Knowledge is power. Knowledge is empowering. To the casual observer, these two statements may seem to be saying the same thing. But if you look closer, and try to understand the difference between these two thoughts, you will see that they in fact are two diametrically opposed ideas. The former implies that control is the purpose for gaining information. The latter implies that gaining information is for personal freedom. The former conceals knowledge to maintain its control. The latter seeks out knowledge to eliminate secrecy and mistrust. The former is the tool of governments. The latter is the tool of humanity. Understanding this difference is important when looking at the reasoning and methodology of national intelligence goals and their effect on national security.
National security exists for one simple reason: governments, even stated allies, do not trust each other. This lack of trust stems directly from a lack of knowledge. In order to gain information about other nations, governments have created “intelligence” agencies to gain knowledge surreptitiously. At the same time, government uses their agencies to conceal their own actions from other nations, thus limiting their knowledge. Sadly, this circular effort is self-defeating and only serves to deepen the mistrust between governments rather than minimize it. Human nature is such that we are suspicious of what we don’t know, and governments amplify that element of humanity exponentially.
There is another reason that governments mistrust each other. At face value, there are two types of governments. Although they appear is slightly different forms, you have governments that support individual freedom and governments that rule by oppression. These doctrines are incompatible. Free societies assume that oppressed societies are not oppressed by choice and take as their mission the expansion of freedom. Rivalry is natural. Conflict is inevitable. In this instance, lack of knowledge can have devastating consequences for the citizens of both nations, regular people who value freedom. So in order to reduce harm, the gaining of knowledge becomes very important to national security.
The goal then becomes reforming our current intelligence apparatus from one made up of competing agencies with conflicting missions to one that increases our knowledge of our foes and decreases mistrust among our allies. It should be forthright with the public and diligent in its accuracy. It should always seek to increase our national security by decreasing our need for it.
The practical mechanics then would require a scrapping of the current cadre of intelligence agencies in favor of a three-tiered system: an “enemy intelligence” agency, an “alliance intelligence” agency, and a “public information” agency. They would not operate independently of each other, but would work in concert to reduce threats and increase alliances through a variety of methods.
Let’s begin with the “enemy intelligence agency.” The definition of an enemy would obviously include any nation or group that has attacked our country directly or targeted our people indiscriminately. But just as it would be a mistake to include every country that disagreed with us, so too would it be a mistake to exclude all countries that use oppression and belligerence to sustain power, for these could be enemies in the wings. But instead of relying on our own individual efforts, the gathering of this type of intelligence benefits all nations based on free principals. As such, we should coordinate our efforts and share our resources in acquiring this information. All gained knowledge could go to a central clearinghouse for verification and dissemination. To do so would reduce conflicting information between allied nations resulting in cohesive strategies for confronting adversity. It would also have the effect of significantly decreasing the overall cost of acquiring the knowledge itself. Nations could share the tools, the training, the costs, and the knowledge together, building not only a stronger alliance, but demolishing the secrecy that breeds distrust. America should spearhead the creation of such an agency with candor and with urgency.
The “alliance intelligence agency,” in addition to agreeing to coordinate information on foes, would primarily be used as a tool for information sharing between friendly nations, but it could also be used to lure new nations to the table. Such an agency would serve as a forum for nations to share advances in technology and medicine, helping to end the disparity between richer and poorer countries. This embraces the concept of knowledge being empowering. Alliances would be based not only on the need for resources and protection, but by a common desire to better the lives of people through the expansion of knowledge. By openly exchanging concepts and knowledge, societies could improve productivity and health standards, as well as gaining understanding of different cultural beliefs. And by seeing the benefits of belonging to such an alliance, some less than friendly nations may be pressured by their citizens to change their ways so that they could enjoy the advances of humanity. This agency would seek to impart the benefits of free society without imposing a specific morality beyond that which embraces personal freedom and societal security. This ensures that cultural traditions would continue to grow with the new knowledge, not be discarded because of it. More trust building through validation, which is never a bad thing.
Finally, the “public information agency” would be that part of the intelligence apparatus that reports to the public those goals it seeks to achieve, and the progress it is making. This is perhaps the most important element of a successful intelligence network. Since governments in free societies derive their power from the citizenry, it is imperative that those citizens trust their government. To achieve this trust, government must strive to become more transparent in their goals and the means they use to get there. Such openness would reduce the element of intrigue and end unnecessary speculation among average people. It would have the effect of combating misinformation by laying the details out in the open. It would free government from having to decide what people “need to know,” by telling them what is known, and allowing them to make informed conclusions of their own. With all citizens getting the same accurate and unembellished information, unnecessary nationalistic rivalries would melt away.
The current “intelligence reform” in the US Government does nothing to increase the quality or level of intelligence in our country, and as such does little to increase our security in the long term. While we may be succeeding in reducing the number of attacks against us at the time, our practices of using information for power, rather that to empower, will only succeed in elongating this period of international strife. With the battle between freedom and oppression currently being waged, it is in our best interest, and the best interest of people everywhere, to cultivate real and lasting alliances in order to ensure that more societies become free. Achieving that would be a real sign of intelligence.
This entry was posted on Sunday, March 6th, 2005 at 9:56 pm and is filed under Common Sense, Foreign Relations, Government, national security, Politics, Reform.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 7th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
Ken, that was a great post. I think, at least from the surface, this is basically what friendly intelligence attempts to do but it sure could use some streamlining (witness the Saddam and WMD’s situation where all friendly nations had intelligence pointing erroneously to WMD’s in Iraq). If this is not already going on behind the scenes, I’d frankly be surprised. Again, great article!
March 7th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Wow! Great Post. You’re one of the very few blogs, not including mine, that actually has something intelligent to say.
March 7th, 2005 at 11:12 pm
Good Post Ken,
As to your response to my comment on the prior post, I am with you on the difficulty of disconnecting truth from perception. When one tosses faith into the equation, it is difficult to know which end is up, or what intelligence is relevant to act on; which is why I believe that integrity is the penultimate value for public servants. Not finding an adequate definition, I developed my own synthisis long ago. You can finde it below.
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2004/06/integrity.html#comments
The rub lies in the disparity between the opperation or acting on intelligence and the failure to admit when wrong. Admission of guilt only goes so far. So,I may at this point add one other element to my definition to integrity: The ability, desire and actual motion forward to correct misdeeds.
This is where our administration today, goes afoul of ethical practice. It is not so much that W, Rove and Co. acts, but that they narry admit when they were wrong, nor do they work to fix past mistakes. Sooner than later, we run out of cultural, policitical and social capital to spend on any issue and there is no thread of integrity left in this torn apart nation.
March 8th, 2005 at 6:00 am
It’s so weird that all the high-rollers have spies, they all know the other guys have spies, they deny the existence of their own spies, they condemn the existence of the other guys’ spies, and the whole flippin’ geopolitical panorama looks like an old Peter Sellers movie. Sheesh.
I do believe we should have a contest to replace the word “intelligence” with something more appropriate.
March 8th, 2005 at 6:21 am
(responses)
Airman- Thanks for dropping by. I don’t deny that some kind of cooperative efforts exist, only that they are not an exactly concerted effort- too many individual goals making the single effort that much more convoluted. Streamlining is one aspect of reform, but useless without a common cause and a common duty to serve and protect. Too many politicians running the show seek only eventual personal profit and thus run their own agenda’s.
Courtney- thanks for dropping by. I’ll be sure to visit your blog.
Windspike- I think your definition of integrity sums it up pretty well. Thanks for the link.
With regards to being able to admit ones errors, by having an open and forthright communications arm of intelligence, the people would have enough information to preclude any rational leader from misstating the events too much. Spin becomes useless and loses its pseudo-credibility when information is readily available.
An open society thus reclaims its integrity through honest alliances and transparent actions and by living up to its own words and creeds.
SheaNC- We think of spies in Hollywood terms because we have little other reference. And in that regard, the politicians are happy to reinforce that image. It makes the entire “intelligence” apparatus somehow more effective, mysterious, and noble than it really is.
Human intelligence is necessary, but such secrecy and game playing is not. It is far more effective to support your ideals with honest action than with surreptitious intrigue.
March 8th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
[standing] Well done! Unfortunately,we’d have to shower intelligence and common sense upon the tender, swollen heads of this ‘ministration and it’s ilk for generations more before we can affect real change in the cultures of both our military and our government.
Keep ’em coming, Ken. I’m an instafan.
March 9th, 2005 at 12:49 am
Great site–informed, reasoned and deadly accurate. Regarding intelligence gathering perhaps it could be said that what seems or is experienced as ‘real’ is not always ‘true’. When the two are one extraordinary avatars effect the human condition. Hitler comes to mind in its darkest conjunction and Gandhi as an example of its brighter promise for us. Other examples are atomic energy and the Internet. M
March 9th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Hi Ken, it’s serendipity or a north-left coast thing; I just wrote a piece on might vs. right.