Intelligence agencies and the value of silence
“Selflessness,” said President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ike was replying to a question from Vice President Richard Nixon, who had asked him what he considered most important in selecting people to work with him, whether in war or peace, or the twilight ambiguous struggle known as the Cold War.
Nixon in his memoirs writes that the president was silent for an extraordinarily long time before answering. The quiet continued for so long that the vice president wondered if the boss had forgotten the question.
Not a chance.
Silence is essential to serious reflection and analysis, can be golden, and clearly is hard to find in today’s tweet-happy Washington, D.C. Selflessness is vital to serious service, especially but not exclusively in the public sector. Arguably, this is particularly true in intelligence agencies, where risks can be mortal and stakes very high — including national survival.
Shortly after the 2016 election, the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA and the Director of National Intelligence launched a public relations offensive to argue Russia, including President Vladimir Putin, meddled in the 2016 elections, including hacking Clinton campaign emails. With great fanfare, they met with President-elect Donald Trump to present evidence behind the conclusions. With equal hype, the top spooks testified before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.
The most plausible reason why the officials went public with lights, cameras and media melodrama has to do with self-protection in the contemporary political warfare of Washington. Politicians want to score points with anxious voters, and Putin remains one scary bear. Agency directors were defending their turf and themselves.
The national media soap opera related to intelligence continues. Current controversy and consternation swirls around President Trump’s removal of the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, who has become a constant harsh public critic. In earlier periods, intelligence work involved maintaining a disciplined silence, a rule worth remembering.
Traditionally, intelligence work has involved balancing electronic and human surveillance. Today our government de-emphasizes human agents. In World War II and the Cold War, that dimension was vital. It still is, as our British partners well understand. Current emphasis on public relations by officials is the other side of reliance on relatively automated electronic tools.
Congressman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a successful tech entrepreneur, is insightful criticizing current inertia. In 2016, he publicly opposed FBI legal efforts to try to force Apple to decrypt the iPhone.
Issa and Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of both the CIA and the NSA, argued Apple should not be required to comply. Government professionals should handle such hard tasks, as eventually they did.
Issa is retiring from Congress next year. Candidates vying for the seat include Democrat Doug Applegate, a retired Marine Corps officer, who narrowly lost to Issa in 2016. Consider seriously with fairness military veteran candidates; beware retired intelligence officials seeking public celebrity.
On Nov. 3, 1959, President Eisenhower spoke at a special ceremony to lay the cornerstone of the new CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. He emphasized that in this field, “Success cannot be advertised; failure cannot be explained. In the work of intelligence, heroes are undecorated and unsung, often even among their own fraternity.”
In that era, there was no significant debate about the need for intelligence pros to operate in secret. In evaluating candidates for Congress this November, consider the degree to which they express maturity and selflessness — rather than political expediency — in addressing questions of national security.