 |
 |
 |
|
|
| Purchase by Micah D. Halpern. |
|
|
|
|
By Micah D. Halpern
September 5, 2004
Spying on friends. It's just plain stupid.
Certainly, spying is an essential component of intelligence gathering. It's one of the oldest established tools of the trade. But that is only when the espionage garners useful information, and more important, it's when the subject you are spying on is not your friend - but very definitely, your enemy.
The whole reason countries, like big business, need spies is to gather real and up-to-date intelligence. In turn, that information is analyzed, compared with other information from different sources, and finally, used to lay out a series of options to be further fleshed out. It is a tool to help facilitate the making of strong, sound decisions. It is a way to help determine actions so that they are taken with confidence and assurance. Spying, espionage, allows one to react with the proper forethought and response. If executed properly, it is a crystal ball that can even help predict the future.
But spying on friends, that is merely an attempt to cut corners on your analysis and to save money. It's stupid, it's silly, it's lazy.
In the international community, being a "friend" does not mean that you share every secret. It means that most information and some intelligence is shared with the "friend" country with the need or desire to know. It means that serious thought is given to how a "friend" country will react given a certain, specific situation. It means that the actions and activities of the embassy officials of your "friend" country are quietly monitored to make sure that they are doing "friendly" things. To think otherwise is pure naivete. But none of that is spying - it's diplomatic behavior.
Spying not only jeopardizes a longstanding and most often mutually beneficial friendship it also risks shaking and perhaps destroying a system of give-and-take that has taken a long time to forge. It is the breaking of a trust. Aside from that, and more practically, it is also highly unlikely to reap any intelligence or benefit. The cost is very high and the gains are minimal.
The Larry Franklin spy scenario, a story that will continue to unfold bit by bit, is a fiasco no matter how you approach it.
If Israel knowingly engaged in this affair, then shame on them. Remembering the Jonathan Pollard incident, it would be very petty of them to make the same mistake again. Israel has paid dearly in trust and in public opinion for that spy scandal. If the Franklin story is merely a ruse dredged up in a match of wits between career professionals and political appointees in the Defense Department and the Justice Department then shame on them. The resulting debacle will drag entire teams of United States personnel into the gutter. The result may well be a diplomatic explosion.
Stuff like this is never worth the risk. It costs less to think issues through on your own than to pay a spy to get you the information. And the intel you get from a spy is never up-to-date. Waiting for spies to come through with their info is a waste of valuable time especially when you are on a single-issue mission.
Using this real life example, if the subject you are interested in is "Iran and their Nuclear Capabilities" then your real source of intel must be from Iran. Finding out what the U.S. is thinking about Iran, or what the U.S. is thinking Israel is thinking, is really just a matter of internally asking and analyzing the right questions. It is not, it should not be, about Israel's using a spy to gather new information and intel from the U.S.
Israel already has excellent intel on Iran and actually shares some of it with the highest diplomatic and intelligence levels in the United States. In exchange, the U.S. shares some of its knowledge and intel about Iran and as well as other hot items that may be of mutual interest and benefit, with Israel.
This happens quite often and is not considered espionage. It is official, by-the-book behavior. It is diplomacy.
In addition, there are numerous meetings that take place where theories are exchanged and ideas are shared and fleshed out, country to country. These meetings are actually encouraged in order to get an authentic and broad understanding of the realities and the variables under discussion. Participants are usually people who know the region under discussion, who speak the language and who understand the local customs. They allow for a wide range of experienced and differently nuanced minds to respond to an idea.
This is not spying, it is essential planning and analysis.
I guess somebody needed a break from convention politics. But shame on them, weren't the Olympics enough? Tennis, anyone?
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
