Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
Guarding the Guards at the CIA
May 22, 2017 Trusting an agency to tell the lies it must is a tough enough sell in a democracy.
By George Friedman
Over the weekend, The New York Times published a report detailing the discovery and
systematic degradation of the U.S. espionage network in China from 2010 to 2012. The report
cites 10 officials, former and current, who describe the penetration of the network and speculate
on the reason for its failure. Some claim there was a Chinese mole in the CIA. Others claim that
lines of communication between assets and the agency had been breached.
The timing of the report is as interesting as the content itself. CIA officials, after all, have already
been accused of leaking information designed to weaken President Donald Trump. And now, not
only have a handful of officials revealed a massive intelligence failure, but they have done so,
apparently in concert, five years after it happened.
One explanation is that a faction in the CIA means to weaken the agency’s credibility by
revealing the failure. (I have no evidence for this, but then again, evidence to substantiate
charges is optional in Washington.) This would, in effect, undermine the credibility of those
claiming to know about secret Russian plots. “You claim to know about them, but you are
actually not very good at intelligence,” or so the argument would go.
A Tough Question
Human intelligence is a game of deception. The acquisition of government sources depends on
duplicity, and the intelligence agency must lie to protect the source. It is an industry in which
secrecy and dishonesty are moral imperatives. Take World War II, for example. The United
States and Britain won World War II in large part because they had broken the German and
Japanese codes. They knew what their enemies were planning and could counter it. In order for
the breach to work, it had to be kept secret from the public. The secrets of the breach were
revealed years after the war, but had the Germans and the Japanese caught wind of it sooner,
they would have changed their codes, and the outcome of the war might’ve been different.
1/4
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
In the long run, the CIA can’t deceive the Chinese government without also deceiving, in some
way, the American public. This leaves us with an obvious problem: Should we believe anything
the CIA says?
The logo of the CIA is seen during a visit of U.S. President Donald Trump at the CIA headquarters on Jan. 21. Photo by Olivier
Doulier - Pool/Getty Images
It’s a tough question for a democracy to answer. Trust is built on the tacit agreement that the
“bad things” an agency does are good for the country. If the public believes that that is no
longer the case – if it believes the agency is acting out of self-interest and not national interest
– then the agreement is broken. The intelligence agency is seen as an impediment of the right to
national self-determination, a means for the ends of the few.
Trust is also built on competence, and so it is always reasonable to question the intelligence of
the intelligence agency. When questioned, the CIA, which again traffics in deception, tends to
say something along the lines of, “If you only knew what I know, you would respect me
completely.” But the public has no way of knowing whether the CIA is keeping secret its
successes or its failures.
2/4
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
Trusting an agency to tell the lies it must is a tough enough sell in a democracy – it’s partly the
reason the United States didn’t even have an intelligence service before World War II – but it
becomes even more difficult the moment the agency enters the political arena, which is where it
finds itself now. In addition to determining if the agency is telling the truth, the public must also
ascertain whether its involvement in politics is such that it has lost its ability to carry out its
mission – namely, gathering foreign intelligence. The question then becomes: Has the CIA been
captured by an American political faction, and if so, can it still be an effective intelligence
agency?
A High Price
It’s possible that the CIA has information that the president is in some way colluding with a
foreign power. That is vital information, if it exists. But it is information that should be passed to
Congress, via the intelligence committees, because only Congress is endowed with the
constitutional responsibility to act on such a matter. In releasing intelligence to the public, the
CIA may be revealing sources and methods, and more important, it is assuming powers of the
Constitution — which each member of the CIA is sworn to “preserve, protect and defend” — that
the CIA doesn’t have.
Participating in political debates will, in turn, divide the CIA, since CIA employees are no more of
one mind on the politics of the day than anyone else. So when 10 officials step forward to reveal
the intelligence failures in China, as they did in the New York Times report, we need to consider
why they chose to do it now. Was the timing merely coincidental? Was it an attempt to
undermine a possible faction in the CIA that is leaking damaging information on the president?
This is all speculation, of course, but that’s the point: Once the CIA enters domestic politics, it is
subject to the same speculation as others in the arena.
This is why moral rectitude is important for an intelligence organization in a democracy. The
secrecy and duplicity needed to be effective are obviously distasteful, and the fear that the
intelligence agency is using its trade to interfere in domestic politics is always there. Intelligence
must have a moral standing to elicit the trust that its lies and deception are in defense of the
Constitution and not an attempt to impose the will of a faction on the country. Once that
suspicion becomes widespread, the intelligence organization loses its moral standing, the
importance of which is paramount for gathering foreign intelligence. Once an agency loses its
moral standing, then things like the New York Times report about China will be seen not as an
act of public accountability but as an act of manipulation.
Forgoing foreign intelligence is not an option. A global power must know what is happening
around the globe. A democratic global power must tolerate the discontents of deception, the
risks it poses for a democracy notwithstanding. It’s an important if imperfect balance, and it’s
thrown off when an intelligence organization enters public discourse. The organization betrays
its oath by using its foreign intelligence capability selectively in favor of one or another faction.
3/4
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
This calls into question its very survival.
The China report is a reminder of the high price we pay for having the CIA, which is no stranger
to entering U.S. politics. The officials who will not go on the record because they are not allowed
to are simply sowing seeds of distrust that will at some point consume them and weaken the
United States. If the people of the CIA are guardians, then who will guard them?
4/4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)