Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Columns | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Why the UKUSA won't tell anybody where the nukes are (Op-Ed)

By Wiggy
Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 06:22:53 PM EST
Politics

Many people have noted that the UN inspectors are having problems finding weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. It's also been noted that the US and the UK have hard evidence about weapons of mass destruction being made within Iraq, but won't tell the UN inspectors where to find them. People see a contradiction - I do not.

This article is intended to draw people's attention to a few basic facts that are obvious to me, and should be obvious to you. Hopefully, it also gives some insight into why government's keep their own mouths shut.

 

This is not spy school, and I'm not going to give away anything here that you couldn't find elsewhere on the Internet, but there are some standard policies of governments that make sense when you realise what they are protecting and why. I should point out that I refer to "UKUSA" as within this scenario the intelligence agencies are acting effectively as a team. It's not meant to imply anything else.

The first policy of any government is to make no comment. That is, you don't say something unless you absolutely have to. This works within intelligence, the treasury, press briefing guys, your local highway department, the whole shebang. It is easier to say "no comment" than even attempt to make a slight comment. The reason for this is that if you start discussing something, if a journalist pushes a goon into an area of discussion where security may be compromised and they THEN start "no comment"'ing, the journalist/spy/whoever can make obvious deductions. Imagine the following conversation between a journalist and a government goon:

Journo: Is that submarine over there a Trident nuclear submarine?

Goon: Yes, it is

Journo: Does it have nukes on board?

Goon: Yes, it has. They all have. You know that.

Journo: Is it true there is a submarine on patrol at the moment off the coast of country "X"? [X being a relatively friendly country]

Goon: One has docked in X for emergency repairs.

Journo: And is there one in the Gulf on patrol?

Goon: No comment

Straight away, you know that submarine movements in the Gulf are "hush hush", and it's almost certain that there is indeed a submarine in the Gulf on patrol and nobody wants you to know it's there. Don't blame them. You'd probably post a diary entry about it up here. Imagine the conversation if it went like this:

Journo: Is that submarine over there a Trident nuclear submarine?

Goon: No comment

Journo: Right. We can both see it. Does it have nukes on board?

Goon: No comment

Journo: Is it true there is a submarine on patrol at the moment off the coast of country "X"?

Goon: No comment

Journo: And is there one in the Gulf on patrol?

Goon: No comment

See how now, the fact that there is a sub on patrol in the Gulf disappears? The security of that submarine has not been compromised. It seems stupid that a goon won't accept that several hundred tons of metal in front of him may or may not exist, but the overall method is sensible.

Next, we have partial release. This is a risky business. You see, you can release just a little too much information that can then be built into a profile of a country's actions. Let's suppose the UK and the US announce they have firm intelligence of WMD in Iraq. This is partial release - Iraq is now aware that UKUSA are spying on it. They now need to work out how they know WMD is present, so they can engage in counter-surveillance. Already, UK/USA have given a huge amount of intelligence away - they have made the ultimate mistake of tipping off the target.

Let's then suppose that the press push a little more for what the evidence is. UKUSA decide to throw them a bone. They have copies of shipping records for components for WMD devices being sent into Iraq from the early 90's (this is an example - I'm not sure if they have or not in reality, but they certainly know about stuff back in '86). They tell the press this. Oh boy where do we begin as to what happens now. All of the following is the minimum impact:



  • Iraq is aware shipping is being monitored

  • Other 'unfriendly nations' know it is likely their shipping is being monitored

  • The person who obtained the shipping information is now compromised as an agent of UKUSA intelligence agencies, and may possibly be in extreme danger

  • The shipping company is now know to have weak security on confidential information, or they work with intelligence agencies, meaning they are in extreme danger as is all their property within Baghdad and other ports in unfriendly nations

  • If UKUSA have access to shipping into Baghdad, they probably have many live agents working on other information gathering exercises there

  • Iraq will now change their shipping conditions, so it becomes impossible for UKUSA to monitor their actions so easily.

  • Other nations will secure any data they wish to hide around shipping operations

  • UKUSA intelligence agencies have to change their entire methodology for tracking shipping into ALL these countries to counter-act the changes made by those countries



Not suprisingly, the decsion to give that one little piece of information away is now having massive effects. It's costing taxpayer's millions to change information gathering techniques, it's degraded diplomatic relations with half a dozen countries, several people's lives are now in danger, and several intelligence-friendly companies are now severly compromised. All because one photocopy from one shipping company, has been given to a journalist. All because we "need proof".

So, we say don't tell us all that nonsense, just give the UN directions to where the WMD is being developed. Sounds easy. It isn't. Let's suppose they give the UN that information, and the inspectors get into their jeeps and head straight to the first site. They find a biological warfare lab, developing Anthrax, Ricin, the whole shebang. Woop-woop! Let's have us a war! Not so fast though. The problem is, intelligence agencies, Iraq, everyone will want to know how the UKUSA guys knew it was there. The minimum impact, at best, is the following:



  • Assumption: satellite intelligence was used, and is refined enough to watch people walk in and out of the building with WMD components. Result: All unfriendly nations hide their labs better, specifically make all operations at night in close-to-darkness to make it harder for this technique to work

  • Assumption: Somebody on the inside squealed. Result: After the UN leave, all personnel at the site, whether they were aware of the existence of the bio-lab or not (it might be under a school after all), will be killed by local intelligence agencies.

  • Assumption: Information leakage on documentation around the project confirmed the site's location. Result: All documentation around the project is destroyed, all unfriendly nations tighten up security, the UKUSA guys job's become a whole lot harder a year down the line when we move onto country "X" or whoever.

  • Assumption: a defector to the UKUSA gave the intelligence about the site's location over as part of his asylum deal. Result: All potential defectors in all unfriendly countries are killed, thereby putting a stop to the most useful tool UKUSA have for gaining information.

  • Counter-intelligence efforts raised in all unfriendly nations

  • Diplomatic relations with half a dozen countries now break down

  • Other countries demand UKUSA assist them in their "cause" (Israel/Palestine) and get annoyed that they wouldn't own up to having loads of toys in the past

  • People start asking questions about budgets of intelligence agencies that are able to run such large operations

  • Conspiracy theorists go nuts on believeable stories that if they know these sites now, that proves they must have known "X" back then and that "Y" was the case in 1974, and start spreading FUD about government intentions

  • etc., etc., etc....



It's not just one of these that will be done, it's ALL of them. As a result, intelligence on future operations will become non-existent. It's difficult enough as it is to get defectors, perfect satellite intelligence, get insiders on-side, run agents in hostile nations, etc. without giving the game away to everybody about how you do it.

I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that there comes a point when if the CIA, NSA, MI6, GCHQ, whoever, say that there is hard evidence of WMD in Iraq you're just going to have to trust them. They're going to "no comment" on everything you ask them. They will not get into partial release, they will not give directions to the site. It compromises them, it compromises agents, it compromises every single component of a vast intelligence system that, in the UK at least, has taken over 400 years of experience to perfect.

Often, you assume that intelligence agencies want to lie to you, and can't be trusted. This is wrong. Politicians lie to you. The CIA used to lie to you because they hadn't got the hang of "no comment". These days, when they reveal something, you can guarantee it's been double-checked and they're taking big risks. They think it's worth it.

I know a lot of people will think I must be just the voice of the Man telling you not to panic. I can't say why you should just trust these people when they tell you WMD is in Iraq, but you should.

As a side-note, I really don't want a war in Iraq. I just think that the people supplying the idiots that are Bush and Blair with the hard intelligence, have probably got a point.

Sponsors
Voxel dot net
o Managed Servers
o Managed Clusters
o Virtual Hosting
Promicro Systems
o Rackmount Servers
o Pedestal Servers
o High-Performance Clusters

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Poll
Who would you trust your future to most confidently?
o Bush 8%
o Blair 23%
o Saddam 32%
o MI6 8%
o CIA 6%
o GCHQ 11%
o NSA 9%

Votes: 81
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o More on Politics
o Also by Wiggy

Display: Sort:
Why the UKUSA won't tell anybody where the nukes are | 205 comments (177 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden)
Intelligence doesn't exist for its own sake (5.00 / 1) (#202)
by jbuck on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:22:04 PM EST
(jbuck at welsh-buck dot org) http://www.welsh-buck.org/jbuck/

Intelligence exists to be used, and at some point it has to be used. This may reveal sources and methods, but that's the tradeoff.

For example, JFK showed the UN security council U-2 spy plane photographs, revealing info about how good they were. It was necessary to get international backing for the US's position in the Cuban missile crisis; without it, the USSR would have succeeded in painting the US as the aggressor. JFK overruled his security people, who didn't want the data revealed.

Another point is that the Bush administration has happily blabbed classified information whenever it has suited their purposes. For instance, they revealed a detailed transcript of a private conversation between Clinton and Barak, something that it never done. This kind of thing means that foreign leaders will be reluctant in the future to have frank conversations with US presidents, if as soon as the other party gets in it will all be leaked. The reason for the leak was petty: the Bush people wanted to score political points against Clinton concerning the Rich pardon, and they were willing to embarrass Barak as well just to do this.

Since the Bush folks have such a record of politically useful leaks, if they don't put up some evidence that Iraq really has WMD, and soon, they simply aren't going to be believed by anyone other than Republican party loyalists. Going to war with neither UN backing nor some kind of smoking gun might result in the fall of the Blair government; already half his party is rebelling.

Silly story, serious issues (5.00 / 2) (#200)
by johnny on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:21:50 PM EST
(anyoldthing@myhomepage) http://www.wetmachine.com

This is a silly and content-free story. As far as I can tell, what it says is that in sharing intelligence with the world, there is a risk that some of the sources of that intelligence will be disclosed. If there is another point being made here, please accept my apology (and tell me what the point is).

Assuming that I have correctly understood the point, I say, first, Duh!, and second, so what?

The USA is, purportedly, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Making war is a matter of consequence. Incurring the wrath, disdain, opprobrium and enmity of the rest of the world is a matter of consequence. If the people are to make war, therefore, the people need to know why they are doing it. Ditto for UK. If what you call UKUSA has evidence of a compelling reason for going to war, now is the time to show it, lest those who would make war forfeit their claim to legitimacy. This is a larger matter than "loss of assets." What I am saying is that in the USA the power to make war resides with the people, not with the President or the unelected intelligence apparatus. The President and the various security agencies have some legitimate reasons for secrecy and circumspection about some matters. But those claims are subordinate to their only reason for occupying the positions they do, namely, to serve the interests of the people.

In other words, if the President says, "I have proof but I can't show you," I, johnny, cry bullshit. You can use that logic when the risk/reward ratio favors discretion, but when you're talking about launching a war that might conceivably go nuclear, the costs of losing a few "assets" whether on the ground or in the sky or wherever are just part of the cost of doing business. It's not as if, for Pete's sake, the government of Iraq doesn't know that the USA has spies and satellites.

There is also the hope, of course, that as the people of the USA learn why they are making war, that the rest of the world, or a good portion of the rest of the world, will be so persuaded. One thinks, for example, of Adlai Stevenson at the UN in 1962 showing proof that Russian missiles were indeed present in Cuba, and of the effect of that proof on the US's stature among people and nations.

But obviously I worry that this whole "I could show you but then I would have to kill you" line is just a pretext. I'll say it: I don't trust ArbustoBush or HaliburtonCheney. I think they're lying cynics with a plutocratic agenda. I think they want to make war for reasons that have little to do with their stated reasons for making war. I think that they are imperialists. Myself, I believe that Saddam has these nasty weapons that everybody's talking about because we gave them to him when the President's father was head of the CIA. I believe further that Saddam is a murderous tyrant and that children die every day because of him. However, these facts alone do not convince me that we need to go to war, and I believe that it does not convince most of my fellow citizens that we need to go to war. I believe that it's an ugly situation with no obvious solution, but that a USA-led war to depose Saddam will only make things worse.

Here we have a President that many people believe was instilled by a virtual coup d'etat. Now he wants to unleash the full fury of the most destructive power in the history of earth while increasing surveillance of, and constraining the liberties of, the very people in whose name he purports to act. If he has good reason for doing so, he had better show them or risk being perceived as a tyrant and not a servant of the people. We're a little past the time for Tom Clancy style platitudes about the need to keep hard truths away from the soft people who can't handle them.

yr frn,
jrs
TechnoParanoid NanoNovel Acts of the Apostles Fear the Future!
Condensed version (none / 0) (#198)
by kwertii on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:14:59 PM EST

If the government told you the reasons why we had to go to war, it would make bad things happen. So trust us*cough*ahem* just trust them. They can't tell you why, because then not only would bad things happen, but then also the government wouldn't be able to keep finding out about bad things that might happen. So just take their word for it, it's absolutely necessary to go to war.

Yes, war -- exercising vastly superior military might to killing people, blowing things up, and driving people from their homes -- is a very serious matter, but far more serious is the integrity of the UKUSA intelligence network, whom we should just trust to be completely above board and honest at all times, despite the fact that they've been repeatedly publicly exposed doing illegal and/or immoral things in the past. But they've learned their lessons, and I'm sure they'd never do it again. It was all in our best interests that they did, anyway.

War is necessary. Just relax. Eurasia is our friend. It's Eastasia we're at war with. Don't worry, The Drew Carey Show will continue as scheduled during the war.. there won't be any pesky news broadcasts cutting in. They wouldn't dream of letting reporters near the front lines. Just take some Soma, and turn on the TV, and it'll all be over before you know it.
Ockhams razor (none / 0) (#197)
by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:14:42 PM EST
(mertz@gnosis.cx) http://gnosis.cx/

Well... you COULD believe the elaborate an implausible story of the article.  Then again, you could also choose to use Ockham's razor.  What do we actually know:

- The Bush administration wants a war for many reasons that have nothing to do with WMD (Oil, regional imperialism, popularity polls, pushing through unrelated police-state legislation, etc.)

- Facilities that can actually produce are far too big and characteristic looking to hide from detection.  They give off detectable background radiation, identifiable isotypes seep into surrounding soil in trace amounts, etc.  The traffic to/from such facilities cannot be hidden from satellite imaging.  And so on.

- Iraq has been under embargo, and has no means of obtaining 99% of the materials and equipment that would be needed to build nukes.

Hmmm... what should we conclude? Iraq has hidden nukes? Ummm, maybe not.  Try this one on for parsimony:

  BUSH IS LYING.

Well, fits all the facts.  Involves no hidden assumptions.  Matches past behavior.  Yep, I'll take that one.
Oh, I see. (none / 0) (#195)
by NFW on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:05:35 PM EST
http://www.natew.com/

So what you're saying is, the inspectors in Iraq are touring only those sites to which they have been explicitly invited by Hussein's government. God forbid they should look at anything not clearly labeled with a big red arrow, lest one of their sources be compromised.

Thank for clearing that up, that changes everything.



Make stuff! Stuff that rolls, stuff that walks, whatever. It's fun.


There are other possibilities (none / 0) (#193)
by acheon on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 08:59:29 PM EST
(acheon@linuxmail.org)

I agree with you that the intelligence is usually paranoid, perhaps even to the extent you describe. I also agree with many others that your analysis doesn't hold if you look at the other side of the coin, nor that intelligence services are that reliable.

But it matters little. What matters is that there are other possibilities you seem to neglect that could easily explain a "no comment".

1) They can't say a word before the information itself could be source of embarassment. Say, for example, they got the bulk of their material from Russia, or a state of the ex-URSS. Maybe they got whole nukes shipped from there ; who knows. Now THAT would cause tensions with other countries. It may even start a new war on a larger scale. It would be far worse than alienating half a dozen third world nations.

In addition, it could put emphasis on U.S. intelligence's failures, perhaps incompetence.

2) They truly don't have a clue, but it hardly matters. Politicians WANT to attack Iraq for reasons not to hard to figure out. No matter what the intelligence will say, they are under the political layer. The politicians can be very selective when it comes to analyzing information. They may have told their intelligence services to look for that evidence in the first place. And they want results, that is, don't come back empty-handed if you don't want to be disgraced and replaced. Now whatever evidence they have is assembled and the conclusions are more or less "constructed". In any case, what they need is a pretext for war ; they only need to *convince* other nations that it is so. It doesn't need to be authentic.

It may look crazy. It IS crazy. You know what this scenario reminds me ? A U.S. government-funded study. Nowadays this kind of fabrication becomes more and more common in the U.S.
Not Absolute, and It's Worth It (5.00 / 4) (#187)
by tudlio on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 08:10:44 PM EST

I've never been affiliated with any intelligence agency, so I'm not speaking from personal experience. I have, however, done a lot of research (of the nonfiction kind).

I have two problems with your analysis:
  1. You are correct in saying that any action taken as a result of intelligence information will provide clues to the other side about how and where the information was obtained. I believe that you're incorrect in assuming that this will completely compromise the intelligence source, and that it will compromise that method of gathering intelligence.
  2. The President is asking the American citizens to support a war in which innocent Iraqis and Americans will die. He's asking us to do this on a pre-emptive basis, in other words as the aggressor. He's asking us to do this in the absence of support from the international community and the UN. The consequences if he's wrong will be severely detrimental to the United States' ability to achieve its goals in the future. I believe the severity of the situation justifies the risk of compromising some intelligence assets.



insert self-deprecatory humor here
so? (none / 0) (#186)
by loudici on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 08:07:55 PM EST
http://oget.net

if the USUKA has such an intelligence network that they are afraid to weaken, how come they did not know anything about 9/11? how come they have no clue where ben laden and mullah omar are?
gnothi seauton
Idiotic (4.60 / 5) (#176)
by jungleboogie on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 07:22:19 PM EST
(chris@nmedia.net) http://www.nmedia.net/~chris/

So, by your twisted logic, Iraq must not know that the CIA knows about their WMD. Otherwise, it would be just as if the inspectors had raided the compound immediately, and all unfriendly countries would start following the steps in your last ten bullet points. Yeah, right, bucko.

Another way to put it...the USA and the UK both say that they know about the WMD in Iraq. If Iraq really has them, then the intelligence route is already compromised. Sending in the inspectors would confirm this. Your argument holds no water.

Any country that carries out secret operations against international law or treaties already knows they need to be extremely careful. How can you honestly think that all of these rogue states are all of the sudden going to massively change their tactics because we go into Iraq and take their (non-existant?) WMD??? This is over-simplification to the extreme.

I might as well mention that UKUSA really exists. (4.00 / 1) (#170)
by it certainly is on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 06:50:13 PM EST
http://www.kyz.uklinux.net/

Or rather, the UKUSA agreement exists, which was originally a WW2, then cold-war agreement between UK's GCHQ (the UK signal monitoring body) and the USA's Secret Service, which expanded to include Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It doesn't include higher level intelligence passing at the FBI/MI5 or CIA/MI6 level, which is done on a less open and less formal basis at the discretion of those agencies.

I don't know when news of it was first broken to the public, but I heard of it in Peter Wright's Spycatcher. Recently, the ECHELON monitoring network was in the news -- this is just part of what the UKUSA agreement has been doing for the past 60 years.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
There's a lot of evidence that (1.44 / 9) (#166)
by medham on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 05:58:16 PM EST

TEHE HTE SAID FUCK, TUFK FUCK tHE LATS THDO THOE SILVER BACK MIND SHARE SAID UCKF! THE SNLUER BASHERS WILL NOT BE REWORN--SNTHE THE UTCTF! BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR MIND SHARE, SILVER BACK, MINDPOOL, CRAZYLEGS HORSE SALOON, NYBORG, BRASS BALLS. 3:19pM 18:34am :12:2034R324ZM cAREFUL HOW YOU USE IT.

The British have contigency plans to use their nuclear arsenals against the U.S. and the rest of the EU. It's all a matter of certain permutations of the 'mnz' pattern. Now Firx, that's a fine fellow.




The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (3.66 / 6) (#159)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 05:04:40 PM EST

then why do Democratic Senators like Dick Durbin say that the top secret evidence that they were shown doesn't indicate that? Is he lying? Did they show them top secret information but only superfulous top secrets? Why would they bother?

No woman should ever be president. Ann Rand
Don't quite agree (4.20 / 5) (#154)
by BushidoCoder on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 04:28:53 PM EST
(my_kuro5hin_username@hotmail.com)

While I agree one reason that the US may not release information is fear of compromising agents, I think this really boils down to one of two real options.
  • The United States does not actually have intelligence to the effect that they claim they do.
  • The United States does have the intelligence they claim, but the nature of the intelligence is such that the same method is used to collect data from Russia, China and other states that the US keeps its eye on. If this were the case, although releasing the information would be a political victory for Bush, it would also clue in every other country we watch as to this avenue of intelligence, and in the end, would be an intelligence failure.
I tend to think the second is the more likely scenario. I base this on the fact that the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (who would have access to this data) regardless of party seem to be in favor of "action". Furthermore, internationally, the only nation that we would likely trust with the information is Britain, and they support Bush's approach despite an incredible lack of public support. I don't believe the US would share sensitive data with any other single nation if it meant compromising an intelligence source.

My 2 cents.

\bc
World War 2.5 Civ Style (4.50 / 4) (#152)
by kpaul on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 04:24:11 PM EST
http://www.mallasch.com/

Gulf War 2 (aka World War 2.5)


:: Journalism :: Poetry :: Movies ::
Well, there are another possibilities (3.66 / 3) (#149)
by jth on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 03:52:59 PM EST
(reaper@sci.removethispart.fi)

Claiming to have "definite proof", but not presenting it to anyone, would be perfectly logical if Bush wanted to attack Iraq no matter what (for various reasons). If the "proof" (if it even exists) turns out to be true and US/UK troops find said WMD, it will be a political victory for Bush (and Blair). But if they cannot find anything, they can plant pretty much anything to pretty much anywhere, and still claim their "definite proof" was correct.


And no, this isn't that far fetched. Can you honestly imagine it ever happening, that the war turned out to be unjustified? The political consequences would be horrible, both for Bush in internal politics, and the US in international relations.

Suppose the Inspectors Find Something. (4.00 / 5) (#129)
by snowlion on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 01:57:06 PM EST
(lion at speakeasy dot org) http://taoriver.net/

Saddam Hussein won't know if inspectors had a US tip, or if inspectors were lucky.

In fact, your arguments should conclude with "There should be no inspections", because if they find something, then the negative consequences you listed will kick in.

Give the inspectors the evidence, and they'll cover the knowledge with a smoke of miss inspections.
=^_^= . o O ( Ek Onkar Sat Nam )
This is probably the dumbest (3.87 / 8) (#125)
by redwolfb14 on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 01:52:24 PM EST
(redwolfb14 at kernelcode dot com) http://www.kernelcode.com

thing I've read in a while regarding WMD's in Iraq. No offense but if Iraq has WMD's the US/UK (especially Blair) would love nothing more than to post a big picture of a nice large nuke sitting in some Mosque or underground somewhere. Counter surveillance is not a problem because then Iraq would be going against UN resolution policy and they could do whatever it is they want afterwards the rest of the world will just remove the nukes. And it's very easy to take sat photos of spots in Iraq seeing as Iraq is mostly flat with little natural forest area, this means the WMD's would have to be underground or encamped in some building.

If you read the book MI6 and if you've ever been involved in any type of Intelligence operation the first rule is to trust no one because EVERYONE is lying. I really don't know where you get your info. The "No Comment" you hear means that either the person really has no intel (as no intelligence agency is gonna report everything they know to their press guy; unless you want him/her kidnapped or sniped on site) or this person is the "dumb man" used to keep the press off the agencies ass, most of the time a paid liar.

It's different if you're talking about a country like China or good old Russia having WMD's because they have sat's, they have the ability to do certain things etc etc. There is just no logical way even if Iraq really really wanted to have a WMD could they get one under the public scrunity it's been under for years now. They might boast and pretend they are gearing up to get an WMD every now and then but it'd have to be pieced in over time and then put together and they just don't have any cohesive facilities to build one.

This war is about oil and making it seem as if we are doing something about terrorism and all it'll cause is more terrorism and more violence against the US. It will also spawn countries like North Korea to do exactly what they are doing now.. Including China and Russia rebuilding.. Cuba etc etc etc etc.

Say what you want because I already have.
Question (4.00 / 5) (#124)
by omegadan on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 01:48:48 PM EST

Isn't the real reason the US won't divulge any secrets to the inspection team - that Iraq has managed to get Iraqi sympathizers on the inspections team.
Some of your arguments seem a bit weak (4.50 / 4) (#118)
by michaelp on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 01:25:05 PM EST
http://www.futuresynthesis.com

UKUSA intelligence agencies have to change their entire methodology for tracking shipping into ALL these countries to counter-act the changes made by those countries

Sorry, this seems more an argument for bureaucratic inertia than best practices.

3 counter arguments:

1) Releasing intelligence (so long as agent's lives are not unduly risked in so doing) when we have it allows us to actually use the intelligence data to avoid disasters or set better policy. Note the number of attacks that may have been stopped if intelligence agencies had been less protective of their data.

2) Releasing intelligences forces the enemy to change their habits, as you have noted. So long as our ability to gather intelligence in new ways out strips the enemy's ability to efficiently change their habits, we are causing them to waste time and resources trying to hide their attempts at WMD production/deployment from us, thus slowing and making increasingly costly development of weapons.

This seems to me an extension of the policies that won the cold war: force the enemy to develop new methods/weapons at a speed unsustainable by the enemy's economy until we achieve regime change in a more or less peaceful manner.

3) UKUSA intelligence should change their methods continually even if the enemy is flexible and efficiently changes it's own methods without hardship, as it keeps our own intelligence agencies on their toes, continually developing new methods, and making it difficult for the enemy's counter agents to keep up with our methods.

Further, seems to me a better argument for keeping the weapons secret from the perspective of the folks who want to go to war is that they want to be able to demonstrate that Saddam is acting in bad faith. If UKUSA tells the inspectors where to look, there won't be the same kind of outrage as if Saddam purposefully & successfully hides the weapons from the UN, says see all is clear and then the UKUSA says 'but what about those WMDs right over there???' (Hussein is supposed to be cooperating after all).

Then the UKUSA can reveal the location, say 'see he can't be trusted' and tell the gentlemen & women of First Armored to start their engines...

PS despite my critique, I give the story +1, it is an important topic to think about, whether one thinks intelligence should be free or hidden.

"Had we a place to stand upon, we might raise the world."
Archimedes
Futuresynthesis
How stupid is this (4.28 / 7) (#111)
by fhotg on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 01:06:35 PM EST
(montado_1999@re.yahoo.move.com)

You exaggerate a real problem of intelligence agencies to the point where the only conclusion is that they are useless, because acting on any intelligence gathered would make future intelligence gathering impossible.

Of course there is no knowledge of the whereabouts of secret labs in Iraq, else they would simply bomb them. As if that were a problem for our leading military surgeons.


~~~
Linux like teepee: No windows, no gates, Apache inside
You can agree with BOTH sides, you know... (4.50 / 4) (#107)
by ToastyKen on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 01:01:12 PM EST
(kenlu(at)subjunctive.net) http://www.subjunctive.net/

I don't see why this has to be either-or.  I would tend to agree with both sides...

I think that, given his history, Hussein is probably hiding weapons somewhere, and the CIA is probably telling the truth... and I agree with the article author that revealing evidence would be too costly.  So we should attack, right?  Well....

Thing is, I ALSO think that, given the cost of this in terms of both human lives and diplomacy, it would be VERY costly for the US to attack Iraq without the evidence.  So we should NOT attack, right?  Well.....

I think that there is pretty much no good solution to this.  What else is new.

(FYI, personally, I would tend to say that attacking is more costly than not right now.  I think the Bush administration is underestimating how much this is going to cost us in the long run, with regard to sparking more anti-US sentiment.)
Didn't I read this (4.42 / 7) (#105)
by Rogerborg on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 12:56:09 PM EST
(uce@ftc.gov) http://www.anti-leech.com/spam/spambot_stopper.php

on alt.fan.tomclancy?

This is overly verbose, and you don't even deal with the (second) simplest explanation:

The less a just-passing-through politician knows, the less he can be blamed for afterwards, and the more likely he is to be reelected.  The less clearly a career beaurocrat explains the whole situation to that career politican, the less he can be blamed for being wrong and the more likely he is to make it to retirement.

So I really have to wonder: how many of the accountable elected politicians in the UKUSA actually really know the full extent of what their spies suspect?  Or do they just leave the go/no go decision up to the beaurocrats while they get on with the photo opportunities?

I'm reminded of an exchange in Henry V that's still very relevant today:

KING HENRY V
    [after hearing CANTERBURY's tortuous explanation of the situation] May I with right and conscience make this claim? [to the throne of France, leading to war]

CANTERBURY
    The sin upon my head, dread sovereign!

Read the whole lot for context.  I doubt people or politics have changed much since Shakespeare's time.

-- Supercillious sig superceeded by supercillious diary.
+1 though I disagree (4.50 / 6) (#101)
by Pihkal on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 12:47:19 PM EST
(mld3b@yaBUTIDONTLIKESPAMhoo.com)

I see several problems with this. Though it is probably true that the UKUSA agencies have no reason to lie while politicians do, the fact of the matter is, it's the politicians who are doing any and all announcements to the public. So if, as you admit, politicians are liars, why couldn't they lie about having proof, particularly if the intelligence agencies have a "no comment" policy? I don't recall any press conferences, releases, or interviews with operating CIA officials confirming WMD in Iraq. Your own characterizations of the government as liars and intelligence agencies as tight-lipped also supports the scenario where the statements issued by the government have little to no basis whatsoever on actual intelligence. In particular, what everyone is really worried about is evidence of nukes. Chemical (GAO report on 80's Iraq, section 4) and biological (anthrax) weapon evidence is much easier to come by.

Much of your argument hinges upon the huge cost in money, resources, and agent safety should the data be revealed to a press that claims to "need proof." You build the consequences of "one photocopy from one shipping company" up to unreasonable proportions in order to bolster your argument. The consequences you describe represent a worst-case scenario which is statistically unlikely to occur to the full extent.

Even setting that aside, you're missing out on a crucial detail: while revealing information to the press tips your hand to your opponent, so does using the information gained, even if the press was never told. The only way to maintain total security about the sources and methods of obtaining intelligence is to not act on it. Any use of the information whatsoever raises the possibility that your opponent will wonder, "How could they have known that?" The intelligence agencies must deal with this frequently, and have contingency plans for it.

If they really have proof, why not reveal it to clinch the deal, so to speak? The polls show that most Americans support the war if there is sufficient evidence. From the White House's point of view, why not extract the agents or send them into hiding, reveal the proof, and set full speed ahead for war? I think the political desire for this war is strong enough that if substantial proof existed, it would be proffered. I think the fact that it hasn't suggests that it doesn't exist. The only variables are the polls indicating under what circumstances the public supports the war, and the extent to which the administration thinks it can initiate a war without sufficient public support in the hopes of appeasing the public later.

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!"
-- Number 6
I'm almost certain that the US is funneling some (4.16 / 6) (#78)
by Demiurge on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 11:58:47 AM EST

information to the inspection teams. But that doesn't mean they'll give them full access to their information, for a number of reasons. One, which was discussed in the article, is to protect sources. Saddam's regime is hardly kind to suspected traitors.

In addition, the UN team is almost without a doubt compromisted by Iraqi intelligence. It was back during the first round of inspections, and now that Blix isn't carrying out detailed background checks, it's almost certain. So any information that the US gives to the inspectors will very likely wind up on Saddam Hussein's desk.
So what you are saying is (4.14 / 7) (#63)
by krek on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 11:31:57 AM EST

That it is better to keep your citizens in the dark so that the bad guys can do their 'thing' with as little impediment as possible and as in the open as possible so that the CIA goons will have an easier time doing their job?

If the bad guys have to bury their bases and only work at night, then we have increased their expenses, decreased their productivity and made it clear that we are not cool with their bullshit and we will do everything in our power to stop them.

And, to extend your example, don't you think that it is a good idea to make those shipping companies scared of doing business with the bad guys? 'Out' them as the evil profiteering bastards that they are and watch their business dry up, both dirty and clean. Make the bad guys go and find another way to do their shipping, and then 'out' those bastards. Keep going until noone will even consider doing business with the bad guys. As it is it is very profitable to deal with the bad guys; under the table, tax free payments, and CIA protection.
I think you need to read 1441. (4.29 / 17) (#35)
by sonovel on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 10:15:50 AM EST
(nutscrapeiscrap@nospam.netscape.net)

The inspections aren't about finding a "smoking gun".

They are about verifying compliance with this and other resolutions.

Hostile inspections don't work. They didn't work previously in Iraq, they didn't work in North Korea (under Blix!), and they won't work now.

1441 says Iraq faces severe consequence unless it cooperates fully and proves that it is willing to disarm, or has disarmed.

It isn't the inspectors job to prove this. It isn't really the inspectors jobs to find hidden things.  

The inspectors job is to be witness to Iraq living up to its agreements. They haven't yet, meaning the ceasefire of 1991 has been broken. 1441 is supposed to be Iraq's last chance to live up to their agreements (read it!).

Obviously Iraq has spit in the face of the world and once again isn't doing what it agreed to.

The required report is incomplete and contains falsehoods, according to Blix. Material Breach #1.

Unmonitored interviews with weapons scientists are not being allowed. Material Breach #2.

Iraq is not allowing flights for surveilance by inspectors. Material Breach #3.

So once again, Iraq is giving the finger to the world. This was supposed to be Iraq's last chance. Serious consequences are suppossed to occur because of this. But many seem to think that Iraq deserves even more "last chances". Of course, if one thinks the U.N. is often a bad joke, this situation shows another bad punchline.
If the world was from a Tom Clancy novel (4.53 / 15) (#29)
by creo on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:52:31 AM EST

You would of course be 100% correct. The reason for this is that the CIA and the government would be being run by a bunch of Jack Ryan clones, whose dedication to their country would only be outdone by their dedication to their family - and of course they would all have a family of perfect children and a good looking wife who would balance career with taking care of her man.

We all know that the reality of the situation is quite different. This whole Iraq business has the stench of a trawler of rotting fish. Other people who are far more eloquent than I have covered this in far greater detail, so I'm not going to bother.

One of the interesting points raised, either in your article or in a comment was that of WWII and Enigma. While following a similar vein of thought, the reality in that case was completely different. When enigma was cracked the allies were at war, the enemy was identified, the enemy was in a position to cause major damage to both the war effort and the information gathering process. At the current time it is a potentially corrupt government attempting to divert investigation into domestic issues by raising the bogeyman of a tin pot dictator who has no ability to damage the UKUSA alliance members. The 1942 population did not need convincing facism presented a clear and present danger, whereas at the present time the information that can show Iraq presents a danger is conveniently hiding behind the facade of national security.

None the less, good article, made me think, +1.
Here's the thing ... (4.56 / 16) (#26)
by Simon Kinahan on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:39:26 AM EST
(simon@flatnet.demon.co.gb)

I agree with you about intelligence info. It is quite clear that governments can't go around telling everyone what they've learned and who they've learned it about. The unfortunate thing is, the public no longer trust politicians. At all. If you think back to the Cuban missile crisis, or to Suez, or <insert cold war military intervention here>, the public at that time pretty much trusted politicians. When Kennedy told the public he knew the Russians had nukes in Cuba, the public believed him, even though the photos that proved it were never released.

The public is much more skeptical now. Partly because we're much more aware of having been deceived in the past: about "communists" in central America, about the secret passages of the Rambouillet accords, and so on, not to mention the far more numerous broken promises regarding domestic policies. We know politicians lie. We're pretty sure that also cheat, are open to bribery of one kind or another, and occasionally even steal.

Given this, how the hell are we supposed to trust them ?

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
Intelligence works like this (Blechly and Enigma) (4.27 / 11) (#23)
by idiot boy on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:23:11 AM EST

Intelligence does work like this, it has to. When the Enigma code (WWII encryption used by the Nazis) was broken at Bletchley Park, the British government suddenly had access to vast amounts of 100% reliable intelligence on what the Germans were up to.

Even with this information though, the allies were not always able to stop German actions and very frequently had to sacrifice ships, soldiers and civilians, not because they didn't necessarily have the resources to stop those actions but because to do so would give away the fact that THEY KNEW.

In this situation, if the UKUSA do indeed have the information they are talking about then it would not be unreasonable for them to refuse to make it public. It's far more important to them that they remain able to gather such intelligence than to make a quick PR killing. Give away your source and your source becomes useless (and in this situation - very dead).

This principle applies to journalism too!

Sure, this means that our politicians start to look duplicitous and if we just blindly believe them all the time then you take a couple of steps closer to 1984 but that doesn't mean that they're always lying.

The solution is to take what information you can rely on and extrapolate with that and the pronouncements of politicians to make an informed decision as to whether or not to belive them.

In this case, it is highly likely that Iraq has at least some of the materials and skills required to manufacture nukes and other WMD. It's also likely that they retain stocks of Chem and Bio weaponry. We "know" this given history and reports that are in the public domain.

However, it's safe to say that he doesn't actually have a nuke. If you're Saddam Hussain and you have a functioning nuclear weapon, you bloody well tell the world about it (ref: North Korea). There's little point having nukes (if you're a country - the same does not apply to terrorists) unless your enemies know you've got them.

In this case then, it is reasonable to err on the side of believing the politicians that they do indeed have the information they allude to.

That doesn't make a war right though.

--
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself
This may be a very simplistic view (4.00 / 15) (#22)
by andymurd on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:14:41 AM EST
(andy at andymurdoch dot com) http://www.andymurdoch.com

but why can't $SECURITY_AGENCY say "Hey, Mr Blix, go look in $LOCATION and you'll find a $WEAPON". This gives away nothing about how they know, if the intelligence is good, the weapon gets found, war starts, etc.

Oh, hang on, aren't they doing that already and they've found fuck all?

Either the security agencies are deliberately feeding bad information to the weapons inspectors for the reasons you state, or their intelligence is bad.

You have too much faith in military intelligence, I'm surprised they can find their arse with both hands.
What it comes down to. (4.27 / 11) (#21)
by LaundroMat on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:05:42 AM EST

So basically, you're saying that the reason why the information isn't published is that by giving away the information, the intelligence agencies would give away their methods, and thus render all future intelligence efforts useless.

Ofcourse Saddam knows he's being spied upon from all possible angles. Ofcourse he knows people are squealing. Ofcourse top secret documents are being smuggled to the enemy.

Does he know exactly how? Not always, but publishing evidence about a "secret atomic site" won't help him much further.

Spies, agents, infiltrants and snitches (in whatever form) get busted every day.

And anyway, the CIA wouldn't care if their sources got killed/tortured/deported or whatever. They would no longer be interesting when the information is handed over and/or published. The source would have dried up.

I'll abstain from this vote, as I do not believe anyone can honestly believe these to be the true motivations behind the intelligence agencies' actions.

Occam-man. You'll get a +5.
---

"These innocent fun-games of the hallucination generation"
That's why it's "Hush hush". (3.87 / 8) (#20)
by StrontiumDog on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 09:01:03 AM EST
(strontiumdog-at-beer-dot-com)

But.

We would like to think that the main differentiating factor between the good guys like the CIA and MI5 on the one hand, and the Gestapo and KGB on the other, is that apart from having much more debonair operatives, that they are accountable to their respective governments for their actions, and these governments are in turn accountable to their consituenties. In the olden days the feudal overlord could declare war on any damn neighbouring feudal motherfucker he liked without having to explain his every sneeze and fart to his sullen vassals. These days, though, the populace would like to know just why they are required to drop daisy cutters on the unwashed heathen enemy, and that requires just a tad more openness these days.

An unfortunate consequence of living in a representative democracy. Life would be indeed so much easier if our glorious leaders and the heroic men who protect us in secret did not have to explain or account for any of their actions in the name of national security. A good thing for Iraq's populace that Saddam and his National Guard are well aware of this.

Ocam's razor (4.69 / 26) (#16)
by Betcour on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 08:44:14 AM EST

Either all that, or USA & UK really do not have any proof whatsoever.

Never dismiss the simple two-line explanation before looking for a convoluted one that takes 3 pages to explain :)
Well, OK. (4.90 / 20) (#14)
by Il Maestro on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 08:35:09 AM EST

My intelligence sources tell me that you are wrong. I can't really tell you why because of security reasons, but you really should trust me.
A point (3.88 / 9) (#13)
by vile on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 08:35:02 AM EST

Did you ever consider that the Bush admin. planned to release partial info on Iraq? You stated that you believed it was a mistake. I really do not think that it was. Besides, how informed are you on how many countries *do* have nuclear capability? You're living in one.

This is politics... Bush will be re-elected next term. Oil and weapons companies will make more money. The airline industry will get more 'help' from our good friends in the govt. The economy will stabalize, but unbalance itself again. Unemployment will go down. The stock market will still suck. Microsoft will still be the main desktop O/S. And you will still be reading k5. *shrug*.

Nothing new here.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
Oh, hell no!! (4.79 / 24) (#12)
by pyramid termite on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 08:29:53 AM EST
(wombatgrand@hotmail.com)

I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that there comes a point when if the CIA, NSA, MI6, GCHQ, whoever, say that there is hard evidence of WMD in Iraq you're just going to have to trust them.

No, actually I don't and I won't - balanced against the long list of consequences you list for telling UN inspectors where the WMDs are is one very important consequence -

If our government isn't required to make its case to the American people than they're not going to be held accountable and they can make up anything they want in the future and not have to back it up with proof.

I'd like to remind you that this is the same government whose leaders have promised us lower taxes for 30 years, while taxes have continued to go up; that provided false and misleading information to Congress so that it would pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution; that experimented on its own citizens with biological and chemical agents in the 60s; that sponsored a burglary on its political opposition that resulted in the resignation of a President; that let its secret intelligence agencies make contacts of mutual benefit with cocaine smugglers and radical terrorists, among whom are Bin Laden and Hussein; that perpetrated a massacre in Waco; that allowed a president to lie about getting a blow job in the Oval Office; that regularly has secret meetings with industry and financial leaders to set policy without the knowledge or approval of the American people; that has allowed embezzlement, incompetance, and corruption, sometimes as a matter of standard policy; and now claims to have proof of WMDs in Iraq but will not share this proof with the people in charge of investigating it or the people who must approve doing something about it.

Trust them? Hell, no, I don't trust them. Why would any rational person trust them after all the shit our government's pulled?

God Bless America, where laws are passed to protect people from the legal system. - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot
Interesting Point (3.41 / 12) (#10)
by GRiNGO on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 08:23:46 AM EST
(weejoejoe@hotmail.com)

But all youve really done is expand upon one line from the film Enemy Of the State: "You and I know wha t the average citizen does not, that this country is at war 24 hours a day.... [blah blah blah]".

Most of what you say is true, except for the fact that all this isnt "for our own good".

America wouldnt be the slighest bit interested in Iraq and Iraqs (non)potential threat to the United States if it were located, say in the South Pacific or Siberia or somewhere where there was no Oil involved. The whole war in Afghanistan thing was really just about the oil from the Caspian Sea and the pipeline they are building. The Gulf War - do you think theyd have been interested in the safety of Kuwait if it wasnt for oil?

Seriously, what potential threat do you see as Iraq posing to UK or USA? Absolutely fuck all. Do you really think that if Iraq launched one missile that USA would not be able to remove that threat within minutes of it being launched? But if you go to war and start bombing Iraq ( not that you've ever stopped bombing it... ) on a massive scale all you will do will be to create loads more fanatics who hate UK/USA and are willing to carry out terrorist attacks within those countries.

--
You know what they call a quarter pounder with cheese in France?

Trust them? Never (4.30 / 10) (#8)
by twistedfirestarter on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 08:22:29 AM EST

The intelligence agencies are telling their politican bosses exactly what the bosses want to hear - that iraq is hiding WMD. How damn convenient. Do you really trust the CIA & MI6 that much?

Information passes up the chain of command. The agents in the field could very well be perfectly competent and honest. But as the information is passed up from officers to bosses to politicians I can easily imagine it being seriously embellished and exagerrated to please superiors. Particularly when there is pressure to justify a war.

Weighing the evidence for WMD is a complex process and a matter of degrees of probability. Perhaps what is a significant threshold for the intelligence agencies (say 30% probability that Iraq has wmd) is not enough for joe citizen.

Regardless of whether you trust the CIA or not, we are talking about starting a war here that'll cost hundreds of thousands of lives (anyone disagree with that? I doubt it.). The question you have to ask yourself is whether you think the unjust and unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands outweighs the potential harmful effects revealing a single bit of proof of WMD might have on the operations of western intelligence agencies.

taxpayer's (1.75 / 4) (#7)
by vile on Fri Jan 24th, 2003 at 08:20:51 AM EST

Common error. You seem to have a habit of putting 's where you don't need to.. only seems to happen every now and then... a man's gun.. ownership of a gun.. a man's right.. ownership of right.. a man's going to jail.. ownership of the action of going to jail.. man is.. it's costing taxpayers millions of dollars.. correct.. the taxpayers' millions are allowing us to go forth with this oil war... I think you get the point? Nothing big.. common.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
Why the UKUSA won't tell anybody where the nukes are | 205 comments (177 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - 2002 Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
Registered at the post office as: The Jon Stewart News Explosion

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | K5 Store | YOU choose the stories! Syndication Supported by NewsIsFree