Transcript

Leigh Dal · Newsradio WGAN

0:27
It is a healthy conversation on News Radio WGAN with Doctor Lisa
0:31
Belisle and myself, Doctor Jeff Barkin.
0:33
It's AM 560985 FM Thanks to all the podcast outlets for carrying
0:38
us and of course, streaming live at wgan.com.
0:42
This week we are in studio with Lee Dahl.
0:46
Lee is a former federal government employee.
0:49
She worked in the national security sector for nearly 15
0:52
years. Lee has experience in both
0:54
domestic and global counterintelligence,
0:57
counterterrorism, and adversarial targets.
1:01
She worked on a range of domestic and global national
1:03
security operations, liaised with partners across the United
1:07
States national security sector and with global partners, and
1:11
maintain productive relationships with policy makers
1:13
to achieve national security objectives.
1:16
Lee attended American University.
1:18
She earned a bachelor's degree in communications and then a
1:21
master's degree in public policy.
1:23
Since moving to Maine in the summer of 2023, she's learned to
1:26
play tennis where I know her from, enjoys walking through the
1:30
woods of Maine, likes learning to cook simple recipes with
1:33
clean ingredients. Maine, in her words, has offered
1:36
her a way to re embrace nature and to reconnect with the role
1:40
that nature and health play in our lives.
1:43
Lee Dahl, welcome to A Healthy Conversation.
1:46
Thanks, Jeff. Thanks for having me.
1:47
Hi, Lee. Hi, Lisa.
1:49
Thanks for having me. Yes, we're so happy to have you.
1:51
Yeah. And, and having you here, I want
1:54
you to share your background, which is in you're in the FBI,
1:58
you're in the CIA, you're in intelligence and
2:00
counterintelligence. Maybe first at a starting point,
2:04
what is intelligence? What is counterintelligence?
2:07
I know this is going to tweak people's interests.
2:10
And then how do you get into it if you are?
2:13
Great question. Counterintelligence is a matter
2:18
of researching, finding adversarial targets that are
2:22
going after the United States. Intelligence gathering is
2:27
through various mechanisms like human intelligence, signals
2:32
intelligence, and all of those various types of intelligence
2:36
come together where analysts put everything together in a nice
2:40
pretty bow and present it to policymakers to make national
2:44
security decisions based off of that intelligence gathered.
2:49
So things, it sounds like start low and then work their way up.
2:53
There is some decision that gets made that works its way down.
2:57
Yet in popular culture, like thinking about television shows,
3:01
it seems like things go so fast. Is is it they go fast or do I
3:06
have to, if I'm out in the field, send an e-mail to my
3:09
manager who sends it to their manager all the way up and then
3:12
it comes back down? What is that like?
3:15
It's not as fast as TV would like to have you see it happen.
3:19
That would be a miracle. Wouldn't we all love that 45
3:23
minute segment with 15 minutes for commercials if you're not
3:26
streaming, But that's unfortunately not quite the way
3:29
it works. It can be fast-paced depending
3:32
on the operation or the investigation, but not quite in
3:37
that 45 minute little segment. What happens is you gather small
3:41
amounts of intelligence through various U.S. intelligence
3:45
agencies. There are 16 intelligence
3:47
agencies in the United States, and all of that comes together
3:53
bit by bit to create a picture. It's almost like a puzzle.
3:57
And that puzzle gets put together bit by bit and then
4:01
presented in front of the National Security Council or in
4:04
front of POTUS. And those people then make those
4:09
hard decisions with Congress, obviously as the financial
4:14
approver in the end. This is really interesting to me
4:19
because I think we all have watched the shows, the movies,
4:23
the things that make us feel, I guess, more safe in the world,
4:27
that we know that somebody's paying attention and looking out
4:30
for our best interest as a country.
4:33
I'm wondering when you were 10, as a small girl, did you know
4:38
you wanted to do this type of work?
4:40
No, not at all. Actually, my parents used to be
4:43
concerned about me because I was not interested in newspapers.
4:47
I was not interested in the global world in a way that would
4:52
have you believe I would enter into this field.
4:55
And they would be confused and say, aren't you interested in
4:57
the world around you? And I think it just then evolved
5:02
with age and maturity. So any teenagers who might be
5:06
listening, there is time for you still, I promise.
5:10
But it evolved and I think it mostly evolved going to college
5:14
my freshman year and 911 was my freshman year.
5:19
And that had a significant impact on me and what I saw my
5:23
future to be. And I think it had an impact on
5:26
a lot of my classmates at the time for various reasons.
5:31
Wow, after getting a a degree in public policy, did you enter
5:35
FBICIA? What was the route thereafter
5:38
and what was it like to get in? What was that training like?
5:42
I actually worked temporarily for a lobbying firm while I had
5:46
applied for the FBI, and then I applied and got in, but I, you
5:50
know, waited for my security clearance to come through.
5:53
So anyone entering into this field has to be aware that they
5:57
will be required to have a background check conducted with
6:02
a polygraph. And so that's a pretty lengthy
6:05
period of time to go through that process and an interview
6:10
like you would for any job when they ask you about yourself and
6:13
your personality and your past, which is pretty much like any
6:18
other career you would have. The only main difference is the
6:22
polygraph in the security background check.
6:25
You're listening to A Healthy Conversation with Doctor Lisa
6:28
Belial and Doctor Jeff Barkin on News Radio WGANAM 560 FM 98.5.
6:35
We've been talking with Lee Doll about her path into national
6:37
security and what that work actually looks like in real
6:40
life. So I'm wondering as a college
6:45
student at American University, which is in DC, correct, with
6:50
the Pentagon not that far away. And obviously the things that
6:54
happened very much centered in that part of the world.
6:58
I'm, I'm sure there was an emotional reaction that you had
7:02
as a college student. But then somehow you were able
7:04
to say, I'm going to act on this.
7:06
I want to do something that is in response to this threat.
7:10
Can you can you explain? Was there a pivotal moment for
7:13
you? Oddly enough, it wasn't a
7:15
pivotal moment. I think for myself and for other
7:20
classmates of mine that were sort of walking through college
7:23
with this different world that we all had to walk through at
7:28
the time, it happened slowly and it happened through classes that
7:34
piqued my interest. It happened through adjunct
7:37
professors that piqued my interest that were out working
7:41
in government at the time, that were out there in the real world
7:45
who were professors on the side. And I think they had a pretty
7:50
profound effect on my decision to enter into government.
7:54
I think with the geopolitics of the time and the TV that was
8:00
happening at the time and the news cycle that was happening at
8:03
the time that we were all watching and we were all living
8:06
through it slowly chipped away at forming my desire to join and
8:14
and do something. And when you joined, what was
8:16
that process like? You take a lie detector test,
8:19
you go through a background check, security check, pass.
8:22
I assume there's some sort of physical and mental training.
8:25
What? What was that like?
8:27
So I applied to be an analyst with the FBI.
8:31
Agents and analysts have similar paths, but they they vary
8:35
differently. So analysts go for a security
8:38
background check just like agents, and then everyone goes
8:41
to Quantico for a period of time.
8:43
Agents have the physical component to their training,
8:47
whereas analysts do not. But we all have to learn the
8:51
constitutional law together. So there was a lot of time spent
8:56
on law and the training was about 2 1/2 months at Quantico.
9:02
And then you are sent out into whatever field office they they
9:07
put you in with the agency. It's a little bit of a different
9:10
hiring process. Fortunately, they put a lot of
9:15
that information on their website, which is a fantastic
9:18
resource for people that might be interested in that career.
9:22
And it's the similar background check and training varies
9:27
depending on what area of the agency that you are entering
9:31
into, whether it's operations, whether it's support, whether
9:35
it's science and technology. So that hiring process changes
9:40
drastically sort of depending on which sector of the CIA you're
9:44
wishing to apply for. But they have a plethora of
9:49
information on their website about each directorate, which is
9:54
phenomenal. For physical requirements,
9:56
what's involved? For the agents, for the FBI,
10:00
they have to be physically fit. They have a physical fitness
10:03
test kind of like the presidential fitness test you
10:07
kind of had when you were, you know, a kid, which I believe
10:10
they've brought back into the fold.
10:13
But there are some similarities to that.
10:15
I hope you have your, you know, you're doing your sit ups and
10:18
your pull ups. There is some, you know, basic
10:22
physical combat in a way that they teach you.
10:25
Obviously weapons training of course, and weapon safety is is
10:31
part of that process. So I hope you like running if
10:34
you plan on applying. So you're a good runner.
10:36
I am not because I was an analyst, but I at the FBI, so I
10:42
didn't fortunately have to go through that physical component.
10:45
Now you hear the term analyst. When I hear analyst, I think
10:48
psychoanalyst. What does an analyst at the FBI
10:50
do? I assume you don't just have
10:52
people on couches? Oh, I would love to have had a
10:55
couch while I was sitting there. No, it's mostly gathering
11:01
information through human intelligence, mostly that the
11:04
agents collect through a series of either interviews or they go
11:09
out or you interview companies and they are out in the world.
11:15
And then the analysts are responsible for putting that
11:17
together in a cohesive manner and providing a confidence
11:21
level, low, medium or high confidence that that information
11:25
is correct or full. Full and then that information
11:30
gets vetted, moves upwards and gets acted on at some point.
11:34
We are here with Lee Dahl. Lee is a former federal
11:37
government employee. She has worked in the national
11:40
security sector for about 15 years with the FBI, with the
11:44
CIA, talking about what it's like to transition from being a
11:49
kid to an adult in the intelligence and
11:51
counterintelligence field. And I'm curious what Lee's
11:55
concept of risk uncertainty and how US regular folks can make
11:59
sense of the threats around us. It's a healthy conversation.
12:02
News Radio, WGAN. We'll be right back.
12:20
Welcome back to A Healthy Conversation with Doctor Lisa
12:23
Belial and Doctor Jeff Barkin on News Radio WGANAM 560 FM 98.5.
12:30
We're talking today with Lee Dahl about national security,
12:33
threat awareness, resilience. And this part of the
12:36
conversation is really about how ordinary people can make sense
12:39
of risk in everyday life. So, Lee, you worked in settings
12:43
where identifying real threats mattered.
12:45
For ordinary people who are not in that world, how do you
12:49
distinguish between a healthy awareness and also living in a
12:53
state of constant? Fear, good question.
12:57
So after 911, I don't know if you remember this, but we had
13:02
that threat level that was like the constant ticker right on the
13:07
TV and the airports. And it was like red then orange,
13:10
then yellow, then red then. And I and I feel like I think
13:14
for the average person, it might have done them a dissurface
13:19
right to have to live in such a heightened level and created
13:24
anxiety where perhaps there didn't need to be these
13:28
heightened levels of anxiety. But of course hindsight is
13:32
always 2020. And so I, I think if people can
13:38
sort of zoom out from an individual, whether it's a risk
13:44
or threat, which are two different things.
13:47
But if people can zoom out and look at things more macro versus
13:52
micro and say, you know, is this car going to hit me right now?
13:58
What is the statistical likelihood, right, that then
14:01
that might be a healthier way to approach a threat or a risk,
14:07
right, Rather than feeling fear constantly.
14:11
So I think kind of putting it in a perspective of a macro versus
14:16
every tiny thing feeling fear could be helpful for people.
14:21
Don't you think that we live in a world where the outside world
14:24
generates A tremendous amount of fear?
14:26
I think a lot of it can be profit driven or polarization
14:30
driven. And the the model that you're
14:33
putting forth is that things are not nearly as bad as they seem.
14:36
Which parallels on a psychological level, the work of
14:39
Jonathan Height, who's a psychologist at Harvard, who
14:42
makes the point that even though people, especially parents or
14:46
grandparents, feel that the world is so dangerous, right,
14:50
That it's actually safer than ever now, that the risk of being
14:54
killed, the risk of any terrible thing happened is actually lower
14:58
now than at any point in history is.
15:00
Is that a safe assessment? Just so we could, as
15:03
individuals, calibrate our baseline risk.
15:06
I think so. I mean you look at car seats and
15:09
how far they've come. You look at airbags and how far
15:11
they've come and, and how the glass and cars cracks now versus
15:17
how it did 50 years ago. And I think there are a lot of
15:21
updated safety protocols in life, right?
15:24
Like with highways or kitchen utensils, right in life that
15:28
have increased our safety to I guess be less fearless.
15:34
But I think a, you know, 24 hour news cycle or social media can
15:41
contribute and seep into people's psyche, creating fear
15:46
in little things. So when you when you think about
15:51
risk versus threat and 1st, I just want to tease apart what,
15:54
what, what those two words mean. So maybe you could just play
15:58
that out a little bit for us. Yeah.
16:00
So I guess for me, threat is like there's an imminent
16:04
component to a, to a threat, right.
16:07
Whereas risk is like you kind of kicking that threat down the
16:11
down the hall a little bit, right.
16:14
So from an assessment standpoint, I would say like are
16:17
we in imminent danger of something thing, right or an
16:21
imminent threat to life is really the first question sort
16:24
of an analyst is going to have to deliver, right, Because that
16:28
changes a decision makers immediacy in answering it,
16:32
right. Whereas a risk is sort of an
16:34
assessment, but it kicked it kicks that threat down down the
16:38
hall a bit, right. So I guess as it pertains to
16:41
China, you know, are they a threat to the United States?
16:44
Sure. Are they an imminent threat?
16:46
You know, that's a different question.
16:49
And what did judgement call? I mean, how do you in a macro
16:51
way determine between risk and imminent risk?
16:54
I mean, to me that seems highly relevant today given what's
16:58
going on in the Middle East. Absolutely right.
17:00
Like do you have information, a credible assessment or credible
17:06
information that someone is going to blow up a bridge
17:10
tomorrow? That's imminent, right?
17:12
That's an imminent threat to life.
17:15
Do you have a credible assessment of high confidence
17:19
that China is a threat to the United States?
17:26
Yes. They, you know, seem to be, you
17:28
know, that seems to be a credible assessment.
17:31
However, it's not an immediate threat to life.
17:35
That is like tomorrow. You have, you know, information
17:39
that someone is going to blow up a bridge.
17:41
Those are two different things. How would you put here with Lee
17:45
Dahl, who has been an FBI and CIA agent in the past?
17:49
One of the things that keeps me up at night and I, I think
17:52
obsessed and scared, is cybersecurity.
17:57
Is that a risk? Is that a threat?
17:59
Where where does that that lie? Especially with Mythos, the
18:03
anthropic model that's so good at cybersecurity in both
18:07
offensive and defensive ways. Really good question.
18:12
It's, I think it's how you use it, but also in the fact that
18:19
technology is evolving rapidly. AI is evolving rapidly.
18:26
I don't know if we have a full handle on the capabilities that
18:29
it's going to present to us. I think it's a wonderful tool
18:34
but we just don't know enough about it and our policies seem
18:37
to fall behind and our aren't up as fast as AI is developing
18:45
right? Becomes particularly relevant, I
18:48
would think, with SIGINT. SIGINT is signal intelligence.
18:52
What? What is signal intelligence?
18:53
So the NSA does signals intelligence.
18:55
That's their bailiwick and it's collection through intercepts.
19:03
Collection of. Intelligence.
19:05
And then that's put together by. Analysts.
19:09
Got it. So that's what you analysts
19:11
really do. You put together those
19:13
intercepts to develop some SO coherence.
19:17
Yeah. So to make it a logical
19:20
argument, right, So we're not just saying, OK, the human
19:23
intelligence, because humans are flawed, right?
19:25
And they're. So you have to put all of it
19:28
together to create a picture as part of that puzzle.
19:31
And can those signals themselves be hacked?
19:34
Can they be interfered with? Yeah, I mean, pretty much
19:37
everything could be hacked, right?
19:39
I mean, your phone can be hacked.
19:40
Your you know everything is pretty much hackable.
19:43
So the very intelligence that you rely upon itself can be
19:46
corrupted effectively. Possibly.
19:50
Possibly. So as, as I'm listening to the
19:54
two of you talk about this and how these are sort of very big
19:58
scary things. And I and, and I know that, for
20:01
example, I was growing up during a time of nuclear threat that
20:05
was, it was Doctor Helen Caldecott, Physicians for Social
20:08
Responsibility. There was going to be a warhead.
20:10
You know, the generation before us, it was there's going to be a
20:13
bomb that's dropped. I mean, terrorism, I think, is
20:16
one of the threats of the current age, but how do parents
20:20
try to talk to children about this because it's such an
20:23
overwhelming thing? Do you have thoughts on that?
20:28
I do I, you know, I think honesty, age appropriate honesty
20:34
is always the best approach. Not necessarily sharing every
20:39
detail with them of you know what terrorists are capable of
20:45
necessarily, but when your child asks a question because they saw
20:51
something or heard something, answer them directly and
20:56
honestly. I think is is the best policy
20:59
not to instill fear but have a realistic approach to those
21:05
conversations. I'm, I'm really interested to
21:09
hear about how every, every day, all of us can be thinking about
21:14
this because I know for you, you kind of were swimming in that
21:18
pool for many years, but the rest of us who don't swim in
21:20
that pool, how, how, how we can bring it down to the level that
21:23
we can all understand. But for now, I'm, I'm thinking,
21:28
Lee, it would be good for people to know what sorts of resources
21:32
there are. So maybe when we come back, you
21:34
can tell us what resources exist so that people can tap into
21:37
these after the conversation today.
21:40
And this is something that Doctor Barkin and I have a
21:43
pretty high level of interest in.
21:45
You've been talking to Lee Dahl, Jeff Barkin and I I'm Doctor
21:49
Lisa Belial. You are on a Healthy
21:51
conversation News Radio WGANAM 560 FM 98.5.
22:19
Welcome back. It is a healthy conversation
22:21
with Doctor Lisa Belisle and myself, Doctor Jeff Barkan on
22:24
News Radio WGAN. We have in studio Lee Dahl.
22:29
She is a former federal government employee.
22:31
She's worked in the national sector for over 15 years, having
22:34
experience in both domestic and global counterintelligence,
22:39
counterintelligence and what are called adversarial targets.
22:42
That is really ominous sounding, Lee.
22:45
Now, you worked across both domestic and global national
22:48
security operations. What did that teach you about
22:51
how connected threats really are, and how difficult it can be
22:55
for ordinary people like us to tell what's serious, what's
22:58
distorted, and really what's just noise?
23:02
So most threats domestically and internationally are, let's say
23:08
you're talking about an adversarial target like Iran or
23:12
Russia or China. A lot of the threats
23:15
domestically and internationally are connected.
23:18
I mean, it's a geopolitical target, right?
23:21
So a lot of those things are connected.
23:24
So obviously those threats get told, you know, what they should
23:30
be investigating, right? So the Iranians get told by the
23:34
Iranian government overseas what they should be targeting in the
23:37
United States. So the domestic component of
23:41
that falls under the FBI, and they would be charged with
23:44
investigating that domestic component or in the CIA or and
23:48
even State Department, NSA, all the other pieces of the Intel
23:52
community and DoD would sort of work together and tackle the
23:57
global component of those threats.
23:59
So people get together, pool what they know and filter it
24:03
above and again. Then it comes down with some
24:05
decision as to what's to happen next to demystify this.
24:09
One of the things that you and I have enjoyed over the years is
24:11
sharing sort of books and television shows.
24:16
And since you can't talk specifically about operations,
24:19
though maybe you can in the more generic way.
24:22
A couple of shows come to mind that I think are highly
24:25
realistic and wanted to get your take.
24:27
One is Tehran, which has had three seasons made.
24:32
It's on pause because of what's happening in the real world in
24:36
Tehran and Fauda, which is another show.
24:40
What are your thoughts? How realistic are those
24:42
depictions in terms of intelligence and kind of where
24:45
things are at today? Yeah, those shows are very
24:49
entertaining and I know that the writer of Fauda recently rewrote
24:56
part of Fauda because to make it more applicable to what is
25:00
happening geopolitically and and current Israeli news.
25:04
So I'm also curious to see the show.
25:07
As far as realistic, I mean, they're based, you know,
25:10
they're, I wouldn't say 100% realistic obviously, but you
25:15
know, there's always some component to realism as it
25:19
pertains to current events and and geopolitics and the
25:23
relationship between those governments and those people
25:29
that they are depicting. Got it.
25:31
It seems to me, and I want you to really opine here, both of
25:34
you, because I know Lisa is really into AI and computers.
25:38
It seems to me that you needed a lot of high tech to be a
25:42
destructive force ultimately, like an atomic bomb, but now
25:46
with certain AI models able to breach infrastructure, able to
25:50
hit, say, a water system domestically in the United
25:53
States when launched from anywhere, or an electrical power
25:57
grid. How hyperbolic is that fear?
26:01
How How concerned should I be versus the potential reality of
26:05
that threat, given that AI can now identify various security
26:10
holes? So I think we have to remind
26:15
ourselves that unless you are an individual criminal, but if you
26:21
are acting as a state actor on behalf of a government, those
26:25
governments are also calculating their risk versus gain.
26:31
So if a government, an adversarial government is going
26:35
to target US critical infrastructure for any reason,
26:39
leveraging tools like AI or cyber hacking of any kind, then
26:45
that government is going to have to calculate what our response
26:50
is going to be to that and what our protections are against that
26:55
in the context of their diplomatic or world relationship
27:00
with us, right? So it might sound very scary,
27:06
but when you put it in a larger context of they have to weigh
27:09
all of this risk against us and what our response might be, you
27:15
know, it doesn't mean that they're just going to run amok
27:18
and target everything because they're also weighing risk just
27:23
as we do. But if some random anonymous
27:26
person did some attack and there is no way to attribute it to a
27:31
nation state, then what that that that's sort of, I know that
27:34
Senator King had raised that concern repeatedly.
27:38
And I think that people had kind of shut that down a little bit
27:41
like, oh, what, what's the big deal?
27:42
But I think kind of we're getting close to that if if not
27:46
have gotten there given the number of attacks that have
27:49
occurred. Well, and I, I also, I mean,
27:51
I've, I've actually worked for a company that was shut down and
27:57
needed to pay ransom, didn't go through the government, didn't
28:00
go through any sort of process, didn't make it public because
28:03
that would have caused fear and that would have caused the
28:06
customer base to be upset. So these things are, I think,
28:10
happening more than we know. Maybe if it's not at a
28:12
government level, it's happening at an organizational level.
28:15
We may or may not know where these things are actually coming
28:17
from. So the the threat is actually
28:18
real and it's here. So I guess Lee, I'm wondering as
28:23
we're talking. So when the information
28:27
environment is distorted and we don't really know what to
28:31
believe, so is the deeper risk, confusion itself that people
28:36
stop actually knowing where to turn for reality because people
28:40
don't trust institutions, they don't trust the government.
28:43
They don't trust. I mean, it's, it's such a weird
28:46
world that we're living in these days.
28:48
It is. It's a very strange world and I
28:50
I too find myself trying to navigate the world and
28:55
misinformation or inaccurate information like everybody else.
29:00
And I think social media would not be where I would choose to
29:04
go for news necessarily, but perhaps leveraging good old
29:10
fashioned newspapers, but different kinds of all source
29:14
information, right? So if you can leverage all
29:18
source information and are willing to be open minded to all
29:25
source information, you have a higher likelihood of piercing
29:28
the puzzle together for yourself, right?
29:31
So people could read the Wall Street Journal and also read
29:36
Newsmax and also read Fox News and also read CNN, you know, and
29:41
sort of try and leverage all source news and maybe peruse
29:47
reputable sites on social media or reputable websites and then
29:51
form their own opinions based on all source information versus
29:55
that algorithm tunnel that we get placed in.
29:59
Yeah, algorithm has kind of destroyed news in speaking to
30:03
reporters. It used to be that you would
30:04
have two point verification for a story and now it's three.
30:08
And what I found for my own personal sort of news
30:10
consumption is we subscribe to the Washington Post, the Wall
30:14
Street Journal, the New York Times and the Press Herald.
30:16
And in reading about the same event, I have to sort of
30:19
mentally triangulate or quadrangulate, if you will, to
30:23
get to some sense of what might be correct 'cause there are
30:26
there are the facts. And I think 1 can sometimes get
30:30
raw facts from the Internet from well vetted sources, assuming
30:34
they're well vetted. How do you vet information?
30:38
There's so much on the everybody has a sub stack or whatever, a
30:41
YouTube channel. How do you, having been out in
30:44
the field, having to sift through information as an
30:47
analyst, how do you separate the wheat from the chaff?
30:51
So if I'm reading the news in the morning and I'm generally
30:55
reading various news sources and I find a, a clip or a segment
31:01
they say and, or a quote they've used from somebody, I will then
31:07
try and look up the video of the actual context and, and try and
31:13
put that into context rather than the sound bite that was
31:15
leveraged for the article so that I have a, a larger context
31:20
of where that information might have come from.
31:23
And I usually find that different new sources take
31:27
obviously different sound bites to use for their own interests,
31:31
which is fine. But then if you could pull
31:34
yourself out and say, but in what sentence or what paragraph
31:38
did that person say that in, you can go look at the video clip
31:42
most of the time yourself. Well, that makes sense, except
31:46
now we have deepfakes and now we have video manipulation.
31:50
So honestly, as you're talking, I love, I love that you're
31:54
making these recommendations. And also it still kind of brings
31:58
up for me like, where do we go? Yeah.
32:00
And that's going to be a challenge going forward because
32:03
we don't necessarily know where everything is coming from.
32:08
And that's scary. And I get that.
32:11
I totally get. That with this, this election
32:13
coming, I think we're already seeing plenty of deepfakes and I
32:15
think we're at the point where it's safe to say it's going to
32:18
be hard to believe our eyes. So the question becomes, how do
32:23
we sift through information? I want to get through more of
32:26
that with you, Lee, because all of us, the biggest thing that we
32:31
can do to influence policy ultimately at the end of the day
32:34
is is to vote. And to vote requires some sense
32:38
of what's going on. And I feel like our politics has
32:41
become so polarized that it's driven by just pure personality,
32:46
not policy. I'm hoping that we could talk a
32:48
little bit about that. Also, what it's like after being
32:51
an intelligence. It is a healthy conversation
32:54
with Doctor Lisa Belial and myself, Doctor Jeff Barkin, News
32:57
Radio, WGAN. We'll be right back.
33:21
As we close this conversation on a healthy conversation with
33:25
Doctor Lee Smile and Doctor Jeff Barkin on News Radio WGANAM 560
33:29
FM 98.5, I want to bring us back to Maine daily life and health.
33:35
Because obviously we're talking about things that are scary and
33:38
maybe don't feel that conducive to health and hope.
33:41
But Lee, you've described Maine as being a place that helped you
33:44
re embrace nature and the role that health plays in our lives.
33:47
This feels like an important turn in this conversation.
33:51
So since moving to Maine and reconnecting with nature and
33:55
health after years in a high intensity national security
33:59
workplace, what is that shift meant to you personally?
34:03
A lower cortisol level, significantly, I think deeper
34:10
relationships with certain people to have those
34:14
conversations with about health and Wellness.
34:17
And I think stopping and smelling the roses, so to speak.
34:23
I remember moving here the first fall that we were here and I
34:26
smelled the fall leaves, a smell that I remembered from
34:30
childhood, but I actually don't think I had smelled the fall
34:35
leaves. And for people to take those
34:38
moments because they're really important.
34:41
So is that, are you saying that focusing and then being present
34:46
where you are, whether you're still working or whether you
34:49
have have that in the rearview mirror, that's important to
34:53
maintaining your emotional and mental well-being in this state
34:56
of kind of constant vigilance? Yes.
34:59
And grounding and sort of seeing where you are on the planet,
35:04
right? I mean, just taking a moment to
35:05
be like, I'm standing on the ground.
35:08
The ground is on a trail. The trail is in Maine.
35:11
Maine is in the United States. And sort of realizing how small
35:14
we all are. And in moving here, I know that
35:20
you acquired new interests, new skill sets that keep you healthy
35:24
and keep you sustained. What are they?
35:26
Share some of those. Well, tennis is one of my
35:28
favorites, which I get very excited about to play with you.
35:31
Same same. I I just have to apologize.
35:33
I had hurt my bicep to rotator cuff because Penny had hit a
35:38
ball that jammed me in and it was explained as the same injury
35:42
you get when you pull a like a chain, a snow blower or
35:46
lawnmower to start it. But I'll baby it.
35:48
I'll be back. I can't wait.
35:50
I'm excited for you to return because I enjoy playing with
35:53
you. You keep me going.
35:54
Same same. I feel like you and I are
35:56
literally like at the same level.
35:57
Yes, absolutely, and we try to die for things we probably
36:01
shouldn't, but we just do it anyway because we love the
36:03
sport. Correct.
36:05
So tennis, what else did you do to stay healthy, stay grounded,
36:09
know where you are? I do strength training, but I
36:13
also just go on random walks in the woods.
36:15
I just take my dog and will disappear for an hour.
36:19
And I don't put headphones in. And I try and be present in
36:24
those moments and appreciate that we have clean air and that
36:28
we have more evergreens than I think I've ever seen and that we
36:32
have Four Seasons and all of them offer different viewpoints.
36:39
And I love this idea of grounding.
36:41
I think this is important to be able to smell the leaves, to go
36:44
for a walk, to play tennis with Jeff if he happens to be healthy
36:47
and available. And we also know that some
36:50
people are going to need resources, like Maine's
36:52
Department of Health and Human Services, which has hotline and
36:56
crisis numbers. There's access Main, there's
36:59
988, there's a 24/7 access to train crisis counselors.
37:03
There's Naomi. So if if you're somebody for
37:06
whom you you've really gone past that point of I'm putting my
37:09
feet on the ground or I'm playing tennis, there are there
37:12
are a variety of things that people can really tap into.
37:16
So I'm wondering, do you think that people wait too long?
37:21
And maybe Jeff has a question for you as well.
37:23
Do people wait too long before dialing into resources that are
37:28
readily available for them if they're feeling overwhelmed
37:31
about this sort of thing? I think so.
37:33
I think we all like to maybe admit that we're stronger
37:37
mentally and emotionally than we might actually be.
37:41
And even if we are grounded or have strength or are good
37:47
compartmentalists if you will, I think being honest with oneself
37:52
and having self reflection would get someone to talk to somebody
37:58
or seek those resources out that are available sooner that they
38:02
might need. Is this something that when you
38:04
were going through your 15 years of working in this field, you
38:08
had to continually check in with yourself about or be aware of
38:12
other people you are working with to make sure that everybody
38:15
was feeling supported the way that they needed to?
38:17
Yes, 100%. We had a great support system.
38:21
We had great colleagues. Humor was one of the biggest
38:25
things that got us through some tough decisions or risk versus
38:29
gain type of analysis. Humor played a very big role,
38:34
and being blatantly honest with your colleagues or your friends,
38:39
and that honesty somehow also kept us going.
38:43
One of the things that I think goes under appreciated until
38:46
it's needed are the need for people.
38:50
And when we're caught up in our professional lives, a lot of
38:54
folks, and I see this in my clinical practice all the time,
38:56
don't make time for relationships.
38:58
They just don't make time for friendships and connection, I
39:01
think is a heart of health. I think that that's an important
39:05
tip. And the fact that you said, Lee,
39:08
that we speak to each other, that the team members have a
39:11
close communication and we're honest is really important.
39:14
And I feel that the more hyper connected our world is
39:17
electronically and all of that, the less connected we are in
39:21
reality. And I, I can't emphasize enough
39:25
for people's mental health the importance of sharing our
39:28
stories with each other and knowing our own personal
39:32
stories. Would you agree with that?
39:33
100% I mean, there is something to be said for going back to the
39:37
sticks and bricks of relationships outside of tech
39:44
conversations. But yeah, that's very important
39:47
to have those grassroots intimate friendships or
39:52
relationships with humans and understanding someone's tone and
39:57
how they talk and eye contact. And those are very important
40:02
things that we as humans who are inherently pack animals, need.
40:06
What would it be like today to be in the field when we're
40:09
immersed in like, social media? What are we going to lose?
40:12
Our human intelligence skills? Our ability to read people
40:16
emotionally. That is, you know, a scary
40:21
thought to not be able to read somebody emotionally and having
40:26
a lack of of human interaction to gain that information.
40:31
And yet one of the first things you said was the information
40:35
that you're gathering actually comes from relationships,
40:38
actually comes from people. So we simultaneously need to be
40:43
able to continue to understand people, both for our own
40:46
personal well-being and also to understand people when it comes
40:50
to possibly risk and threat. So how do we continue to
40:54
encourage people to build those skills?
40:57
I think partially people who are over reliant on tech or go down
41:03
those rabbit holes are lacking those human contacts.
41:07
And so I think those type of people might be more susceptible
41:10
to reaching out to an intelligence service to have a
41:14
relationship, right have a human contact because maybe they don't
41:17
know where else to go. So why not leverage that or join
41:23
a a religious institution because they're missing contact.
41:26
They don't have to necessarily reach out to an intelligence
41:29
service, but I think there are people starting to realize that
41:33
we need human contact. Generationally, we're spending
41:37
20%. I'm sorry, people who are, let
41:40
me get this right. We're spending 50% less time in
41:44
person compared to 20 years ago. That's one generation and a lot
41:49
of that is, in fact, most of that, from what I've read, is
41:52
accounted for by social media. So the act of playing tennis,
41:56
the act of reading, the act of coming together and sharing, I
42:00
would say is a pillar of health, wouldn't you?
42:03
Yes, completely. So the sort of community of
42:07
people who've been intelligence in Maine, there are books that
42:10
are written by people like Tess Garretson outlining people that
42:13
have moved to Maine from DC who have been in the intelligence
42:16
field. Truth or fiction?
42:20
I mean, Maine's a nice, quiet place to live.
42:22
People that like to leave you alone, why not?
42:25
Yeah, but we also have Stephen King, who's writing about the
42:28
other side of Maine. So this is a very pretty place
42:30
you've moved to, but you've also moved to a place where we have,
42:33
you know, pet cemetery. That's true.
42:35
I mean, there's the other that it makes for a good novel.
42:39
Why not? Is there a community of ex
42:41
intelligence folks that that you're aware of?
42:44
I don't know. That's a very safe answer.
42:47
She had to say that, Jeff. I mean, you kind of set her up
42:49
for that, I think. It's almost like low hanging
42:51
fruit. Sure, yeah.
42:53
So the adjustment back. That's not going to make a good
42:55
assessment. The low hanging fruit.
42:58
No, no, that's OK. The adjustment back to life
43:02
after being out in the field. I know you can't talk about the
43:05
specifics of the excitement of the field, but you did set high
43:08
cortisol level. So by that I assume you mean
43:11
high levels of stress, yes. And then coming back low levels
43:16
of stress, correct? So elaborate.
43:18
Yeah. I mean, if you're sort of
43:21
working in Washington and the Beltway concept, it's generally
43:27
higher levels of stress decisions were important.
43:31
There was a lot of risk versus gain.
43:32
Coming down off of that and smelling fall leaves, grounding
43:37
oneself. I hadn't smelled fall leaves.
43:39
They were in existence in Washington.
43:42
Fall happens there. I hadn't smelled them because I
43:45
hadn't taken the time, because I'm too busy dealing with
43:49
decisions and coming here and spilling those leaves.
43:53
Your cortisol drops when you take a minute and you take a
43:56
beat. What do you have changed
43:57
anything about the decisions you made back in college?
44:00
Once you said, oh, this is 911. I want to, I want to make a
44:02
difference. I want to work for our country.
44:04
Would you have changed anything back then?
44:06
Absolutely not. It's a wonderful career and I
44:11
encourage people to look into it.
44:12
It's extremely fulfilling. Well, I think that's a great way
44:17
to end. After years of thinking about
44:21
threat, uncertainty, national security risk, Lee Dahl has
44:24
offered a thoughtful way to think about steadiness,
44:27
resilience, how people stay grounded without losing
44:30
themselves to fear. And that has been our
44:32
conversation today on A Healthy Conversation with Doctor Lisa
44:36
Belial and Doctor Jeff Barkin on News Radio WGANAM 560 FM 98.5.
44:43
You can reach us now healthyconversation@wgan.com and
44:47
find us at healthyconversationshow.com.
44:49
Lee, thanks so much for being here.
44:50
Jeff. It's been great to have you as a
44:52
Co host again. Always is.
44:53
Thanks for hosting and being with us, Lee.
44:56
Thank you both for having me. Have a great week everybody,
44:59
it's a healthy conversation. Catch you next week.