A FRIEND who retired from the CIA and I recently shared our dismay at the abuse of intelligence by presidential administrations. By twisting analysis to serve political ends, our nation’s leaders undermine the integrity of our intelligence system – and, eventually, their own. It’s a commonplace to say that, in war, the first casualty is truth. But, in the intelligence world, the truth is, increasingly, a pre-war casualty.
Both President Clinton and President Bush have corrupted the intelligence process. Clinton ignored the facts, while Bush exaggerates them. Clinton suppressed intelligence to avoid acting, while Bush conjures threats to justify action.
Either way, America and the world lose.
I’m no fan of Bill Clinton. He was a president of brilliant mediocrity, superbly fitted to the popular culture of his times. But his “just pretend it isn’t there” approach to foreign threats, from terrorism to weapons of mass destruction, may ultimately prove to have been less damaging than President Bush’s yarn-spinning.
When you conflate intelligence with wishful thinking, you destroy the credibility of your intelligence apparatus. But if Clinton went whistling blithely past the graveyard, Bush is the boy who cried, “Wolf!”
Make no mistake: There are real wolves out there in the global forest, and Saddam is one of the hungriest. I generally support President Bush’s international policies. If anything, I find some of them too timid and unsteady. But his weakness for Texan oil-man’s embellishment does enormous damage to our efforts to muster allies and win the support of foreign populations.
Good intelligence has two components: First, the Joe-Friday facts, as best we can ascertain them; second, skilled analysis of those facts, leading to apolitical estimates of an enemy’s intentions. When an administration plays fast and loose with the facts and engages in storytelling as opposed to serious analysis, it makes itself foolish in the eyes of the world. (Let the pundits supply the hot air – we’re the experts.)
As for the “We know secrets, but we can’t tell” approach, in which spokespersons suggest that, if the world only knew what we know, they’d all fall in behind us . . . well, it’s simply counterproductive. If you know something that important, you must tell it plainly and document it clearly. Otherwise, shut up, or you’ll just make enemies of friends by treating them condescendingly.
And, yes, we occasionally know vital facts but can’t share them because their revelation would compromise “sources and methods.” But the intelligence community still compulsively over-classifies every single shred of data. This green-door syndrome is a relic of the industrial age. In the post-modern, information age, data must flow, or its power dissipates.
In those rare instances when revealing a secret truly would compromise a technical or human intelligence asset, we should simply stay mum from the start. But don’t tease. That’s for lap-dancers, not presidents.
President Bush’s current approach to mustering world support for an invasion of Iraq is the best example to date of the administration’s abuse of intelligence. There’s plenty of hard evidence of Saddam’s bad behavior, and of his weapons of mass destruction program. There is such a wealth of data that we don’t have to reach very deep into the “black” world of intelligence to document it.
So why does the administration feel the need to embellish, to overstate, even to lie? The facts are sufficient. Were we to stick doggedly to what we can document, rather than forever hinting that “We know something you don’t,” America’s case for getting rid of Saddam would be stronger, not weaker.
When we spin our tales beyond the realm of good intelligence work, we reduce ourselves to the level of those Middle Eastern states in which every government pronouncement is a bigoted fairy tale.
American leaders cannot afford to lie to allies or enemies. We are constantly scrutinized as is no other government. Our credibility, our record of reliability (not untarnished), and the force of our arguments all depend on our respect for hard evidence. “Truth” may appear in different guises to different people from different cultures – that’s the root of much of the conflict in this world – but facts that can be proven tend to win.
And the childish name-calling needs to stop. Saddam is bad enough. His viciousness does not need a Halloween make-over to add to his ghoulishness. By raving about the man, instead of relentlessly documenting his deeds, we only look unstable and vindictive.
Beyond our romantic self-image, we compose a numbers-based, science-driven, factualizing society. We have ideals, but those, too, are best supported by hard data, by proofs, by achievement. Empty rhetoric is for religious extremists and humanity’s other failures. The dignity of our declarations must match the dignity of our purpose. And those declarations must be based upon an intelligence system of indisputable integrity, not one manipulated for short-term ends by hacks.
President Clinton wished the world would go away. President Bush has realized that it won’t, that America is involved inextricably in a system of global challenges and reciprocities. But he has not yet learned that the rest of humanity will not simply sit down and take dictation. “Where’s the proof?” is a fundamental – and fair – human question.
Bush manifests a great deal of complexity under his aw-shucks surface. But his administration veers between greatness and spiteful mediocrity. And only he can determine its ultimate quality.
Sobriety and calm resolution in pursuing our enemies will always serve us better than strategic extravagance. Our cases against terrorism and against Saddam are sound. It is we who weaken them through impatience and excess.
The first step President Bush should take to restore credibility to our struggle against terror and tyrants is to depoliticize intelligence. When Americans go to war, they must go based upon good evidence, not upon political spin and wishful thinking. An America that respects the truth will never lack for worthy allies.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army intelligence officer and the author of “Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World.”