-
No Room to Pivot
June 14, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Old Days
June 7, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Terrorists by Any Other Name
May 31, 2013 | 148 comments
-
The Chinese Waltz
May 24, 2013 | 2 comments
-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 23 comments
At Large
The Old Lady Shows Her Ankles
MI6 comes out of the cold, into irrelevance.
It was heralded as a history-making and one hundred year old tradition-breaking event last week when Sir John Sawers, the current Chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), spoke publicly of the role his agency plays. From a theatrical standpoint, his performance was a “smash.” In practical terms, it was a good try at creating a pretense of a new and open MI6.
As late as the 1990s official Britain still refused to admit SIS actually existed, whether under that name or its earlier designation as MI6. This was not so much a deception as it was a forelock-tugging recognition of the storied past of the secret institution that so steadfastly favored its anonymity. Tradition has always been important to the “friends,” as the rest of Britain’s foreign affairs establishment called their clandestine cousins. Giving up the long since out-dated thin veneer of purported non-existence was hardly an operational blow to Her Majesty’s pimpernels.
Of equal lack of real importance — other than as a public relations device — was Sir John’s forswearing of the use of torture to gain information by his organization or acceptance of such intelligence from less ethical allies. With not a little cynicism he noted torture was also against the law. (Nice of you to mention that, Chief.) As the British are masters of the concept of thinly sliced definition of language, one wonders what aspect of behavior toward gaining deadly time-sensitive information will be put into effect. What “special instance” will come to exist to test this new politically correct civilian intelligence agency interpretation of “Queen’s Regulations.”
It may salve the conscience of some in Parliament, press, and the public that their national security is protected by an intelligence service that doesn’t use violent methods of interrogation to gather critical information. Nonetheless, public statements to that effect by the head of their foreign intelligence adds little to the efficacy of the service itself. Sir John knows that well enough as a long-serving foreign affairs civil servant.
Beyond the stated ethical base of this exercise is the fact that all of Britain’s security services have received budget increases in the midst of broad defense cutbacks. For political reasons it has become important to burnish MI6’s reputation, which had become the focal point for the post-Blair public dispute over the Secret Intelligence Service inadequate performance on the question of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
The new Conservative-led government found a convenient whipping boy in the pejorative characterization of the Tony Blair days of “slavish” support of American assessments. WMD has become the convenient target, and MI6 the ineffectual purveyor of false intelligence. It seems that the Tory/Lib Dem spinmeisters decided SIS would have to lift its skirts to satisfy a never satisfied press and public, which have wearied of Britain’s military involvement in the Middle East.
As has been the case so often in the past, the amateur sleuths in the press and politics have missed the important point. MI6 had informants within the Saddam hierarchy. The trouble was that Saddam suspected that fact even though he and his trusted lieutenants didn’t know the identity of the specific agents. Saddam simply used these unknown intelligence adversaries as a conduit in a highly successful campaign of disinformation.
By the end of 2002 or early 2003, Baghdad had already shipped to Syria the left-over chemical stores from the first Gulf War that were suspected of existing but never found by the UN teams. This information was picked up by the SIS contacts, but it merely became proof that Iraq still had WMD capacity — which was exactly what Saddam wanted the world to think. It was his view that he would be safe from invasion if it was thought that he had nuclear and/or bio-chemical weapons.
Unfortunately for Saddam, fear of his purported WMD did not engender the reaction he expected from London and Washington. The negotiations that the Iraqi leader had expected to be spurred by fear of his WMD worked the opposite way, and the U.S. and Britain attacked.
So seven years later the SIS has to play the contrite incompetent to satisfy the new political reality at Downing Street. British intelligence, and to a certain extent its partner in pre-war Iraq, the CIA, have had to acknowledge they were snookered by Saddam with the unwitting assistance of ambitious Iraqi exile leaders, and thus went to war. Which is worse: an intelligence agency that thinks there are weapons of mass destruction when there aren’t any — or intelligence officers who can’t tell the difference between real and fabricated information?
British officialdom apparently now believes it doesn’t really matter just so someone of importance promises such errors will never happen again. And that was what Sir John has done: that and present his boyish 55-year-old countenance to the press and public. This was supposed, as the Financial Times put it, to take “a big step towards greater transparency and improved public confidence.” But it doesn’t mean a damn as far as intelligence operations is concerned other than making a difficult job more so.
And the best of British luck to you chaps!
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/05/the-old-lady-shows-her-ankles
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- Of Weiner and Women
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Joe D.| 11.5.10 @ 12:07PM
When I get angry that America is getting more Whipy. I can always take confort at looking accross the ocean and see that Britian is always getting closer to France then us.
Alan Brooks| 11.5.10 @ 10:24PM
AS goes out of its of way to diss Europe. What of all the English who died in the Blitz?
And you ought to praise M16, it was on the frontline during the Cold War-
not thousands of miles west.
Comenius| 11.7.10 @ 6:02AM
All the more sad that this once great nation that stood alone against the Nazi menace, is going soft. Of course, it could just be PR, political theatre, and operations continue as usual. One hopes anyway.
Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:08PM
Yup, Alan: I always go out of my way to praise Philby, McClean, damn, who were the others? MI6 leaked like a sieve. Their closeness meant they could leak more. Stalin knew much about Los Alamos thanks to the diligent scum at MI6.
Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 11:45PM
"Stalin knew much about Los Alamos thanks to the diligent scum at MI6."
How many bombs fell on America during the Big One? what risk did america face in 1940-- or at any other time-- of being invaded?
You are being a little hard on the Brits.
Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:30AM
Au Contraire, my dear Alan. Churchill's manliness was a 5 year interrution in the never ending pussiness of the Brits. The bombs fell because they DIDN'T listen to Churchill and man-up when Hitler could have been easily defeated. (The Ruhr, 1936)
Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 2:33AM
Sorry, "interruption." And Alan, I worked with Brit physicians in NZ for 14 months. Poorly trained and arrogant beyond belief. I was once upon a time an Anglophile. Had that beaten out of me in Rotorua.
However, I enjoy disagreeing with you. At least you and I avoid ad hominem crap, like that toad Tim*. Even when I disagree with you, you're a pleasure to share a thread with.
Occam's Tool| 11.8.10 @ 3:16AM
Just as a personal aside, Alan---have you noticed how much better mannered this conversation is without Tim*? I mean, you and I may disagree, even vociferiously, but we do so as Gentlemen.
My worry for Europe is two-fold: one, that it is dying of its own hand (birth records are not promising, and is a major reason I oppose abortion---mine is a very complicated position, and I'd appreciate your take on it, so I'll elaborate later), and two: the defense umbrella of the US has effectively infantilized Europe, leading to (1).
If I am hostile, it is not toward the Britain of 1939-1945, but to the Country that it became.
JP| 11.5.10 @ 12:50PM
This is too bad. As the UK always had a flair for clandestine operations. MI6 during the Cold War fought countless and long forgotten battles with the KGB and Warsaw Pact. They also were involved in theatre of operations from Indonesia to China. I don't know if it had to do with thier long struggles against France, and later the defense of the Realm; but, the UK always found a way to get the job done concerning foreing policy. MI6 surely had a role to play in this.
Alan Brooks| 11.7.10 @ 11:48PM
I take all your points. America hasn't faced invasion since Gettysburg.
Such ingratitude (not you, JP) to the Britain that founded New England.
ABNCP| 11.5.10 @ 1:03PM
Or this might be the classic, watch my left hand while the right hand fools you. There will always be very covert black operation intelligence gathering mounted by any country that values its existance. The British have been masters at this game for centurys. MI6/SIS has been so public for so long something had to change. Please do not try to convince me the Brits are not in this game to win anymore.
Alan Brooks| 11.5.10 @ 10:26PM
... why don't you criticize 'The Company' more, not Britain's spooks?
Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:09PM
Because the CIA, for all of its faults, helped win the Cold war. MI6 played a peripheral role to the CIA, as did my favorite intelligence service, Mossad.
Reagan Loyalist| 11.6.10 @ 12:04PM
The public face of the covert world is Valium for the rabid anti conflict ideologues who cling to their naive notions of the price of peace. Forcing information from captured enemy conspirators will continue because it works and saves the lives of those who tear at their clothes over this behavior. Thanks God for MI6 and the CIA and bless them Lord.!
Richard | 11.6.10 @ 1:40PM
You do whatever is necessary to defeat your enemy, whether a personal, political or international struggle. Goldwater's approach was exactly right, "I'll make Viet Nam a swamp in two weeks." Wow, did that ever scare the geldings in both parties.
It seems since WWII there is no real proclivity to win. You can not have a politically correct fight.
Rules of engagement should be: 1. Kill the enemy.
2. Kill the enemy.
Use every tool available, that includes weapons and intelligence.
Occam's Tool| 11.7.10 @ 8:10PM
Correct. And, a direct approach leads to fewer casualties, too.
PELLIGRINO| 11.6.10 @ 7:01PM
The odd thing about the USA’s supposed European allies getting their knickers all in a twist over invading Saddam to oust him in the spring of 2003 is....
Is that our NATO allies were begging us to join them to do the same in a much more regional interest in southeast Europe as Slobodan Milosevic needed to "get the boot" in Belgrad, Serbia.
Leaders like the former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (of the very left leaning, anti war SPD party) and his Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer (of the even more ultra left, totally anti-war Greens), Tony Blair, his foreign minister, the French leader at the time Jacque Chirac, etc., etc. .....a HUGE consensus on military action to dump Milosevic and end the situation for Albanians in Kosovo while stabilizing Serbia.
Hardly a squeak of opposition to this in the capitals of Europe in late 1998 and early 1999.
Whomever the NATO Chief at the time (the civilian) was completely for military action to unseat Milosevic in the spring of 1999.
How different the tones of all these Eurozone folk just 3 & 4 years later as the issue was Iraq and Saddam.
Weren't you also bewildered post-2003 at the inability of so-called NATO allies to view both military actions as pretty much on the same moral plane?
Except: The Iraq invasion to oust Saddam was more vital to both regional and world stability.
No question.
I don't believe that one can claim that Milosevic had any great territorial interests outside Kosovo or the former Yugoslavia.
As for WMD in Iraq, yes, it is very odd and strange that ALL the big intelligence services got it so wrong -- or so we have been led to believe.
BUT: WMD or no WMD, Saddam loved to tout his war-readiness and overt plans to use weaponry throughout the region (like his bragging on his SCUD missiles prior to and during the First Gulf War of 1990-1991). He cavorted with thugs and terrorists. He did gas his own people. He terrorized them (as we are told that Slobodan Milosevic did to the Kosovo Albanians), imprisoned them, tortured them. He specifically targeted his own countrymen, the Kurds, for all of this. A never declared truce or peace treaty with Iran from their decade-long border war of the 1980’s. He scoffed at all UN resolutions. He defied the No-Fly Zones. Think about it: He was spared a full conquering in 1991. He was given a second chance in a VERY RARE moment in world history. And he blew it in every way imaginable. He duped the entire UN and many humanitarian agencies over the oil-for-food program, etc., etc.
All this made him a lunatic, unstable, and a powder keg smack in the middle of the world's permanent basket-case region. SO MANY reasons to forcibly oust Saddam (when he was given every opportunity to step aside peaceably).
WMD did not have to be the centrepiece of the “he must go!” argument.
A note to ALL our intel agencies who get HUGE taxpayer monies and gobs of infrastructure. You are massive bureaucracies unto yourselves. You are and remain largely unquestioned layered "behemoths" because, yes, your work is clandestine. So we cannot ask or scrutinize because we just cannot know what you are or are not doing. We have to trust that you know what you are doing, that you help protect us. And we have to trust that you exercise something vital called “Stewardship.”
"SIS, CIA, DIA, BND, and all the others in so many lands across the globe, please get these matters right in the future."
Young soldiers -- the ones who actually go do the work -- depend upon your integrity.
RWinks| 11.7.10 @ 8:57AM
How long will the myth of "no WMD" go on? Hundreds of barrels of precursor chemicals were found in several dumps, along with the shells waiting to be filled. Sarin gas deteriorates within a few days and must be mixed just before use. Poison gas WAS found.
The UN, as ever, anti-American to it's core, called them "Agricultural Chemicals". That's what poison gas is---insecticides for humans. No doubt the UN expected farmers to deliver it to their fields with artillery fire. The spectacularly inept Bush administration let them get away with it.
Marc Jeric| 11.8.10 @ 1:41AM
How come nobody mentions the 550 tons of yellow cake (half-way enriched uranium that Saddam bought from Niger) that was transported as a gift to Canada by a fleet of US war transport planes?