US intelligence rivalry flares over British connection
John Stokes 5:01pm
The CIA station in London is at the center of a bitter fight between different branches of the US intelligence community in Washington DC.
For years, the CIA has had the right to appoint the station chief who runs US intelligence operations in London and liaises with MI6 and GCHQ. Now, the National Security Agency is arguing that they and not the CIA should run intelligence operations in the UK because they have more people on the ground and the work they do has far greater value to both countries.
NSA have found useful allies in both Admiral Denny Blair, the Director of National Intelligence and General Jim Jones, the National Security Adviser who have been very receptive to the argument that intelligence form should follow function and reflect the realities of the 21st century.
Last month, Blair wrote a memo to US intelligence chiefs saying that in future the DNI would appoint Heads of Stations overseas. It was a clear directive from the man who runs all US intelligence and is appointed by the President and Congress to do so. However, Leon Panetta, who heads the CIA and is the former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, wrote his own letter to top CIA officials saying they could disregard Blair’s note.
Panetta is a famous Washington bruiser and is well known for his take no prisoners style but such a confrontation has infuriated Blair who sees it as a direct challenge to his authority and battle has been joined. For once, Panetta may have misjudged the political winds as Congress is pushing hard for real intelligence reform and the CIA has fewer friends and less influence on Capitol Hill these days.
It is no coincidence that those pushing for change in the Obama administration have a military background and that the NSA is run by one of their own, General Keith Alexander. It’s also true that for decades NSA has chafed under CIA’s apparent seniority and the two agencies have been arch rivals for generations. As recently as the Bush administration a major joint operation between CIA and NSA which all involved agreed was vital to the future of US security was stopped after a senior CIA official refused to implement the project which he thought gave unnecessary influence to NSA.
The information revolution has placed further strains on the relationship. Twenty years ago, there was a clearer division of labour with NSA intercepting data on the move (email, faxes, phone calls) while the CIA targeted data at rest (documents, burglaring buildings). But recently the CIA has made a major push into the data gathering business arguing that the ones and zeros of the computer age are data and thus are fair game whether at rest or on the move.
There are thousands of Americans based in Britain who work for NSA and work closely with GCHQ. By comparison, the CIA station, based in the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square, is important but a mere shadow of the NSA’s presence. Reality on the ground suggests that NSA will win this fight.
Previous
Susan Hill
June 10th, 2009 6:12pm Report this commentOne area above all where you really need everyone pulling together.
jaydeeaitch
June 10th, 2009 6:14pm Report this commentSo, we host a turf war to see which arm of our ally is in charge of spying on us?
Olaf Rye
June 10th, 2009 7:20pm Report this commentIt is not that the US is spying on Britain--the liaison between the NSA and GCHQ is quite significant, given the sophistication of their electronic surveillance techniques. In many respects, the NSA has been the senior partner in US intelligence since their agencies have moved towards intelligence collection through satellites and signals, rather than human assets. It ought to be interesting to watch, but you hope that the internecine strife does not result in any serious problems concerning the sharing and interpretation of the data.
Ruairidh
June 10th, 2009 7:23pm Report this commentWhy the MI5 snub in para 2? They liase with CIA too.
The NSA deal closely with GCHQ but not directly with MI5 or SIS. This is more complicated than mere boots on the ground.
Suki
June 10th, 2009 8:09pm Report this commentIf the Americans working over here have any sense at all they wouldn't share a shred of intelligence with their useless British counterparts.
That is not the fault of Britain's security services but of its dreadful political masters.
Jeremy
June 10th, 2009 8:41pm Report this commentjaydeeaitch:
"So, we host a turf war to see which arm of our ally is in charge of spying on us?"
Insightful, economical and pitched to perfection. Well said.
James Wilson
June 10th, 2009 8:58pm Report this commentThe 16 different agencies continue to ignore the tough new guidance being implemented by the ODNI. Maybe Obama can finally settle what the 9/11 Commission, IRTPA 2004, amended executive orders, and DNI issued IC directives have mandated. Then, maybe not, if CIA continues to resist and bask in their old, insular ways of doing business. We'll see...
porkbelly
June 11th, 2009 1:03am Report this commentjaydeeaitch and Jeremy - your own government watches your every move on CCTV, monitors your emails, will soon have your DNA stored for "future reference" and you are worried about the CIA spying on you?
The Bellman
June 11th, 2009 8:47am Report this commentMuch as I admire the fruits of the UK-US relationship, the US system of political appointees to the agencies is extraordinary. Although I'm sure in many ways he's a great guy, having Leon Panetta as head of CIA is like having Ed Balls (or, given his early-career switch from GOP to Dem, Shaun Woddward) in charge of SIS.
Thomas Rai
June 11th, 2009 12:09pm Report this commentIf anyone is interested in the historical background of all this, suggest they read Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0141033169/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244718445&sr=8-1
Olaf Rye
June 11th, 2009 1:33pm Report this commentBellman, you are quite right in feeling anxious about the political appointments in the US. This is indeed the central problem with the US agencies--there is political competition of an order that we do not see in Britain, and the rivalries sometimes become personal and the vital intelligence is not shared or co-operation is not forthcoming. Perhaps this is attributable to the size of these agencies. All we can hope is that the appointees place national security about their puerile squabbling, although I am afraid that I have little hope in such altruism amongst the career politicians that infest the western world.
hkalk
June 11th, 2009 6:41pm Report this commentshall we recall the nsa's refusal to provide the cia the text of certain messages, only summaries? so nsa is in the analysis and censorship business also? an old bedou saying comes to mind of the camel's nose under the tent. one should also note the phrases in para 6 : "cia's 'apparent' seniority" emphasis mine; and "arch rivals for generations". i thought that was the fbi. so now we have a three way rivalry. the "duke" of this(cia), the "duke" of that (fbi) and the "duke" of the other (nsa), plus the czar (dni). perhaps i should have used "boyar" as a more appropriate metaphor
Back to top