Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Intelligence 101 with Herbert E. Meyer
Steven Hayward’s interview with Ricochet contributor Herbert E. Meyer about national intelligence would be worth posting under any circumstances. Herb —- former Assistant to the Director of the CIA, Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, and National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal winner — is one of the clearest speakers on the subject, and was a key figure in predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union, one of the CIA’s greatest victories.
However, we have a special opportunity for members: Herb will be answering questions directly in the comments this afternoon. If you want to know more about the CIA during the Reagan years, or ask about its recent struggles and failures, this is a great opportunity. Take a listen and fire away.
Highlights
On the purpose of an intelligence agency:
An intelligence service is one of these highly-specialized organizations, and the special talent you need is the ability to spot a pattern with the fewest possible facts. The ability to look at a situation and say “Oh, I can see where that’s going. I can see what that means.”
Why have we had so many failures? Because we no longer have people with that talent at top echelon of our intelligence service.
On the situation they inherited in 1981:
When we got to Washington with President Reagan, the CIA and everyone else was insisting that the Soviet economy was growing at an annual rate of over 3%. That’s very good! We were barely growing at 3%. If we’re both growing at 3%, you’re never going to end the Cold War; it’s going to go on forever.
We came in and said “That’s crazy. [The Soviet economy] can’t be growing at 3%! It can’t even be growing, it’s beginning to implode.” This wasn’t just an academic argument between economists, this is the ball game. If the Soviet economy is on the verge of imploding you could end the Cold War.
And, by the way, this is what caused the political explosion at the CIA: when we challenged the fundamental view that the Soviet economy — although it different than the United States’ — was sort growing in the same way and at the same rate.
On what they did:
We made a highly technical list of what our spies would find if it were correct that the Soviet economy [was] about to implode. Then, I took that list and went overseas to our spies. Gave them the list. I went to MI6, [Britain’s] Intelligence service; France’s Deuxième Bureau; Israel’s Mossad.
Every meeting was the same. We said, “Look, this is what we think is happening. If we’re right, these are the things you’ll find.”
…
Then you go home and wait. If nothing comes in, it’s for one of two reasons: your spies are idiots, or you’re the idiot; your theory is wrong. It’s got to be one of the two.
On how the CIA failed to predict 9-11:
Before 9-11, our intelligence service did not say “We think al Qaeda is already in the United States planning an attack.” So they never made a list of what you would find find if that was true.
No list? They never gave it to anybody. Not just spies, but police departments, FBI, [etc.] No one was told what to be looking for. No one was told look for, no one was told what to do with it if they found it. In other words, no one was in Washington — in effect — crouched over the red telephone waiting for it to ring.
So when FBI agents in Phoenix and Minneapolis discovered there were single men from the Middle East in the United States, paying cash for flying lessons and saying “Teach me how to fly a 767, but don’t bother to teaching me how to land because I won’t need to know that,” that was on no one’s list to report.
Want to ask a question but aren’t a member? There’s an easy fix for that.
Published in General
In the interests of disclosure, Herb is my father.
Question 1: What can a President do to make the CIA’s job easier? For example, what arrangements with ambassadors, embassies, and consulates might help?
Question 2: Can we expect anything more of NATO or European powers in response to Russian shenanigans in Estonia than we saw in response to Russia’s activities in Georgia and Ukraine?
Question 3: Does Tom have a GPS locator embedded in his skull?
Hi, Aaron,
1. Actually, it’s the CIA’s responsibility to make the President’s job easier…..But you must have a President who really wants the CIA to succeed — to get him the intelligence he needs. That sends a signal throughout the government that encourages our embassies and other officials to co-operate, or at lesat not get in the way.
2. My guess is that NATO won’t do much to stop Putin, certainly not without strong US leadership. There’s one possibility I’m watching: Putin has really ticked off Germany’s Angela Merkel. She’s slow to burn, but my guess is that when she feels double-crossed — well, that could be trouble for Putin. He may have pushed her too far. We’ll see.
3. No comment.
Herb
Thanks for the prompt response! I was just about to post a couple more questions, but feel free to skip them or come back to them later.
How much damage, if any, have recent intelligence leaks — primarily WikiLeaks — done to our ability to rely on cooperation from allies? Has it become more difficult to find and develop informants? Is there trust that information given to the US will remain confidential even after a change in political leadership?
Also, do you have any observations about Congressional intelligence committees based your experience? Do they serve as intended? How does their activity relate to the President’s decisions?
Edward Snowden’s revelations about the extent of the US Government’s data collection on US citizens was alarming to say the least.
1) Are such programs truly effective in providing us the intelligence we need?
2) Are there other less invasive methods for obtaining such intelligence?
3) What safeguards are there in place to prevent the abuse of such data? What additional safeguards do you think are needed?
Wow. What a fantastic opportunity.
What explains the intelligence failures surrounding Saddam’s WMDs?
After the fall of the Berlin wall and the advances in technology was there really a big drop in ground assets in favor other techniques?
What’s your take on Russia? Did the Cold War really end, did it go dormant, or is all this stuff something new?
All I can say is that my dad is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.
I suspect overall performance is difficult to measure.
If one counts publicly acknowledged mistakes (e.g. raiding empty camp, bay of pigs) and events not prevented (e.g. USS Cole, WTC, Marine barracks bomb) as failures; what is the CIA batting average?
We may never know some of the mistakes but we’re also likely to never learn of many of the successes.
If an operation accomplishes its objective, then call it a success. It does not matter if that objective fails to produced the expected result. (Assuming a civilian assigned the objective)
What is/was the CIA batting average in the 60’s vs the 80’s vs now?
Is there an ongoing cultural change at CIA?
Organizations sometimes succeed because unusually talented people are given leeway but over time such people are phased out in favor of less risky, more organizationally compliant people. I think it happens in the military between wars and is common in mature corporations.
I know nothing firsthand of the CIA but it appears from the outside to be a rather risk-averse, rather conventional government agency whose chief security concern is its own political viability rather than a managed haven for cowboys or quirky geniuses.
I would like to be wrong. Am I?
These are terrific questions you’re all asking, so let me take a shot as best I can:
I wasn’t at the CIA when that mess over Iraqi WMDs happened…but it’s obvious that Iraq DID have WMDs, and that the CIA simply cut the ground out from President Bush because they didn’t want a war with Iraq. I know the CIA tried to do this same thing to President Reagan, by refusing to provide the intelligence WE HAD proving that the Soviet Union was sponsoring terrorism. But with Bill Casey as DCI, we were able to get that intelligence to the President despite the bureaucratic games. And here’s the point: Unlike Reagan, George W Bush didn’t have the sense to put people at the CIA who would make sure the agency didn’t undercut him — not by “cooking the books” but by not letting the career guys (some, not all) cook the books. Oh, yeah….those Iraq WMDs that didn’t exist? Obviously, they went to Syria. It’s Iraq’s sarin gas Assad has been using on his own people…it would be really nice is someone in Washington DC would delve into this again and get this straight. Alas….
Herb
Various people claim that the failure of jihadists to again strike us as powerfully as they did on 9-11 proves that the HSA, TSA, and older agencies are protecting us. Sure, the shoe-bomber and underwear-bomber were stopped by vigilant civilians. Sure, authorities missed/allowed Nidal Hasan. But we don’t hear about these agencies’ success stories because the tales are classified. So the story goes.
I counter that the typical pattern of government secrets throughout history is that embarrassments are hidden and successes are leaked. It is the nature of politicians and political appointees, generally, to protect their jobs, hurt their opponents, and advance their legislative interests through leaks.
So my question is this: Have our security agencies defended us from harm since 9-11 as much as they would have us believe?
Also, was creation of the Homeland Security Agency truly necessary? Or was it a harebrained attempt to address failures of bureaucratic coordination by adding another layer of bureaucracy?
So what you’re telling us is, he did it first and he did it better?
Several of you have raised the issue of how Americans can know whether our intelligence service is doing a good job. The short answer is: We cannot know. When our spies succeed brilliantly, it remains a secret — unless some 14-year-old White House aide leaks it. And when our spies fail miserably, either it explodes onto the front pages or it remains a secret — unless some 14-year-old in the White House leaks it.
This is, alas, the problem of a secret service. And in a democracy it’s a serious problem indeed. Oversight is important, assuming the elected officials doing the oversight are serious and not just playing politics. (Some are, actually, although probably fewer now than in the past.) Ultimately, it’s a question of character. If people trust whomever is president, and whomever is at the top of our intelligence service, they’re reasonably certain things are under control and going as well as can be expected. Grown-ups understand that the intelligence business is messy, dangerous, and by its very nature secret. But if people don’t trust our president and whomever is in charge of intelligence, it’s all too easy to be suspicious of everything they do and to just assume we’re being lied to.
Mr. Meyer, two questions for you if you please:
The ongoing ISIS offensive against Kobani has attracted a great deal of international attention particularly with regards to the role Turkey could play in defending the Kurdish city or allowing others to use their territory in order to do so.
So far Turkey has allowed no action to be taken at all from its territory. In fact recent Turkish air strikes against the PKK seem to indicate that they are far more concerned with regards to Kurdish actions than those of ISIS. Given this discrepancy between Turkish foreign policy objectives and those of all other NATO members should we be questioning the value of Turkey as a member of the alliance?
More broadly speaking given disagreements over events in the Ukraine between NATO members, for example France arming the Russians, is not the value and purpose of the alliance itself called being into question?
On the subject of ISIS, what do you expect them to do when (or if) they complete their conquest of Iraq and at least part of Syria? If we take them at their word and assume that they hope to broaden their caliphate by any means, then how likely are they to settle down within their newly drawn borders?
Must they stop invading long enough to solidify their hold on current territories and/or to prepare for further aggression? Or might they leap immediately to a new target?
If they do intend to conquer further territories in the foreseeable future, what is the likely target? Israel, to consolidate anti-Semitic angst throughout the region (with or without the support of regional governments)? Iran or Saudi Arabia, for threatening to impede expansion? Or might ISIS accidentally spark a war with Turkey through wild violence in Syria and a post-Kurdish presence on Turkey’s border?
I really don’t expect you to read tea leaves. I was just hoping for general impressions.
Hi, Roberto,
You’re right about Turkey. It’s no longer an ally; in fact, it’s become an enemy. I’ve no idea why Turkey hasn’t been kicked out of NATO, except that the other members of NATO are afraid that the entire alliance will collapse. Russia’s Putin is, of course, aware of all this. For instance, if he moves on Estonia would NATO respond? If not, doesn’t this mean the end of NATO? It may well be that NATO has outlived its usefulness, but no one wants to say this out loud.
Aaron, I just don’t know what ISIS has in mind beyond Iraq and Syria. Let’s keep in mind that if ISIS does, in fact, take control even of Iraq this would be a staggering defeat for the West in general and the US in particular. I’m not sure ISIS has even thought beyond that…..at least not yet.
Put it all together, and you see a world in which the US plays a smaller role, has a lighter footprint. This is precisely what President Obama said he would do. Americans elected him — twice. Now we’ll see if they really like what they’ve voted for. My guess is that they won’t….
..which is why our government will refuse to recognize their new de facto nation long after the rest of the world has adopted economic and diplomatic relations with ISIS.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but it seems to me that “Iraq” and “Syria” are already memories of nations past.
Thanks for the feedback.
An excellent question. Particularly in light of current events, it inevitably gives rise to the question who is Putin? He has certainly gambled on bold military invasions before, but is he ready to test that NATO line of resolve…
I was going to ask a question about this yesterday but ran out of time. And, the NY Times is reporting today that Iraq did have chemical weapons that were indeed found by the US Military, but not reported.
I am amazed that the NY Times can write this piece without any self-reflection whatsoever. They spent years repeating the mantra that Iraq had no WMD, and now they report that it has all along without ever acknowledging that they were wrong.
#20: In reading that piece, my sense was that they have decided NOT to equate stockpiles of chemical weapons with WMD. Laughable to be sure, but given their credibility never seems to suffer I guess they’ll get away with it.