http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... v=hcmodule

By Joby Warrick and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 20, 2009; Page A01

As a novice CIA case officer in the Middle East, Andrew Warren quickly learned the value of sex in recruiting spies. Colleagues say that he made an early habit of taking informants to strip clubs, and that he later began arranging out-of-town visits to brothels for his best recruits. Often Warren would travel with them, according to two colleagues who worked with him for years.

His methods earned him promotions and notoriety over a lengthy career, until Warren, 41, became ensnared in a sex scandal. Two Algerian women have accused the Virginia native of drugging and sexually assaulting them, and, in one instance, videotaping the encounter.

Six weeks after the allegations came to light, Warren has been formally notified by CIA Director Leon E. Panetta of his impending dismissal, according to U.S. government officials familiar with the case. But the episode -- one of three sex-related scandals to shake the CIA this year -- has drawn harsh questions from Congress about whether the agency adequately polices its far-flung workforce or takes sufficient steps to root out corrupt behavior.

The CIA says that these problems involve a tiny fraction of its workforce, and that those found to have breached rules are punished or fired. But former officers say the cases underscore a perennial challenge: guarding against scandal in a workforce -- the size of which is classified but is generally estimated to be 20,000 -- that prides itself on secrecy and deception.

[snip]

The bottom line on this is, Americans just are not comfortable with the reality of intelligence operations.

Most Americans, if asked, would prefer intelligence-gathering operations to be like "James Bond" movies...handsome, incorruptible "agents", armed with all manner of high-tech gizmos, going to exotic, dangerous places to ferret out vital information that prevents wars and saves lives; while still remaining Good American Boys/Girls. Or, perhaps, to be like Tom Clancy's "Jack Ryan" character...a selfless, moral fighter for the Constitution, immune to all evil influences and compromises. Maybe, failing this, to have technogeeks slaving away in front of computer monitors, obtaining information through the clean, dirt-free methods of electronic eavesdropping.

Reality sucks. HUMINT (human intelligence) ops are often dirty, sleazy affairs. CIA case officers are literally in a position where they are lying about who they are and what they do, and doing so to break the laws of other countries, both friend AND foe. They recruit agents (in the true sense of the word, an "agent" is a foreign national who is working for you) through means both fair and foul to accomplish this. Case officers bribe, make promises, blackmail, pressure, decieve, lie, and yes, provide sex to snare agents into doing this dirty work. It's inherently dangerous, distasteful work, and the means to accomplish it are often what most Americans would consider "bad".

This, and not the James Bond/Jack Ryan meme, has been the reality for as long as the practice of intelligence-gathering has existed. Most other countries and cultures accept this, and simply do what is required to protect themselves in a dangerous world.

American are different, though. In our culture, we want to be the Good Guys, the White Hats. We want to win, but we want to do it fairly and sportingly and honestly. The underhanded, back-alley means used in intelligence operations repel Americans, who want these things done Elliott-Ness style. We can't handle the idea that our government might sanction the (necessary) actions that must be taken to provide vital intelligence. They really don'tlike the concept that you have to do these things against your "friends" sometimes.

This isn't a movie. You simply cannot get all the information you require by electronic means. Sometimes you need informants, "eyes" within the enemy's (and friends') camp. And you have to use any means necessary to get those "eyes" working for you. That can include sex. And since humans are what they are, this means that your own officers are susceptible to corruption on occaision.

Americans are going to have to realize this, and deal realistically with it. The solution is not to severely restrict the methods and means our case officers and intelligence professionals use through some misguided sense of morality in an inherently immoral industry, or to continue fantasizing about movie and literary "ideals", but to accept that the world is an extremely hazardous place with all shades of grey, black, white, and plaid in which, to provide our government with the information it needs to conduct its relationships with other nations, corrupt means must often be used.

Moreso, even now that we are engaged in a struggle with absolutely ruthless adversaries who are fanatical in their hatred of us and tireless in their efforts to defeat us. These adversaries are also from an area of the world where "traditional" American notions of "Fair Play" and "Honesty" do not exist, completely alien cultures dominate, and violence, brutality, torture, and death are the norms.

What is worrisome is that idealistic, pie-in-the-sky politicians and activists might curtail vital intelligence-gathering becuse its reality is too bothersome to their sensibilities. It's already happened numerous times dating as far back as the 1970's and the Church Commitee hearings which resulted in the CIA's evisceration by the Carter administration, and continued all the way through Iran-Contra to Jamie Gorelick's "wall" to this current fiasco. Along the way, all sorts of operations, some which WOULD have prevented wars and deaths, were aborted or were left undone out of fear. Agents died. Presidents went without key pieces of important puzzles. Our nation was left without the means to protect itself.

Idealism is okay, as far as it goes. but it has to be tempered by a good sense of reality and a sober realization that the world is manifestly NOT as we want it to be.