping the government figure out which technology to buy. And that problem is still there. We’re still at a moment in the middle of this artificial intelligence revolution where not at a single department or agency of the government can actually afford to hire an AI engineer at market rate.”

Closing the conversation, Kirchhoff delivered a clear call to action: “We’re a long way, I think, from having to worry about AI posing that level of threat. So the greater danger is not that AI itself will pose a danger to us, but that we won’t experiment with AI in national security applications. The AI safety community in their enthusiasm to make things perfectly safe I think have actually prevented an experimentation with the national security community that would’ve happened earlier,” he said.

I think the biggest hurdle that we face is having the right agenda for technology modernization, but having the wrong kind of politics to see it through, in the sense that we’re about to embark upon quite the national squabble on a lot of political fronts. And the challenge is in that kind of moment, that kind of political moment, whether you can actually get Congress to move a reform agenda through, or whether there’s going to be no bandwidth or serious reform at a moment of real political wrangling.

For Kirchhoff, collaboration across the public and private sectors is critical to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. “I think whoever begins to helm the Department of Defense in this new administration should work very closely and cooperatively with all the frontier labs to put those models to work and see where they can perform a really useful function and to make sure they’re deployed in contexts that are safe and not deployed in contexts that those models can’t support, that they’re not ready for,” he concluded.

Vice Admiral Frank Whitworth speaks at Washington AI Network to highlight AI’s role in National Security, Intelligence, and Warfare

December 7, 2023 By WHC Insider

*VADM Frank Whitworth addresses the crowd at the Washington AI Network on Monday, December 4, 2023.*

*VADM Frank Whitworth speaks at the Washington AI Network on Monday, December 4, 2023.*

*VADM Frank Whitworth and Washington AI Network founder Tammy Haddad*.

The Washington AI Network welcomed Vice Admiral Frank Whitworth, Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency(NGA), and guests to the House at 1229 on Monday, December 4 for a special ‘cocktails and conversation’ on AI’s role in national security, intelligence, competition with China, AI’s use in warfare, and the promise of advanced AI models that can analyze visual data.

VADM Whitworth shared his insights on the complex and evolving role of AI in geospatial intelligence and national security, as well as the challenges and opportunities it presents. The conversation was released today as an episode of the Washington AI Network Podcast

Moderated by host and founder Tammy Haddad, the conversation touched on the NGA’s responsibilities in the visual domain of intelligence, the critical role of human expertise or “wetware” in training AI algorithms, and the promise of large visual models, inter-agency cooperation, ethical considerations and guardrails, AI use in warfare, including in the Ukraine conflict, and competition with China.

*Bob Woodward asks VADM Frank Whitworth a question from the front row.*

*Bob Woodward and VADM Frank Whitworth.*

Guests spotted in POLITICO Playbook: Bob Woodward, Bob Costa, Phil Rucker, Josh Dawsey, Canadian Ambassador Kirsten Hillman, Elizabeth Falcone, Machalagh Carr, Teresa Carlson, Steve Clemons, John Hudson, James Adams, Evan Hollander and Eli Yokley, Jackie Rooney, T.W. Arrighi, Kathy O’Hearn and Mike Sarchet, Don Kerr and Polson Kanneth.

Highlights of the conversation are below. Transcript here.

Vice Adm. Frank Whitworth on guardrails and how AI and machines should support humans in their jobs – not replace them:

“We do have our own guardrails established in the wetware application of our tradecraft. And it’s things like training ourselves against things like confirmation bias or taking liberties with a normal checklist approach to whether you are there in positive identification. But to riff on your question, and this is where AI, I totally agree with the need for guardrails, provided we’re tempted to cut corners with AI. And right now, as far as humans, at least the humans at NGA, we’re building a certification program to ensure that will never occur, that [it] will be ethical. But I love also flipping this argument to suggesting that AI can actually provide guardrails.”

“Let’s say we had a pop-up urgent kind of episode, and we had people who have been working a long time, and they’re getting tired. That machine is not. So if that machine, during the course of the ML process, if we’ve treated that as a true digital apprentice, we’re going to count on that machine to double check if we’re getting tired, or if we might actually have a little bit of bias built in that we didn’t realize we did. I love the idea of AI actually being there to provide just another set of eyes as its own guardrail. This idea of singularity and letting the machine take over, those are human decisions. And so the way that we’re going to ensure that we approach this is very ethics bound, very certifications bound, totally in keeping with where DOD and the President now, by extension, with his executive order, 14110, we’re all in keeping with that.”

Vice Adm. Frank Whitworth on the anticipation of large visual models:

“In the visual sector for GEOINT, what I’m excited about, you’ve heard about these large language models. We anticipate, soon, large visual models. So instead of a visual detection that ‘This is a nice glass of water,’ it just tells you that it’s a glass of water. It might actually say, ‘Now it’s three fourths full.’ It will give you some context as to the behavior, or [that] it’s now moved about four inches to the right. That’ll be a phrase. So that’s kind of the equivalent in our world compared to what you’re seeing in such an exciting way with LLMs (large language models).”

Vice Adm. Frank Whitworth on competing with China:

“If I look at this from a STEM production rate and possible recruitment rate for people who are of Chinese origin, they’re way ahead. They are. The number of STEM-related graduates is probably over five times what we experience in the United States…This is concerning. We are a very STEM-oriented agency, and certainly people who understand AI and understand this tradecraft would probably benefit from being STEM graduates. What I like, though, about the United States is how experienced we are with critical thinking and with a tendency to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth first, right up front. And this has been tested. I would tell you as somebody who’s been invested in multiple conflicts over the last 34 years, we have a really good tendency to get the bad news up the chain very, very quickly. And so during the course of the fog of conflict, the fog of war, we’re going to opt to get that information up and seek clarity and to help our decision-makers also seek clarity and know, and know before they make decisions. I don’t know, and I can’t tell you whether the Chinese actually have that advantage right now.”

Vice Adm. Frank Whitworth on combating AI-generated deep fakes and visual misinformation:

“The issue of validation is very important. I appreciate your asking that. So one of the things that we do have is a group of people dedicated to open source imagery. And there’s a lot of it out there. And as you know, an image can be very powerful. Especially if it’s misleading and, and the consumer doesn’t realize that. So what we do is we go through, and it’s typically from social media. It might be through press. But typically the stuff you want to double-check is that stuff that comes through unevaluated press or some social media that may not be as reputable. But if it’s really important, then we will actually put that product out with a validation index. So we’re looking for other indications of maybe some manipulation, some forensics in there. We’re looking for evidence on the ground that’s not quite right relative to what we know is on the ground. And I tasked them about a year ago, this team, I said, ‘Hey, don’t just put it out as a little product. Put a scale on there.” One, invalid. Absolutely not. We’re finding things inconsistent with reality, inconsistent with the truth. Five, valid. Everything seems to be checking. I have found that our consumers have really enjoyed at least having a hint of whether that’s something that is correct or not.”

Vice Adm. Frank Whitworth on humans, AI, and warfare:

“I don’t have any guidance to take a human out of the loop, or right now, I think ‘on the loop’ is a term that’s being used. But I take your point that there could be some forces out there that choose to take humans out of the loop with mission orders, autonomous kind of mission orders with vehicles. So, here’s where I am. And this kind of speaks to what I’ve termed as a reluctant RMA, a Revolution of Military Affairs, that deals with the unmanning of a lot of power projection. Not all of it, mind you, but a lot of it. And we, it’s reluctant because frankly, we’re really invested in those as humans in minimizing warfare. But if you got to go for some sort of warfare, we are really invested in doing it best as humans. And we are invested in being out there.

Vice Adm. Frank Whitworth on the role of AI (and U.S. help) in the Ukraine conflict:

“I can’t speak to whether the Ukrainians are independently applying AI. They’re very resourceful. They’re very IT savvy. Would not be surprised to find out that they are. I think we’ve got one or two reporters who are just there, and they could probably have more authority on that topic. I do know this. If there is a way to provide an advantage to the Ukrainians, that is our writ. That is what we do. Through Ucomm, we are providing a tremendous amount of information to ensure that they have what they need. We don’t do the targeting for them. They make their own independent assessments. They make their own independent decisions on what they will actually neutralize. But we have a responsibility, as the president has stated from the beginning of this, to ensure that, that we’re not holding back in, in the information that they need to make good decisions.”

Vice Adm. Frank Whitworth on MAVEN Smart System:

“And I like the direction that we’re moving in the MAVEN program to ensure that we are soliciting as many opportunities out there by smalls as we can. Now, that will have to be tempered by some security issues. We’ll have to make sure that as we protect these algorithms, that we don’t get too far afield. We don’t want to go back to being just a project that’s so flat and apparent that, frankly, you find your algorithms getting stolen.”

Share on social media using @WashingtonAINet and @NGA_GEOINT.

Doug Wilson: President Obama’s former Pentagon Communications Head, headlines a piece in the Huffington Post

July 24, 2012 By WHC Insider

Romney Abroad — Back to the Future

As seen in the Huffington Post

As Mitt Romney prepares to depart for his overseas visits, there are some questions worth raising to which voters being asked to make him Commander-in-Chief deserve an answer.

Not the political questions, including why he’s going abroad, and where. Those answers are clear: It’s clear that Romney wants voters to believe that, while it may not be his strength, he’d be an acceptable foreign policy president. It’s clear that when Romney’s in London, he wants American voters to think Olympics and give him points for his role in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games. It’s clear that by going to Israel, he wants us to believe he’ll be a better friend to Israel than President Obama has been. And it’s clear that in Poland, he wants Americans to remember that it was only just last century that the world was divided between Them — the Soviets, er, Russians — and Us, and with Them, you can’t have it both ways. There’s not much nuance here, unless you define nuance as the particular categories of religious and ethnic voters to whom these messages are targeted – and the swing states in which those voters live.

But if this election really is going to be as close as predicted, we have to go over the head of the Romney spokesperson who said last week, in response to a question about Afghanistan policy, “I’m not going to get into the details of that”. We have to insist that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee himself get into the details of some basic questions on national security. Like these:

Who speaks for you on national security? Is it John Bolton, the ultra-hawk who turned off not only the British and other US allies but other conservatives in the Bush Administration with his extremist views; Bolton, who denounces Obama Administration-led international sanctions against Iran — the toughest ever imposed, the first to include China and Russia — and crosses his fingers that international negotiations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons will fail so we can get to the military options? Is it Senator Rand Paul, who last year said it was time to end US aid to Israel? Is it former Navy Secretary John Lehman, who hasn’t given up on his 80’s push for a 600-plus-ship Navy and who worries openly about the “Soviet push into the Arctic”?

Where’s the beef? We know with whom you HAVE a beef: President Obama. But where’s the substance? “I would look at the things the President has done and do the opposite” is not a responsible framework either for bilateral policy with Israel or for US national security policy. Do you or don’t you believe we should go to war with Iran? What specifically would you do to address the Iranian threat that is different from what President Obama is already doing? Do you believe there are still viable options for dealing with the Iranian threat short of war? What would your proposed military action against Iran involve, and how would you deal with its potentially destabilizing consequences? Do you or don’t you support the framework for security transition in Afghanistan developed by our top military and civilian leadership and supported not only by our NATO and ISAF partners (including Britain and Poland) but by a majority of the American people? If yes, will you say so clearly? If no, will you outline your own plan for continued US military engagement in Afghanistan? Will you really “just do what the commanders say to do” in Afghanistan? Or will you involve them in developing plans that you, as Commander-in-Chief, will frame? Would you stop US support for Israel’s “Iron Dome” short-range missile shield? Would you direct the Pentagon to reduce its military assistance to Israel? Both of those actions would in fact fulfill your promise to “do the opposite” of what President Obama has done to support Israel.

In what century do you plan to conduct your foreign policy? Granted, the world was a dangerous place during the Cold War. It has become an even more dangerous place during the first twelve years of the 21st century. There are fewer simple, bumper-sticker, zero-sum answers to national security issues. We have heard little or nothing from you on topics like al-Qaeda and counterterrorism, let alone issues like cyber security and the rise of a new generation of national and regional leaders from Europe to the Middle East to Asia. Committing US troops to solve every problem, whether military or non-military, is a knee-jerk option supported neither by current international circumstances nor by most Americans, including the military.

How will you determine what to spend on defense? Faced with the most difficult national economic circumstances in three generations, a Congress divided on how to address them, and a need to find487 billion in defense savings over the next ten years, President Obama directed his military and civilian Pentagon advisors to find those savings — but to do so based on a national security strategy that would keep America safe and secure, and its military strong and the best in the world. The political and civilian leaders, generals and admirals, working together, did just that. How would you do it? By framing national security in terms of spending 4% of GDP on defense, which you have said you will do? How and why did you come up with that number? (With the2 trillion defense budgets that result, you’ll definitely be able to buy lots of700 hammers and toilet seats.) By defining your strategy in terms of cutting almost 20 percent across the board from government spending? Returning veterans and military families, among others, might have some questions about what that means for them.

How should we judge you as a potential Commander-in-Chief and world leader? Over the next several days, the world will see you rightfully hailing the leaders and citizens of the UK, Israel and Poland — three strong and important partners of the United States — as allies and defenders of freedom and democracy. No argument there. But voters deserve to know much more about how you, as a potential President and Commander-in-Chief, view the world. How you understands its realities. How you will deal with the details. How you will make the tough choices. What you will ask of the American people to support your decisions. What role ideology will play in making your decisions and in choosing the team that implements them. Where you specifically differ with the current President, and what specifically you would do differently. Whether you have the political courage to say where you agree with him — and why.

So far, what we have heard is a cacophony of divided, ideological and often-extreme voices echoing from the Bush years and speaking in your name; opportunistic accusations instead of well-articulated policy proposals; and simplistic defense-spending formulations tied neither to clearly-developed national security strategy nor to the economic realities we face. Voters deserve to know if that’s all there is. If it is, it sounds like you will be taking us back to the future — to the George W. Bush foreign policy years.

As President and Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama has stepped up to the plate. He has shown he can and will be tough in protecting America’s national interests. And his actions in doing so have by and large been smart and pragmatic rather than reckless or ideologically-motivated. Consequently, for the first time that I can remember, a Democrat is the preferred choice of voters over a Republican as Commander-in-Chief and leader on national security issues. For Mitt Romney just to aim for a “gentleman’s ‘C'” as an acceptable alternative is not likely to change that. Neither is the prospect of taking us back to the future.

HBO films "WARTORN 1861-2010" Pentagon Premiere

November 3, 2010 By WHC Insider

A standing room only crowd watched history unfolding as the Pentagon opened its doors to premiere a very personal film for the military: the new HBO Documentary Film WARTORN 1861-2010. The film chronicles the history of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder through the eyes of American servicemen and women, and their families.

It was a poignant evening as the families featured in the film walked their own red carpet to share their experiences with PTSD. The film is executive produced by James Gandolfini and HBO Documentary Films President Sheila Nevins. Ms. Nevins attended the premiere, along with filmmakers Jon Alpert, Ellen Goosenberg Kent, Matthew O’Neill, Lori Shinseki and Sara Bernstein.

Opening remarks were made by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey, Jr. and HBO Co-President Richard Plepler. A special panel discussion followed the screening to bring attention to the serious efforts of the military and the Veterans Administration to help fix these problems. The panel was moderated by Doug Wilson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and Tammy Duckworth, Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs| Department of Veterans Affairs. Panelists included General Peter Chiarelli, U.S. Army Vice Chief of Staff; Dr. Kathleen Chard, Director PTSD and Anxiety Disorder Division | Cincinnati VA Medical Center; Lt. Col. Gregory E. Harbin (Ret.), Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; Paul “Buddy” Bucha, Medal of Honor Recipient; Gregory Goldstein, Headquarters Marine Corps Combat and Operational Stress Control Program Manager.

The audience included the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki, the First Lady’s Chief of Staff Susan Sher and Darienne Paige, White House liaison.

WARTORN 1861-2010 premieres on HBO this Veteran’s Day: November 11, 2010.