Of Spies, Spills and the ISI
By Anwaar Hussain
After crawling out of the woodwork where they hibernated for decades, the ex-spooks of Inter Services Intelligence are singing like canaries on the national media. In a blizzard of accusations and counter-accusations, ranging from secret funds used to prop up political alliances to brazen smear campaigns against political leaders, they are revealing mind boggling misdeeds of their former employer like never before. Has Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency Hooverised or McCarthyised over the years, is a question that begs an answer.
First, what is being Hooverised or McCarthyised? For the answer, let us first have a look at what an intelligence agency is supposed to be doing for its masters.
An intelligence agency is a governmental agency that is dedicated to information gathering for purposes of national security and defense. They do this by means of espionage, communication interception, cryptanalysis, cooperation with other institutions, and assessment of public sources. The process is also known as intelligence analysis. Briefly put, intelligence agencies can provide the following services for their governments.
– provide analysis in areas relevant to national security;
– give early warning of approaching crises;
– serve national and international crisis management by helping to detect the intentions of current or potential opponents;
– aide national defense planning and military operations;
– protect secrets, both of their own sources and activities, and those of other state agencies;
– launch defensive activities such as counter-espionage or counter-terrorism when required; and
– act covertly, if need be, to influence the outcome of events in favor of national interests.
As can be clearly seen in the underlined portions, a potential does exist in the above mentioned mandates for certain actors to stretch the intangible borders of these functions to far supersede the original. These actors could be weak governments wanting to stay on by hook or by crook, or overzealous individuals occupying key appointments either in these agencies or the departments to which these are directly responsible, who start imagining themselves as the state itself rather than minions of the state.
Allow me to make the point by two examples.
John Edgar Hoover was the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States. Appointed director of the Bureau of Investigation — predecessor to the FBI — in 1924, he was instrumental in founding the FBI in 1935, where he remained director until his death in 1972. Hoover is credited with building the FBI into a large and efficient crime-fighting agency, and with instituting a number of modern innovations to police technology, such as a centralized fingerprint file and forensic laboratories. Being the father of this all powerful and efficient organization soon went to Hoover’s head. He became increasingly high-handed. He routinely started exceeding the jurisdiction of the FBI by using it to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders, and to use illegal methods to collect evidence.
In fact, so powerful did Hoover become as a chief of FBI that despite Presidents Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson each considering dismissing Hoover as FBI Director, none dared do it. They all concluded that the political fallout of doing so would be rather unacceptable. Hoover was reportedly maintaining files on all of them. Only his death in 1972 from the effects of high blood pressure could end his 37 year long iron grip on the FBI and the American governments. It is because of Hoover’s long and notorious reign that FBI directors are now limited to 10-year terms.
When confronted, Hoover and his sympathizers would always contend that he was doing what he was doing only for national security and the larger national interest.
Likewise, Joseph Raymond McCarthy was an American politician who served as a Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion in the United States. He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere. In the American milieu of the time, these accusations received wide publicity and broad acceptance, increasing his approval rating and gaining him a powerful national following.
In a Lincoln Day speech to the Republican Women’s Club of Wheeling, West Virginia, McCarthy is usually quoted to have said: “The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 57—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”
Consequently, in the post 2nd World War era, many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of hostile investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. By the mid-50s, McCarthy’s dogged witch hunting of prominent politicians, government officials and public figures had reached such pernicious lengths that the term ‘McCarthyism’, coined a month after his Wheeling speech, gained almost a world wide acceptance in English lexicon.
Originally, ‘McCarthyism’ was meant to explain the politically motivated practice of making accusations of betrayal, sedition, or treason without proper regard for evidence. In time however, ‘McCarthyism’ took on a broader meaning describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.
McCarthy’s many excesses finally brought him to a Senate condemnation vote On December 2, 1954. He was condemned by a vote of 67 to 22. Unable to live with the ignominy, McCarthy died of a wasted liver due to increased alcoholism on May 2, 1957, at the age of just 48.
Just like in Hoover’s case, McCarthy and his supporters too always maintained that his actions were only in the interest of national security and to ward off an impending national crisis.
So whether over the years the ISI has Hooverised or McCarthyised or a bit of both is left to the reader’s judgment. The scribe, however, stands in total agreement with Stendhal, that most original of French writers of the 19th century, who once said;
“The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.”
The irony is that the sheep are usually convinced, singing all the way to the slaughterhouse.
X-X-X
Pakistani intelligence agencies ISI on top have been miserable failures in defending the country.glaring examples being :–
1-failure to detect Indian tank division in 1965
2-failure to detect Indian infiltration in Siachen in 1983-84
Pakistani intelligence has done well in:–
1-rigging elections
2-destroying the country’s political leadership and parties
3-defending the destroyers of Pakistan’s constitution
the most third rate officers go to intelligence as a general rule.
i have held this view in all my military service from 1981 to 1993 and till to date
Agha H Amin,Major (R)
September 8th, 2009 at 6:02 pmTrue Anwaar, I particularly think the quote you selected appropriate. I have another one:
It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners. —Albert Camus
May God protect the innocent and see the guilty prosecuted for their crimes. May He also forgive us all.
Hope you are well.
As-Salaamu Alaykum,
JO
September 8th, 2009 at 7:00 pmYour conclusion explains it all. The question is why is that so true?
Many modern slaughterhouses today have music playing to keep the animals calm before slaughtering them.
Hmmm, could it be the music?
I think the “hit” song must be The Song Of Denial. Its got a great beat! And it seems to soothe every time.
The power structure counts on it.
Great article Anwaar.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:14 pmCan we also coin a name… ism in context of Pakistan’s Intelligence Agencies? Sufficient history exists to justify one!
September 8th, 2009 at 7:42 pmThis reminded me of a true story from a WW2 friend.
He was a non flying officer in the R A A F , he was posted to Townsville in North Queensland, and on reporting was confronted with the irate C.O saying. “The bloody idiots I asked that they send me an INTELLIGENT officer not a bloody INTELLIGENCE OFFICER.”
September 9th, 2009 at 4:10 amWas crime like massive killing and vanishing thousands of own nationals committed during Hooverisation & McCarthyisation ? , obviously not, then we have to look for worst example then this.
Pakistani intelligence agencies has not changed their track, and current kiosk is also continuity of their out of subject activities and replica of Hooverisation & McCarthyisation.
Protecting national interests is a huge task and they are not capable of, therefore this is the easiest thing they found to do otherwise.
Not only Sichen, and 1965 war, Swat talibaniztion , Lal Masjid, Baluchistan Unrest and many more, are their recent Failures, thousands of miscreants from all over the world made their safe home in Pakistan and they remain oblivious.
But the most tragic thing that we are still glorifying them as heroes, the time has come we must put stop to this, because non condemnation is encouraging them to unbolt their mouths
Sorry! Hooverisation & McCarthyisation is not justified in this case
September 9th, 2009 at 9:18 amAnwaar,
Although not by any means an expert on the era of the Hoover F.B.I. nor the current situation within Pakistan’s ISI it seems fitting to at least make the attempt to join the vortex of thought.
Intelligence agencies make a name for themselves over time. Either they are efficient or corrupt organizations. They either achieve their goals and objectives or they fall short. They conform to the mission statement and vision or they become defectors and renegades. They embrace good order and discipline or enrich themselves by freelancing at the behest of others. Information is power. And power pays the price.
Positional and delegated authority within such structures present opportunity for breach of trust. It will happen. But how leadership deals with the breaches determines the morale within the chain of command. Low morale is always a leadership problem. If morale is low within the ISI structure there is a need for a renewed vibrancy among leadership to return to the core values of the organizational structure. Heed the creed. Promote those of unimpeachable character. Kick to the curb, the renegades.
Tammy Swofford
September 9th, 2009 at 6:33 pmI am always an admirer of your writings dear Anwaar.
Unfortunately both ISI and corrupt political mafias are strong,,,,,,,,, Entire country is in their strong grip. tell us how to get rid of these criminals?
best of luck,,,,,,, capt adil(pir}
September 9th, 2009 at 11:04 pmISI’s success can not be possibly enumerated or brought in public knowledge. Intelligence is always work in progress.
However these slimy characters who are on Pakistani TV channels and their bosses need to be brought to justice. And if that happens ,the entire current political class will be wiped out in the process. That will be the day…
September 10th, 2009 at 3:21 amThe weaknesses and corruptions in Pakistan will never be visible to a Pakistani unless he or she has lived in the West for a number of years, the same West that many Pakistanis hate.
For Pakistanis who never lived in the West, they consider Pakistan better than most of the over 50 Islamic countries in the world in democracy, education and government and that is absolutely true.
Thank you Anwaar for your article.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:58 amPower corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely! It strikes me that these organizations, no matter what nation, start out with high ideals, and a genuinely needed service, but always end up devolving into corrupt, worthless, but damaging organizations, either pawns of politicians, or the actual power in nations making politicians their pawns.
I believe that Beria, Joseph Stalin’s chief of the USSR’s secret service said, my job as chief is to gather intelligence that support Mr. Stalin’s ideas of critical intelligence, irrelevant of the facts, or something to this effect!
Things only appear to change or be different in different cultures, but in fact the reasons and power behind them are always the same, more power and money for the powerful and corrupt!
September 10th, 2009 at 8:07 amI am in agreement with Pervez Khan in that the success of an intelligence sector cannot be enumerated within the public sector.
But it is one distinct sociometric which provides the view of “success” for the community. It is stability. From incorruptible local police forces all the way up the chain to federal agencies, freeing the local populations from the scourge of criminal activity and fear of threats against person and property allows economic progress.
One reader mentioned living in the West. I appreciate the comment. Having just turned the corner of remembrance from 9/11/2001 there is a distinct gratitude which acknowledges that our various agencies have been successful in thwarting many attacks which will never be known within the public corridor.
Tammy Swofford
September 12th, 2009 at 6:10 pmI do not agree with this. There has been a public campaign to defame and destroy the ISI by foreign powers
October 8th, 2009 at 11:03 pm