EVALUACIÓN DE LAS BPM EN LA EMPRESA LÁCTEA PROLAD’S

The literature on foreign intelligence liaison – one of the most tightly kept secrets in this invisible world – uniformly indicates that intelligence sharing does occur, but within strict

confines and always laced with ambivalence and caution.

- L.K. Johnson, US intelligence scholar1

[1.0]: Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the diverse literature on intelligence liaison. Specific focus is on the writing on one of the better (if not best) known intelligence liaison relationships, the Anglo-American (UK-US). This approach with a focus on the bilateral level has been adopted, as currently the most effective intelligence liaison evidently takes place here. Meanwhile, intelligence liaison is developing more slowly and extends less far at the multilateral level – for example, as witnessed in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).2

This chapter begins by surveying how UK-US intelligence liaison is conceptualised in some of the significant bodies of relevant literature. Firstly, the general literature on Anglo-American relations is examined. Secondly, the more specialist general literature on intelligence liaison - particularly that which draws (to varying extents) on examples and episodes of UK-US intelligence liaison, along with more specific research monographs and case study texts, as well as the non-fiction literature focussing more on UK-US intelligence liaison, will be scrutinised; thirdly, this chapter will focus on how UK-US intelligence liaison is portrayed in fiction and popular culture, followed, fourthly, by a brief survey of mainly the UK media (and less specialist) literature on UK-US intelligence liaison, which reaches a wider public audience. Finally, some concluding observations are presented. An analysis of this work also allows us to begin to identify several different ‘schools’, within which to start ‘codifying’ some of the different work drawn upon throughout this study. Indeed, those schools are used in part to help inform the structuring of this chapter. However, before surveying the literature, some contextualisation is helpful.

[2.0]: Contextualising the literature

Investigating intelligence liaison requires more research effort. Often and persistently the most secret area of intelligence, it needs to be probed in depth.3 _This is particularly the case as currently intelligence liaison is being used more extensively than previously, and as in parallel this trend is generating a substantial accountability deficit. As US intelligence scholar Bradford Westerfield argued in 1995: ‘Liaison stands out as having been one of the least sufficiently studied aspects of the entire [intelligence] field.’4 _{Today in 2008, while that paucity of scholarship has} been better addressed, there is still plenty of scope for research to be undertaken concerning the phenomenon of intelligence liaison. Partly as a consequence of intelligence liaison on the whole suffering from a lack of sustained study, currently it also remains under-theorised in the field of intelligence studies. Moreover, it continues to be remarkably disconnected from international relations (IR) theory. This is perhaps most mystifying when the ubiquitous presence, and indeed importance, of international intelligence liaison relationships in international affairs is considered. The domain of international intelligence liaison therefore emerges as the best in which to connect IR theory with the wider discipline of intelligence studies. This is not least because, both in theory and practice, international intelligence liaison involves a plethora of characteristics that are all closely associated with international relations. Significantly, these include intelligence alliances, clandestine diplomacy and transnational relationships.

Around 2003, UK intelligence historian Christopher Andrew judged intelligence studies as a whole to be ‘under-theorised’.5 _{This echoed former US} intelligence oversight practitioners, Abram N. Shulsky and Gary J. Schmitt, who observed in 2002, that: ‘If intelligence is becoming a recognized field of academic study, especially in the English-speaking world, its theoretical treatment remains undeveloped.’6 _{Andrew continued: ‘But though intelligence theory is thin on the} ground, the work of at least a handful of scholars, notably in Britain that of Michael Herman, gives grounds for guarded optimism…’7 _{Added to Herman’s efforts,}8 _as well as those of US intelligence scholars Michael Handel and Richard K. Betts, are also the recent attempts at addressing the thinness of theory in intelligence studies by Loch K. Johnson and several others.9 _{Such efforts have prompted another UK} intelligence scholar, Philip Davies, to argue more recently that: ‘Intelligence studies are not “under-theorized”…’10

Indeed, what we see here is unevenness in the theoretical realm. Therefore, it is arguably most appropriate to judge the overall field of intelligence studies as being essentially ‘haphazardly-researched’, and thus, by logical extension, ‘haphazardly- theorised’. This condition partly stems from intelligence studies being a specialist

niche field of study that has emerged out of a wide range of fields of study. These include (at a minimum) the fields of strategic studies, international history, law and sociology.11 _{Some dimensions, such as intelligence liaison, are under-theorised.}

Meanwhile, other dimensions of intelligence and closely associated

phenomena/entities - such as surveillance and the tactics of surprise and deception - over time have enjoyed considerably more efforts expended on their study and theorising.12 _{Comparatively, the academic study of intelligence is a new} phenomenon,13 _{while comprehensive chapters focussing solely on intelligence are} still in the early stages of breaking through into more mainstream textbooks.14 _As Canadian intelligence scholar, Wesley Wark, has helpfully observed about the evolution of the literature on intelligence generally:

A substantial literature on intelligence did not begin to emerge until the last quarter of the twentieth century. Writing on intelligence began from a relatively narrow base. It was sparked in the beginning by a historical fascination with newly released documentation on the impact of signals intelligence during World War II, the famous story of Ultra, and contemporary concerns about intelligence abuses, particularly in the conduct of covert operations. Since the mid-1970s, the literature on intelligence has grown exponentially and moved well beyond its original interests. Intelligence now has at least the outlines of a usable past, with a library of case studies, national histories, and synoptic studies waiting the reader.15

Intelligence liaison is a further specialist niche sub-field of intelligence studies. Therefore, in its current under-studied (albeit beginning to be better addressed) and under-theorised condition, it is even less systematically and even further haphazardly studied than intelligence as a whole.16 _{This is also the case when} it is compared with at least some other specific or associated dimensions of intelligence. While frequently referred to in passing, such as in the media, intelligence liaison is then rarely probed in further depth. Sensational news stories of success, scandal or failure provide the most frequent openings for these generally cursory and fragmented empirical references to liaison.17 _{Moreover, while much} individual research into the various specific components composing the different dimensions of intelligence liaison may have been completed (see below [4.0]), fewer efforts at the comprehensive fusion of these under the scope of the intelligence liaison phenomenon have subsequently been undertaken. Furthermore, in chapters focussing on intelligence, the phenomenon of intelligence liaison is not evaluated

separately or highlighted as an entity in its own right. This emphasises its greater supporting role, its behind-the-scenes operation, and assumed characteristics.18

Generally, even intelligence studies texts themselves do not assist in addressing the dearth of a systematic focus on liaison. For instance, this is evident in volumes such as those edited by US intelligence scholar Roy Godson. These essentially emphasise using the intelligence cycle model as the basis for a functional approach to the study of intelligence. However, by adopting this approach, they tend towards overlooking intelligence liaison as an individual dimension of intelligence worthy of having its own chapter. This is because, as already seen in Chapter 1 [5.0]

of this study, liaison does not neatly fit into a specific category of the intelligence cycle. Instead, it is more subsumed throughout. Perhaps unconsciously, through their earlier fragmenting and dispersal of the various components of liaison through using the framing approach of the intelligence cycle model lens, pioneering works in intelligence studies have helped contribute towards shaping a form of orthodoxy in the way that intelligence is studied and presented in its literature. More recently, the

Handbook of Intelligence Studies, edited by US intelligence scholar Loch K. Johnson and published in 2007, similarly adopts this approach with an emphasis on the intelligence cycle as a way of setting the study’s parameters and priorities. Therefore, Johnson’s volume also continues to propagate the observed omission concerning liaison in the general intelligence literature. This is perhaps all the more remarkable, firstly, given the book’s general strong emphasis on accountability and oversight concerns in the world of intelligence; and, secondly, when confronted by the fact that in recent years (as is explored by this literature review), a sizeable body of literature solely devoted to intelligence liaison as a distinct, and indeed significant, phenomenon and dimension of intelligence is now beginning to become increasingly emergent.19

Theories of intelligence liaison are lacking for several reasons. Firstly, this is due to intelligence liaison being the most secret area of intelligence conducted in an ‘invisible world.’20 _{Rigorous investigation of intelligence liaison is also officially} discouraged, as is readily apparent from the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS/MI6) website (see Chapter 2 [2.1.ii], above).21 Moreover, as UK intelligence scholars Len Scott and Peter Jackson note, ‘… despite the valuable start made by pioneers, this is a field that has not received systematic study by either political scientists or historians.’22 _{The intense secrecy surrounding intelligence liaison} arguably contributes towards discouraging scholars from investigating and engaging with the often off-putting methodological restrictions associated with researching such a phenomenon. Intelligence liaison is also an under-studied sub-field further complicated by the fact that on the whole the literature has developed in a

haphazard rather than linear fashion. There is an array of different perspectives and approaches deployed, ranging from short- to long-term historical to contemporary, and insider to outsider. There is additionally little room for consensus as is demonstrated by the observation by one of its foremost commentators that ‘perspectives on the inner workings of intelligence alliances [being only one aspect] differ sharply.’23 _{The research undertaken for this study supports that conclusion.} Where intelligence liaison figures in the general Anglo-American relations literature will now be considered.

[3.0]: Intelligence liaison in general Anglo-American relations literature

In the general literature on Anglo-American relations, the writing on the intelligence dimension is thin. More specifically, the writing detailing UK-US intelligence liaison is much thinner still. This is surprising given the widespread acknowledged importance of intelligence to the overall Anglo-American relationship. A comparison with the space and depth allocated to other equally specialist issues, such as nuclear weapons and relations throws this observation into sharp relief. When the wider intelligence dimension does appear, it is usually only covered in a cursory manner, and then often subsumed within general discussions of defence relations. In other areas it rarely gets featured.24 _{The thin coverage of intelligence is partly down to} confronting the well-documented methodological challenges (as discussed in Chapter 2 [2.0], above).25 _{However, these methodological concerns alone do not sufficiently} explain the dearth. This is especially the case more recently when generalists themselves can draw upon an increasingly substantial body of specific and specialist literature by intelligence experts discussing the Anglo-American intelligence dimension.26 _{Therefore, the neglect and under-emphasis of the intelligence} dimension in the general studies is likely to be explained, at least in part, by what Christopher Andrew terms ‘cognitive dissonance – the difficulty of adapting traditional notions of international relations and political history to take account of the information now available about the role of intelligence agencies.’ He continues: ‘One striking example of this conceptual failure concerns SIGINT, a word still curiously absent from the great majority of histories of international relations… few [historians] stop to consider the influence of SIGINT on the rest of the twentieth century.’27

In Anglo-American relations studies, the importance of the wider intelligence dimension is recognised. Still, most references to it remain brief. This trend, to varying degrees, is particularly noticeable in the significant works on Anglo-

Americans relations.28 _{All these works, however, say very little about UK-US} intelligence liaison per se and fail to unravel it in substantial depth.29

The subordination of intelligence as a whole in analyses of Anglo-American relations may also stem from the observation that intelligence co-operation ‘was nevertheless subordinate to themes such as atomic cooperation.’30 _{It may also reflect} the fact that intelligence is a ‘specialité’,31 _{with intelligence liaison being a ‘specialité of} a specialité’. Simultaneously, intelligence studies is located more marginally on the periphery of the mainstream fields of international relations and international history, and thus is not so fully integrated with them. This is despite having once partly emerged from them, while being fused in an interdisciplinary manner with other associated fields of inquiry.

Furthermore, intelligence as a whole can remain a completely ‘missing dimension’ in some works.32 _{Of course there are exceptions to this overall trend of} intelligence dimension under-emphasis or absence.33 _{The works with greater} emphasis on the intelligence dimension help contribute towards counterbalancing and beginning to reverse the general observed scenario as the 1990s progressed. Albeit unevenly, the underemphasised intelligence dimension gradually does feature more substantially. It gets some more commensurate space allocated in the Anglo- American relations literature. This trend can be seen as following closely behind the trend of intelligence studies as a whole beginning to flourish more during the 1990s and into the new millennium. Thus ‘generalists’ can now draw upon an increasing wealth of gradually joining-up and connective specialist intelligence literature, which offers more substantive insights and sustained analyses. This also aids the beginning of the formulation of generalisations and the recognition of trends relating to the intelligence dimension.34 _{Although here it can also be argued that the sections} devoted solely to intelligence in the general Anglo-American relations literature continue to remain relatively brief and fragmentary. They could be extended further, exploring the themes in greater depth. Consequently, UK-US intelligence liaison in all its complexity continues to be under-studied.

After 9/11 and the subsequent greater prominence of intelligence issues, the intelligence dimension could no longer be overlooked in general studies. The specialist area of intelligence moved into the mainstream. In John Dumbrell’s article, ‘The US-UK “Special Relationship” in a World Twice Transformed’, the intelligence dimension undeniably gets a higher profile in his analysis. It moves out from more special, self-contained sections into featuring regularly and interspersed throughout the main body.35 _{This change is hardly surprising. The article addresses the recent} inescapable experience of the contemporary early twenty-first century period. Here, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US and during subsequent events in

the so-called ‘War on Terror’, key intelligence issue areas - such as terrorism and WMD proliferation concerns - have featured largely. Empirically, prominent intelligence issues have been unable to be missed and hence unable to be ignored. In this context, intelligence has moved out from the secret hidden periphery and more to the centre. It has undeniably been placed under a greater spotlight. Furthermore, as the official historian of the JIC Michael Goodman notes, these events ‘have ensured that intelligence is now taken as part and parcel of government.’36 _{Yet, again} UK-US intelligence liaison more specifically remains essentially unexplored in any greater depth. Interestingly, even in the second edition of Dumbrell’s book, A Special Relationship, published in 2006, the section focussing specifically on ‘intelligence co- operation’ still remains in a comparatively minor key. It figures merely as a small subsection in chapter 7, presented in compound with ‘Nuclear Defence’.37 _{Works that} adopt this approach can be appropriately categorised as being located within a ‘superficial’ sub-school of the ‘characterisation’ school of literature (summarised as ‘superficial-characterisation’) covering the theme of UK-US intelligence liaison.38

The particular school of thought relating to the status and ‘specialness’ of Anglo-American relations also has relevance here. The schools of ‘evangelicalism’, ‘functionalism’ and ‘terminalism’, as identified by Alex Danchev in his On Specialness, and to which writing in this field can be assigned (see Chapter 2 [4.0]), are useful indicators of the importance and space allocated to the intelligence dimension in the general studies. The intelligence dimension is often perceived as being the most ‘special’ aspect of the overarching UK-US alliance, contributing to the importance accorded to it throughout the literature, whatever the medium.39 _{In the} ‘terminal’ school, where ‘endism’ to ‘specialness’ is argued, it is observed that the role of intelligence is underplayed or absent. Here, Coker’s 1992 article would fit.40 By contrast, in the writing assignable to the other schools, the wider intelligence dimension enjoys increasing emphasis and a higher profile. This is discernable in namely the ‘evangelical’ school - where the role of emotional, personal ties and sentiment are especially emphasised - and the ‘functional’ school – where there were specific functional purposes behind Anglo-American relations (such as during the Second World War when staving-off the Axis Powers and during the Cold War, when confronting the Soviet/Communist threat), and where the role of sentiment is less emphasised. This trend is also seen in ‘functional’ works such as those by John Dumbrell and David Reynolds.41 _{Yet, despite acknowledging the undeniable} importance of the UK-US intelligence links, their treatment of that dimension continues to remain largely fragmentary and terse at best. Frequently, it, too, soon merges with, and becomes overtaken by, their exploration of the nuclear dimension of UK-US relations.42 _{Again, these works can be seen as effectively reflecting the}

‘superficial-characterisation’ school of the literature on UK-US intelligence liaison. Overall, for a more in-depth and ‘joined-up’ analysis of UK-US intelligence liaison, the specialist literature on intelligence liaison relationships has to be consulted.

[4.0]: General intelligence liaison literature & its portrayals of UK-US interactions

There is a small body of specialist literature that explores intelligence liaison generally. This body of literature is gradually growing and to varying degrees it draws upon examples and episodes of UK-US intelligence liaison. It is this literature that starts to provide a fuller and more substantial discussion of UK-US intelligence liaison in all of its differing guises. Also through the literature examined here, the full range of different perspectives and approaches begin to emerge.

In the early 1990s, the study and understanding of the sub-field of intelligence liaison as a whole was still in the early stages of development. This was