Spying under scrutiny
The need is for intelligence to be accurate -- and politically independent.
After Thursday's speech by CIA chief George Tenet in defense of his agency, political fallout continues from what
The Christian Science Monitor calls the "
swirl of accusation and rebuttal over prewar assessments of Iraqi weapons." But what will remain, and outlast any single British or American administration, are two questions that go to the heart of how espionage works in a democracy.
First: are intelligence officials and their findings free of political manipulation and coercion? Second: is the quality and effectiveness of intelligence adequate for national leaders to make sound decisions on security issues, not the least of which might be going to war?
These are not academic questions. Citizens on both sides of the Atlantic are looking for more than just "who knew, or didn't know what," and "when did they, or didn't they know it?" on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The Montana
Missoulian
frames the discussion this way: On one hand are doubts about the intelligence leaders have to work with.
The Vietnam War was one big intelligence failure. The Bay of Pigs was an intelligence fiasco. The Cuban missile crisis turned out well, but it wasn't until many years later that officials found out the CIA was wrong in concluding there were no nuclear warheads yet in Cuba when President Kennedy confronted Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.
On the other hand, people only trust their leaders so far.
"The argument seems to be that it is better to overestimate the danger than underestimate it and, in the memorable words of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, have the evidence of a mistake be a mushroom cloud forming on the horizon. [Yet]...With Americans dying on a regular basis in Iraq, it is certain that Bush's Democratic opponent - Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts is now the front runner - will hammer away that the Administration hot-wired the intelligence.
In light of the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the performance of intelligence agencies around the world will be under the microscope long after US presidential elections this November.
President Bush todoay announced seven members of
a bipartisan commission to conduct a year-long review of US intelligence gathering, particularly about Iraq. Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona, who ran against Bush in the 2000 GOP primaries, told CNN he thinks every attempt ought to be made to keep politics out of the commission's work.
Writing for
nationalreviewonline, columnist Jeb Babbin says that it is critical these inquiries not lose sight of the primary goal -
improving the performance of all facets of spying.
"Did we go to war on a false pretense? That's the political theme of the year, and it's the most damaging kind of question, because to answer it correctly (i.e., "no") requires proof of a negative: that our intelligence community didn't blow it. There is no comfort to be found in the fact that the intelligence agencies of many nations concluded the same thing: that Saddam's WMD disclosures were perfect nonsense, that Iraq had chemical weapons ready to use, and that it was working hard at getting nuclear weapons. ... For while President Bush's presidency may stand or fall on the political question, the substantive and equally important question is how to improve our intelligence agencies' performance."
Australia was
the first to request a comprehensive review of its intelligence apparatus. The
Australian Broadcasting Corporation says that the report on Australian intelligence was completed prior to the Iraq war, and was required before the Australian government decided to join the war.
It happens that, in the US, the Patriot Act is currently
up for renewal. Passed in the aftermath of 9/11, it is intended to essentially strengthen the powers of US intelligence agencies. Even its critics agree it accomplishes that, but in highly controversial ways. Congressional deliberations about the Patriot Act are likely to receive even closer scrutiny in light of Mr. Tenet's speech.
Comments by chief US weapons inspector David Kay, made after he resigned his post, may
echo in Congressional chambers as the Patriot Act is debated because the law reflects a closer linking of domestic and international espionage efforts.
"It turns out we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that's most disturbing," said Mr. Kay. He says that an independent inquiry is necessary, "not only for what happened in the past but so we can reply on any intelligence in the future." He adds that evidence about Iraq's WMD was lost in the looting which followed the fall of Baghdad. Reports the
Times of London, Tenet agrees with Kay's analysis.
The West in general, and America in particular, finds itself in a
new war as it deals with terrorism, writes Andre Gerolymatos, on the failure of intelligence in the recent Balkan war. What is needed, he says, is a way to gather intelligence on this new threat without undermining the very principles upon which democracy rests.
Unlike the Cold War environment, the world of terrorism is unpredictable, scattered and almost universal in terms of location. In most cases the terrorist is an enemy without a face, an opponent without form who strikes from any direction using any guise. The American intelligence agencies, essentially designed for the Cold War, are at a tremendous disadvantage with this agile and lethal enemy.
In fact, the Chinese military historian Sun Tsu, wrote two and one half thousand years ago that 'All warfare is based on deception.' Evidently, this lesson is clearly understood by international terrorists and sadly has been recently overlooked by the American intelligence community as well as the agencies of other Western powers.
Also...
•
Bush names panel to review intelligence (
CNN)
•
Tenet defends CIA on Iraq intelligence (
CNN)
•
German court acquits 9/11 suspect (
BBC)
•
A Rude Awakening (
The New York Times)
•
Pakistan's nuclear crimes (
The Washington Post)
•
Afghan leaders removes chief of intelligence (
The New York Times)
•
Pakistan's proliferator-in-chief (
The Economist)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Jim Bencivenga.
|
RSS feed