A recurring theme in the Bush years has been discussions about just what does and what does not hurt our intelligence gathering capabilities. And it is a very complex issue that can be tackled from a number of different perspectives. One perspective is at the nation-to-nation level. For example, the CIA, Richard Clarke, and others have stated that the United Arab Emirates, and Dubai in particular, have been very helpful in providing intelligence on al-qaeda activities. That cooperation could dry up if Dubai feels alienated over the hostility to the DP World ports deal.
Another perspective is on the level of the recruitment of agents. Agents, as opposed to officers, are not on the payroll of the US Government. They get payed in cash and other accouterments and they are usually betraying the organization(s) they work for. Keeping such agents safe is the number one priority of our clandestine agencies. And if prospective agents lose trust that their work will be kept secret they will not agree to provide valuable information. That is one reason why the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson was so potentially damaging. All her agents, spanning a career that started in 1985, were potentially exposed. It not only put their lives at risk but it undermined the credibility of the CIA for keeping their agents confidential.
An open society will always have an uneasy relationship with its own intelligence agencies. The values of an informed public and the need for secrecy do not mix well. But, we must seek the correct balance.
I have defended, and even applauded, prior revelations that the press had dug up about our intelligence agencies. The NSA wiretapping and the extraordinary rendition program are two that immediately come to mind. But the latest revelations in the New York Times go too far.
Two German intelligence agents in Baghdad obtained a copy of Saddam Hussein’s plan to defend the Iraqi capital, which a German official passed on to American commanders a month before the invasion, according to a classified study by the United States military.
Saddam Hussein’s plan for the defense of Baghdad, obtained by German agents and provided to the United States in February 2003, a month before the war, according to a study by the American military.
In providing the Iraqi document, German intelligence officials offered more significant assistance to the United States than their government has publicly acknowledged. The plan gave the American military an extraordinary window into Iraq’s top-level deliberations, including where and how Mr. Hussein planned to deploy his most loyal troops.
The German role is not the only instance in which nations that publicly cautioned against the war privately facilitated it. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for example, provided more help than they have disclosed. Egypt gave access for refueling planes, while Saudi Arabia allowed American special operations forces to initiate attacks from its territory, United States military officials say.
But the German government was an especially vociferous critic of the Bush administration’s decision to use military force to topple Mr. Hussein. While the German government has said that it had intelligence agents in Baghdad during the war, it has insisted it provided only limited help to the United States-led coalition.
In a report released Thursday, German officials said much of the assistance was restricted to identifying civilian sites so they would not be attacked by mistake. The classified American military study, though, documents the more substantive help from German intelligence.
Before I even tackle this issue I want to say something I have said before in different contexts. Many things that happen in any war can be justified if the country is fighting for its survival and as a last resort. Those same actions become deeply immoral if the war is elective and/or based on lies, and has nothing to do with the security or survival of a nation. Still other things are immoral, or just plain stupid, no matter the reasons for the fight. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq has tainted everyone that has participated, or facilitated the American effort. Having said that, other nations must make difficult choices in trying to maintain relationships and alliances with the United States. And more to the point, certain long established relationships are built on long-term trust and transcend any one administration’s actions.
The Germans evidently had spies within Saddam Hussein’s inner circle. And they risked their lives and the lives of their families to provide the most sensitive information possible to the German Intelligence Services. In turn, that information was passed along to Tommy Franks and was ulitized to craft a better warplan. Germany did not need to that. They opposed the war. And because they opposed the war they undoubtedly expected to retain deniability in return for doing us an enormous favor.
On top of that, the New York Times goes on to site facts that could potentially identify the spies that leaked the information.
But on Dec. 18, 2002, Mr. Hussein summoned his commanders to a strategy session where a new plan was unveiled, former Iraqi officers and government officials told American interrogators. Among those attending were Qusay Hussein, the Iraqi leader’s son who oversaw the Republican Guard; Lt. Gen. Sayf al-Din Fulayyih Hasan Taha al-Rawi, the Republican Guard chief of staff, and other Republican Guard generals.
snip
The classified study contains a copy of the sketch supplied by the Germans. “The overlay was provided to the Germans by one of their sources in Baghdad (identity of the German sources unknown),” the study notes. “When the bombs started falling, the agents ceased ops and went to the French Embassy.”
By not only identifying the date of the meeting, some of the attendees and disclosing which embassy they fled to, the New York Times has put those agents of risk of retaliation. It is true that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, but it is not true that his supporters are incapable of settling scores with people they consider to be traitors.
When information like this leaks out it damages our intelligence gathering capabilities on both a nation-to-nation level and on an agent recruitment level. The Times should have done a better job of disguising the way this information was obtained.
And we should all remember the tension that exists between our right to know and the government’s ability to keep us safe. That ambiguity is compounded when our government is not only engaged in efforts to keep us safe but is also violating our rights and breaking both domestic and international law.
