
Terrorism
grows in an isolated culture Sun
Sentinel
F. W.
Rustmann, Jr.
September 6th, 1996 |
|
A
few years ago, as a CIA operations officer given the task of
recruiting penetrations of terrorist organizations abroad, I often
longed for the days when my recruitment targets could be approached
and developed in such civilized settings as
cocktail parties, diplomatic picnics, tennis tournaments and
the like.
While these venues are appropriate for spotting most
intelligence targets, not so with terrorists.
The profile of today’s international bomb-planting terrorist
is that of an Arab male between the ages of 17 and 24, raised in the
strict Muslim faith in a small town (somewhere like the remote Bekaa
Valley of Lebanon), and harboring a deep hatred of the United States
and a fanatical willingness to martyr himself in the name of Allah.
He is not to be found on the diplomatic circuit, nor at any of
the other usual spots where CIA case officers would normally troll for
prospective agents.
The terrorist doesn’t hang out in bars, is highly suspicious
of foreigners, has few if any foreign language skills, and shuns
anyone who is not of his faith, clan and heritage.
The recruitment of new agent sources is the main task of the
CIA case officer, and one of the most important courses taught to new
operations officers at The Farm—the CIA’s training facility—is
“The Recruitment Cycle.”
It’s a basic “how-to” course describing the steps and
techniques required to induce the in-place defection of new sources of
intelligence.
The
recruitment cycle involves four distinct phases: spotting, assessing,
developing, and delivering the final recruitment pitch.
In short, the course teaches new officers how to spot new agent
talent (i.e. find people with access to the information desired), how
to assess their susceptibility to recruitment, how to use their
perceived susceptibilities, vulnerabilities and desires to massage and
develop them to the point of recruitment, and then to design and
deliver a recruitment pitch based on the personal information
obtained.
Inducements of money, recognition and revenge are examples of
major motivators; most spies accept recruitment to gain one or more of
these things.
The problem is the above doctrine is not entirely germane when dealing
with the terrorist target.
The terrorist can’t be recruited if the case officer is not
in a position to spot, assess and develop him first, and the case
officer and terrorist simply don’t travel in the same circles.
So the CIA case officer must step back and work through
intermediaries, or access agents, as they are called in the trade.
An
access agent is one who bridges the gap between the target and the
case officer.
He is directed by the case officer to spot, assess and develop
potential recruits in the terrorist milieu.
But finding such an intermediary is a momentous task in itself.
The gap between the urbane American case officer and the Arab
militant is still too great to bridge in one step.
So additional links in the chain, additional access agents,
must be added, further distancing the CIA case officer from his target
and compounding the difficulty of the operation.
The chain might look like this: Case officer to wealthy Arab
businessman, to small Arab shopkeeper in Lebanon, to the
shopkeeper’s relative in the Bekaa Valley, to the relative’s
friend on the fringes of the terrorist organization, to the terrorist.
Then,
assuming the CIA case officer is able to assemble such a daisy-chain,
there is the problem of getting accurate and timely information up the
chain to the case officer, and requirements down to the terrorist
recruit.
But
that’s not all.
Let’s assume that the case officer is successful in
recruiting and running a penetration of a terrorist organization.
He or she must now struggle with handling such an unsavory
character, a person who is prepared to kill innocent civilians and may
have killed before.
The legal and ethical questions that arise from this are mind
boggling.
And to take this one step further, what if the operation
produces intelligence that warns us of an impending act of terrorism?
Clearly we could not permit the act to take place, so the
authorities would have to be called in to thwart the act and to arrest
the perpetrators.
That would blow the entire operation, including our
penetration, and we would be left back at square one, having to spot,
assess, develop and recruit another source who would, in turn, last
only as long as the first bit of critical intelligence he provides.
This
not to say that we should stop trying to penetrate terrorist
organizations, or that the CIA has not had some (mostly unheralded)
successes in the past against the terrorist target.
It is only to say that the task is indeed a gigantic one, and
the CIA will require new thinking and unique approaches to be
successful.
At the very least, an understanding of the difficulties the CIA
faces in this area should encourage those who are constantly attacking
it to rally behind it and support the efforts of its case officers.
For without a strong intelligence community and solid
intelligence on the terrorist target, we will always be on the
defensive, responding to individual acts of terrorist violence.
It has become abundantly clear that we are no longer safe from
terrorism, even on our own shores.
Now, more than ever, we need to take the offensive to win.
|