Why did the administration have such problems determining whether
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or not? The problem with
proof is simply that there may be people political appointees have a hard
time dealing with. I think the only good way to find out what Saddam Hussein
had, or didn’t have, was to send people in to look for them. Not the UN
inspectors doing public inspections, but secret agents operating covertly.
Alas, the kinds of people willing to do this sort of thing do not mix well
with political appointees. There are several reasons. The first problem
is that the appointee is often in water over his head when it comes to
these people. Imagine this scenario. Mr. Appointees secretary buzzes him
to say, “He’s here! Ahh (faint)”. Then, the man walks in. And, suddenly
the office muzac starts playing this weird driving tune. And, the secret
agent announces himself, “My name is Bond, James Bond.” The appointee immediately
faces several problems. First he cannot afford to offend the agent. Because
the agent has the courage to do incredibly dangerous things. He might simply
walk out. Walking out isn’t that dangerous. But, there are other things
the agent might do if offended. This can be a terrible affront to Mr. Appointees
ego. Second, there is the problem of courage. The agent is willing to do
things the appointee would never have the courage to do. This is ego deflating,
and it brings up the problem of fear. After all, the agent may have killed
several people, and probably knows people who are even more dangerous.
The agent does not belong to the appointee, and poses a certain risk. Revenge
is always a possibility if the appointee is impolite or otherwise disrespectful.
The usual result is that the appointee may be almost totally unwilling
to deal with agents. This is why the system prefers technical intelligence
gathering. Mr. Nerdly and his associate Mr. Geek are a lot easier to deal
with.
The Courage Problem
There was a time when political appointees were willing to work with
agents. Back when John F. Kennedy was president things were different.
Because, back then Mr. Appointee might have had credentials that Mr. Agent
could understand. For example, Mr. Appointee might have pulled up his shirt
to show Mr. Agent the place where the German grenade got him, or his Japanese
bayonet scar. Then, the two could have established a rapport based on courage.
But, I think the children of the elite have tended to avoid military service
in the years since the Second World War. And, I think they tended avoid
the other, less glamorous, kinds of dangerous public service even more,
but these can be just as effective as the military when it comes to generating
the necessary “credentials”. So, many political appointees today lack the
necessary “credentials” necessary for dealing with agents. And, there can
be no rapport between courage and timidity.
The Ethical Problem
The other problem is that the appointee can be in water over his head
ethically when dealing with agents. The things secret agents can do are
amazing, but are often very dangerous in very unexpected ways. Consider
the Watergate burglary in 1972. President Nixon’s political appointees
thought the data from the burglary would cinch his re-election campaign.
Instead it destroyed his presidency. The irony is, Mr. Nixon would have
won the election anyway because his opponent, George McGovern, was so unpopular.
I think McGovern’s biggest goof was picking Senator Thomas Eagleton as
his running mate. Mr. Eagleton had been hospitalized three times for “nervous
exhaustion,” and had received electroshock therapy. Shortly after this
was found out, he withdrew from the race, and Sargeant Shriver became George
McGovern’s new running mate. But, the damage had been done. The first thing
voters judge a candidate on is perceived intelligence. The vice president
is just one heartbeat away from the oval office. Again, in 1914 Dragutin
Dimitrijevic, then the head of Serbian military intelligence, thought that
having Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria assassinated would advance
his plot to create a Greater Serbia (just as having Serbia’s previous King
and Queen murdered cinched his power in Serbia). Instead, it almost destroyed
Serbia; and lunched the First World War, which almost destroyed Europe.
Now, there are many, many, examples of this sort of thing happening. Dealing
with operatives poses an ethical hazard. Finally, these sorts of activities
give other people a good reason to see a threat to themselves (this includes
other politicians and other political appointees). Consider the domestic
spying J. Edgar Hoover authorized against innocent Americans. This resulted
in scandal, and Congress passed laws to prevent this sort of spying. Yet,
in the dangerous world we live in, this sort of spying may be necessary
for our security. It is often the only good way to combat terrorists and
win. And, it may be the only good way to verify what weapons a dictator
like Saddam Hussein has. But, this sort of thing cannot be entrusted to
political appointees, and that is a problem.
Back to I Can See It Now
Back to Notes and Asides
Back to Front Page
17 March 2004