“The problem is that many in society have given them, and the ones who unlawfully and blindly provide them the leaked information, heroic status.”
The war on terror has proven to be a difficult battle on several fronts, even under the best of circumstances. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. But when a battle rages from within the very institutions established and sworn to uphold our democracy, it threatens to make things insurmountable.
Whether it’s the New York Times—once the beacon for a free press intended to mark a distinction for our society from oppressive regimes and a silenced people—or public servants who swear an oath to protect our freedoms , the American people are being done a disservice by those institutions that are supposed to have their best interests in mind.
For we are in an unprecedented era of leaks. And it is one where their prevalence, that so many have sadly been made to believe benefit our society, in reality stand to greatly diminish previous gains and inhibit the chance at future dividends in this war.
Ignoring the legal violations that occur each time a leak takes place—reminding those in the media that it is a felony even for them to be part of the release—there is also an argument strictly from an operations standpoint to be had. And it’s the one that matters most.
While the shiny object chased by reporters following national security is the latest technological methods of surveillance and collection, it is the most tried and true collection method that will carry us to complete victory against extremism: the human method.
When it comes to an inventory of the types of collection tools available to our law enforcement and intelligence officers, technical and human means must have equal weight on the scales. One loses value if it is not matched equally with the other. But while technical methods are utilized unencumbered by variable factors such as emotions, human assets are often driven by just that. And what does the added fear of worldwide exposure of one’s work do to emotions?
Though you wouldn’t know it from watching James Bond movies, the reality is that spies do not go around telling people their names and publicly flaunting their work. And for intelligence officers tasked with cultivating successful spies, it can take years to construct the relationships necessary to get valuable information. During that time, numerous conversations to convince and reassure sources must take place. Their purpose is to instill confidence in the ones who have the most on the line and risk it to protect the American people.
You see, the ones who face the most direct threats aren’t just the select few American citizens working as operatives—the ones who get years of training and preparation for spy work. Rather, the most direct collection of intelligence is often conducted by members of the general public—ones who will already have access through the course of their jobs or relationships with an adversary.
The teenage boy forced to run errands for a terrorist group. The doctor coerced by a dictator to work on his behalf. They have relatively little preparation or experience in dealing with the dangers of the job. They are often plucked from mundane and normal lives and only know America from afar. And the only assurance they will have that a turn against that adversary is in their best interest is the word of the American officer doing his or her work on behalf of the American people.
So what is that word worth if it’s not also backed by the powerful of our society? The press and politicians who bandy around the rallying cries of “for the people.” The ones who publicly decry the atrocities and measures taken against us by the likes of ISIS or Russia, yet at the same time handicap our ability to thwart their attacks. The problem is that many in society have given them, and the ones who unlawfully and blindly provide them the leaked information, heroic status.
As such, the perception is that the way wars will be won and adversaries will be overcome is through the loudest mouthpieces. But the reality is that whether it’s a war on terrorism or the Cold War version 2.0, our victories and chances at defeat do not rest in the hands of agenda-driven journalists seeking celebrity status. Nor will they take place through public press conferences by hyperbolic politicians. And we certainly won’t find them on the backs of wayward souls who seek public service as an avenue to commit treason.
Perception is not reality. And the truth is that for our nation to counter those who wish us harm, we need a playing field whereby those willing to take actual risks can conduct their business in the shadows.
