Some would say no other area of the U.S. government is so misnamed as the Intelligence Dept. It is responsible for the collection, analysis and dispersion of information on just about anything relating to the security, safety and planning of the American government. But it involves little intelligence in the exercise of that function. In fact, those critics would say, it desires to eschew the use of any intelligence, being rather the arm and echo-chamber for the politics and ideology of whoever is in power. It depends on internal “watch our back” style cohesion and timidity in creativity and telling the truth.

Yet we find, in the Intelligence community, some of the most knowledgeable and dedicated persons in government. They might have a better and more sure pension than in the military, yet we will never know the names or the services of the men and women of this community. By its nature, they must remain sequestered and secretive. Success is simply noted in the negative - - “nothing happened to us today” - - and failures are all too frequently displayed in headlines. And through all our history, as well as that of other modern nations, we have attempted to down size or disband sections, even whole agencies, every time we seem to have “won” or passed some confrontation or crisis. Over our history we have had to re-form the Intelligence branch each time we entered war, or we have had to beef it up from an inter-conflict period of cuts and cutbacks.

Now I have not read the 9/11 Commission’s report. I can’t afford the hard copy and I don’t have time, even if it is available online. So the suggestions I tender are my own. And I do not pretend I know much about what all goes into intelligence. I start, as usual, as simply an American who has tried to think out all possibilities and how things have worked in the past. And I have done a little study historically of the subject, and I keep in mind this new technologically sophisticated era is largely unintelligible to me, so please bear with my ignorance.

There are some things I have noticed recently, however. One is that there was not a lot of Intelligence experience on the 9/11 Commission. I found that rather remarkable, especially in light of what has been discussed and done in the past to rectify perceived problems with this area. Even as far back as President Kennedy, a whole section, the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), was created because of problems he associated with CIA analysis regarding the Bay of Pigs. Obviously, if we are to believe the Commission, that and other consequent reforms, did not help the correctness and ability of that and other security agencies. In fact the CIA was itself formed in an attempt to reform and refit the W.W.II OSS for entrance into the postwar Intelligence game. It might also be well to remember it is only about seven presidents ago that the FBI finally left the suzerainty of J. Edgar Hoover to enter a wider world of operations then that gentleman ever conceived of. And it is also well to remember that the other agencies, both military and nonmilitary, have only recently entered a sphere of both technological and teleological capabilities which are not by any means completely understood by any agency of the government or by many persons in the world.

Perhaps, before we look to drastic reform, we should look at what we already have. And by this I mean the inner-relationships that develop in the Intelligence community as a whole. I do not mean at the level of agency rivalries, but at the basic competence levels of analysts or field agents or directorates across the whole spectrum. I think it might be reasonable to presume that an analyst for the NSA in a particular section, has much the same background, function and concerns as an analyst in the CIA. In fact there is probably more similarity between these analysts than between them and a director of their respective agencies. Strange as it sounds, perhaps we should look at an Association of Analysts, and also of field agents and directors, which would informally and formally trade ideas, capabilities and methods of doing that work, as well as socializing in a secure but wide social net. This allows not only fertilizing ideas into the agencies, but it also allows a level of fraternity and normalization that not only puts members in a more relaxed and connected framework, but also serves to make recruiting easier. In fact by “outsiders” belonging to auxiliaries of these fraternities, without the security clearance and access of the “active” members, it also gives a pool for that recruitment, as well as being a transition state for those leaving, writing about or researching those agencies. Presently these backdoor “old boy” networks already exist, though usually restricted within a particular agency, but it may be a useful concept to use, and it conforms to an already existing “skeleton” that exists in the agencies' closets.

Another thing the community has is the need for secrecy and security. Again, at least as far as concerns basic clearance and even document handling, it might be wise to have, to a certain level, one agency handling just that. And not an existing agency, but one created for that specific purpose. Secrecy, especially when many agencies hold the same of secrets, often without each others knowledge, generates redundancy and mounds of paper or disk space. Might it not, at least at lower levels be good to gather all that under one umbrella? Information on those levels could be shared easily, especially if a number of clearances were created across all agencies, thus spurring creativity, information handling and sharing and reduction in waste of time. In fact this could be done at several levels, and simply correct clearance could be the entry point of any agency getting any information. That might perhaps break down rivalries and separation of activity and spur a cycle of each agency trying to add to the bulk of that information, rather than hoarding it. This idea might be compared with the present interdisciplinary agency which holds fingerprints and criminal profiles, and the agencies, usually local police departments, which use those files. The prints and bios are dispensed to the various police, yet the dispensing agency does not share in the local files, except in certain special cases, and the local departments do not share in the holding agency’s files, as in internal FBI files for instance. Creation of such a “holding agency” for Intelligence need not step on anyone’s toes, yet could provide efficient information for all.

Loyalty is also a trademark of this community, both in terms of fealty to the country, but also in loyalty to members of the community. It might be well to build on that, and when we set up clearance standards and back checks, that we do them always at one level higher than needed for the person involved. If there is a separate agency to do this, then the time in doing this is not taking from the work of any of the actual Intelligence groups. It also might make oversight, both within agency and by Congress, easier. If the “Seucritizing” agency could report for the agencies up to a certain level of clearance, then heads of operating agencies could make far fewer trips to Capitol Hill and Congress would have far better ability to keep “running” track of what was going on in the community. In fact the “Securitizing” agency could even do it blind, not knowing what it was delivering to Congress, only that it was at a certain level of clearance. If the “secrets” the Intelligence Community holds and the operations it performs, are the real purpose and meaning of intelligence, then why not give Congress lots more product and less explanation. And if something has to be further explained then that is the time for testimony. It seems to me this would result in far fewer surprises, a truly worthy conduit for oversight in a republic like ours and most importantly a “two-way street” over which Congress could express concern over something they think is being overlooked. In fact, through Congress, security concerns even amongst the public, relayed through legislators, could make even Intelligence responsive to the will and foresight of the American people.

These ideas might even extend to funding. Like the suggested “securitizing” agency, there could be “pot” to draw from and this reservoir could be what the “Intelligence Czar” has control of. In other words, if you want performance and accountability, then controlling the purse is one way to get it. As will be apparent later, I do not like strict business methods in any area of government, yet it is a tool we can use. Perhaps the job of the overseer should be to allocate resources according to need and performance. This would be done in association with liaisons from the agencies and Defense. And priorities, in part, could be used to shift emphasis in the types of and operations of intelligence, aided by the allocation of funding. You want more field ops, you fund that more heavily, and expect performance for that heavier funding. You could even “force” the creation of areas that intelligence has ignored or downplayed, by allocating money and setting up a criteria for success in those areas that rewards agencies for paying attention to what is desired. True, this makes intelligence responsive to the Legislative branch of government, yet we are a republic and if any area should have control, it is that one. And if we fear that such an arrangement would make intelligence a political “puppet,” then we have a far greater and more dangerous situation than we have so far acknowledged. I prefer the people’s representatives in charge than any other branch of government. And, perhaps, a result of this, placing our intelligence in the hands of our representatives, will help sober the legislators into taking care of business, not floating political “flags” which look good in press releases but do little for the governing of the republic. After all, they have a responsibility for what happened on 9/11 too. And so far, that responsibility has not been accepted. As far as I know, no member of Congress has apologized for 9/11. In fact I don’t think any member of government, at all, has really apologized. Perhaps as we wrestle with reorganizing, we should expect such admission of responsibility first. But then I’m probably just projecting on them the type of responsibility that most Americans have to accept everyday of our lives. Hmmm? Do you think maybe its time our triad of government branches did the same?

Now those reforms would be “homegrown” so to speak. Grown out of tendencies in the agencies themselves and their communities. This next suggestion is a bit different. In my study of the history of the military, I have been taken by their use of the Aggressor Corps in training for certain operations. I am sure, on the think tank end, such contrarian groups already exist in the Intelligence Community, but what I humbly submit is the existence of an actual operational “Aggressor” within Intelligence. Using various levels of clearance, duplicating hopefully similar states of information in real world enemies, this group would not simply think out, but would act out operations to test, one, several or all of the agencies. It would be like a running diagnostic of our capabilities. It could be used even in Homeland Security or against any of the various industry, transportation and information sectors. Successful or not with the incursion, it would be constant feedback and training for the community, especially keeping them on their toes during periods of quiescence. Staffed by persons knowledgeable in intelligence and also with “mavericks,” perhaps like visiting professors, borrowed from somewhere for one-shot missions, it would be the ultimate in creativity and preparedness. It would be a way to test across the agencies, even across the nation, in a way that would make readiness, forethought and preparedness the very practical essence of our Intelligence Community. In fact if proposed reforms do not achieve the results expected in this latest set of intelligence problems, the very existence of the Aggressors might give a hint to the means of acting on those problems. If the members of the Aggressors are “borrowed” from the various agencies, then might their methodology when operating under Aggressor label, be a formative template itself for reform of the agencies themselves? Just a suggestion, and one which may take some time, given the situation we are presently in.

Now any intelligence gathering ability is finite, yet the plethora of information, especially in cyberspace, is climbing toward the infinite. How many hundreds of nations? How many thousands of technologies? How many billions of messages, how many millions of potential enemies? And all that is multiplied against itself. And it is not simply in counting numbers that the problem grows, but in magnitudes of forces in evidence. Chemical, biological and nuclear are simply the basics. We are entering an age when weather, solar and extra-solar forces may impinge on our security concerns. It might be wise to set up an intelligence clearinghouse and information repository. A place that not only holds the magnitudes of information needed but also does at least preliminary work on the information to prepare it for use. And, at the same time, we might investigate on how to help agents to become better able to use that information. Mnemonic systems, heuristic arts and special brain-synchronized learning methods are floating around in various disciplines. Might it be wise to see if they really work and can be used to increase capability in areas humanity presumes are its limitations? When I was a child, the four minute mile was not yet breached, now there are teenagers doing it. Humanity’s presumptions are often its limitations. Maybe it is time to try to systematically breach the barriers. And if we do, what a wonderful gift to give our children in their own education system. James Bondian powers for everyone.

One last thing before we leave the last three suggestions. I think the use of a liaison board or liaison staff should be available to Congress. During hearings I have watched on C-Span, I have been amazed at how many times a legislator has had to ask an intelligence representative for important information and was simply promised “we’ll try to get back to you.” Sorry, this is America. The persons on oversight committees are entitled to such information, and by the principals of our republic we are entitled for them to be informed. A liaison board or individual liaison agents for Congress is perhaps a long overdue idea. And, again, it would help make the intelligence community a lot more responsive to the people who pay their salaries, which is the American people. In my humble experience I have found average Americans often have more insight and more creativity than those we entrust our government to. It may be time we take steps to ensure some two-way communication of our concerns and desires.

There is also one area of intelligence that I think has gotten too little attention. It is in keeping with the idea of knowing ourselves. I am sure there is some examination of the totality of our own nation that takes place, however it may not be enough. After all, thinking about our present terrorist situation, wasn’t international banking, especially the offshore banks, one of the ways our enemies have been able to launder money? Hasn’t our tremendous growth in shipping, coupled to globalization, aided our enemies in being able to select massive amounts of targets that might cripple us? Isn’t our unbridled need for speed and capability in microcomputers the very capability our enemies need to plan against us? Isn’t the dependence on point-sourcing and on-demand shipping, the very structure which insures we can be mortally wounded by very few attacks? Even in energy, if we really decide to turn away from oil, is not the options we have given ourselves, like nuclear, an actual target that our enemies wish to make use of? It seems in almost every area of the American governance and enterprise, we either have or are or will be opening up more weaknesses to our opponent’s thrusts.

Perhaps attached to Homeland Security, there needs to be an American Information Agency, one which gathers facts and statistics, creates study projects and forecasts in numerous ways the trends and futures we may face. I am reminded of the groundbreaking “Futureshock” book of a few years ago, it looked at the future in ways none had before. After all, we must remember the first think-tank only dates to the opening years of the 1900s, and a set of rules for such operations has never really been worked out. One only has to think of the startup think tank that advised the Brazilian government to start cutting and burning the rain forests, to realize the damage a too rigid view of how to project into the future can produce. Thus such an agency would take in “hard facts” but put out a plethora of “soft designs” from those facts. And an unclassified version of the agency’s findings could be used as research and development fodder for everyone from student to world class business. It would also be an invaluable aid in the future needs of the American public, as it comes to grips with the challenges of our future. Despite the sloganeering and ideology of today, I think in very short order we are going to come up against problems of such nature that all the resources of our citizenry will be needed in order to continue in existence. Terrorism is, I feel in my gut, only a “symptom” of far greater dangers we are likely to face. I think having one resource which can give you the facts needed to cut through the baloney that abounds in politics and business is a true service to all of us.

And if my instinct is true, then my last suggestion is to give Intelligence a truly universal and worldwide, maybe even other worldly, scope. This is another “borrowing” from the military called Operational Art. Now I don’t pretend to totally understand the concept, and it doesn’t seem to have a standard definition either, but I do kind of understand what it is “pointing” at. And I can best give an idea of it by dealing with the areas of military concern. Tactics is generally regarded as the approach to combat, maneuvers and uses of men and materials within the context of a battle or series of battles and the attack and defense in those battles. Strategy is generally the use of circumstances, technology and forces and maneuvers over large areas and long periods of time to produce battles, positionings and outcomes of multiple groups or armies, over an entire war even if it occurs in widely separated places. Operational Art is an almost quantum leap above either of those. It takes into account the aims, both geopolitical and military of the war and the peace, the factors both military and outside the military which impinge on that effort, and an overall general and changeable plan to outmaneuver and defeat the enemy in areas both military and in other applicable areas like financial, psychological, propagandal, logistical, positional and technological. And it is called an art because unlike some systems of strategy and tactics it is a work in progress. It might have meant one thing in W.W.II but a radically different thing in Vietnam. And in the actions against terrorists it will definitely mean something different from either of those. There may be basic ideas about it yet it changes as the conflict changes.

Confused? I am too, but have heard on good authority that this is the way to fight a war. If so, then can we not apply the art to intelligence? After all, our intelligence already outstrips that of the terrorists. They can only buy satellite photos, not launch satellites. They must use present forms of communications, not create their own. They have limited non-human resources for information and reconnaissance, we have many and can create many more. They are nearly, at least at present, operating in one “theater” of warfare - - land - - we operate anywhere even space. Their manpower is limited, ours orders of magnitude greater. They are restricted by ideology, in other words they cannot deny Allah to get into our ranks anymore than we can murder in order to get into their ranks. (This is not quite true as there is a form of “adoption” of contrary beliefs they can do, however there are tenets they dare not cross without endangering their souls.) They are restricted in resources and research and we are not.

With such innate capability, if we adopt Operational thinking, then hopefully we will be in places they wish to go before they even know they wish to go there. We will be co-opting resources before they even need those resources. Planning countermeasures before they even launch the first attack. Selling them sting operations before they even realize they are their own worst enemy. For we know what they want, both ideologically and militarily and in terms of weaponry. We should be the one to make sure they “get” what they desire. Operational Art in Intelligence probably has the ability to do that. I am sure there are persons in the military who can clue the rest of the community in to the aims and practices of Operational Art and its applicability to Intelligence. I think it might make the most use of our immense resources to bring quick and definite end to the present conflict. Besides, if I am right about the future, we will definitely need such an art in intelligence for the next series of crisis's.

One more thing before we leave this subject, an example in both the intelligence sphere and the geopolitical sphere that goes back centuries. It is a lesson for us today that one of the possible solutions for our present situation was worked out in the 1400s by no less a personage than Henry the Navigator. His country of Portugal, as well as other Christian nations, was faced by a militant Islamic foe enervated by the incursion of the Crusades. They were also faced by an Islamic near monopoly on trade too, thus facing injury both militarily and monetarily. Henry, using the findings of voyages along the African coast and what he could ferret out of Islamic merchants themselves, created a grand strategy to find alternate routes to the markets of the Far East and to “encircle” the Islamic powers by extending influence around them in an early kind of “Christian Curtain.” It was only put into practice after his death, yet it was a brilliant plan, one which may have born fruit centuries later with the isolation and eventual economic overpowering of the Muslim civilizations. Today that should not be our purpose, Islam is not the enemy, yet the terrorists may be susceptible to the same type of planning. If this inhabitant of the early Renaissance could have formulated such an idea, should we be less creative and able in our own planning and execution? Let us remind ourselves of that old adage that if we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. And I do not think any of us wish to repeat that September day or experience even a worse attack because we ignore such historical signposts.

One last thing before we leave the area of Operational Art in intelligence, and that is the present developing situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are hopefully in the process of helping them rebuild their own intelligence networks, as well as everything else in their societies. I think it is wise that we are aware of the potential for “moles” to inculcate themselves into that framework. It would be very dangerous if suddenly we found that in the intelligence sector, or any other for that matter, that sleeper agents had wormed their way in. Perhaps even networks of sleepers. As future crises arise in those countries, it would be the failure of all our efforts to suddenly have such persons or networks undermine all that we worked for. We need only remember the Philbys and the Burgesses of recent history to understand the potential damage. And if they are in positions which are vital, such sleepers could do far more damage than either of those examples, sending two nations down into the pit of failed states and perhaps even fundamentalist-based nationalism. Years of work and untold billions of dollars and American lives, perhaps even survival of our nation, are the stakes of such a failure. It behooves us all to make sure it does not happen.

So these are my suggestions and cautions. I have tried to think them through as best as I could. There is one final subject, however, and that is ethics. Now some have said such an idea as ethics in espionage is a contradiction in terms. I do not intend to deal with the application of any ethical guidelines for intelligence, I believe that is a discussion and a decision that must be made by the whole public and their representatives. Rather I wish to deal with the existence of ethical behavior in those we choose to serve in the intelligence community.

In the Reagan administration, there were many who thought Wm. Casey was a very good pick for the directorship of the CIA. Many in the CIA believed his OSS connections and his past experience suited him for director. How then did we come to the Iran-Contra Affair with all its attendant illegalities and harm to the perception of us throughout the world? Could the confirmation hearings have held a clue as to what was coming? We should remember the questioning, even by those of his own party, of Casey’s past business deals. We must also remember that nothing illegal was found.

Perhaps it is time to realize that what is legal and what is moral or ethical are often two different things. Despite recent ranting about our nation being built on religious principals, there are some who would remind us that no nation is built on such principals. One has to only read “The Prince” to realize nations are not moral instruments. The citizens are the moral fiber of any nation, and if they remain moral and ethical, then their government’s actions will at least have a chance to be so. Yet nations, by the very fact they are extra-personal entities, are seldom moral, religious or ethical in their actions or policies. I know of no supposed Christian nation which practices all of the ten commandments, and even the Vatican State has spawned war and persecution. However that does not prevent the citizens from being sure that ethical, moral, even religious persons are selected to lead that state. And I think we need to examine closely the ethical background of those we select, especially in this age were most of our leaders and representatives come out of a business background.

Casey was not a felon and he was a businessman. Business, any business, is very similar to a government. It may have “ethics” yet I wonder if our common citizen would recognize them as such? In business it is legal and ethical to take away people’s livelihoods, reduce their living standards, defund their pensions and do away with any benefit including health care. These are legal and ethical for them to do by their lites. Business has no conscience and little memory. It will take what is freely given, often from the government it claims to despise, and turn and sell it for whatever the market will bear. Bankruptcy, crashes, boom and bust, usury, stock bubbles, overselling, bait and switch, strike breaking and layoffs are just a few of the words in its vocabulary. We have been coarsened, however, to the implications of such words by their constant use. Seldom do we think of the millions affected by business actions. Real persons made homeless, hungry and ill, perhaps even put at death’s door. We are taught an economic based mantra of “personal responsibility” and “market driven causes” that is used to form or criticize public policy. Yet, when scandal strikes, when markets go awry, suddenly there are vast legal havens for the business gurus, yet almost nothing for the employees and small investors.
There has been some talk about competitiveness and market forces being applied to the Intelligence community. Perhaps it is wise to remember, in other areas of government where business ethics have crept in, what a disaster it has sporadically been. And unfortunately the disasters are seldom corrected and often compounded. One need only remember the 1960s and the attempt to curb our oil dependence and redirect our energy structure. Mileage targets were selected, speeds limits imposed and types of fuels mandated. Within a few years the “market driven” auto sector and oil industry had convinced our legislators to repeal all of that, except some of the fuel mandates, perhaps because even they could not explain away smog. Was this good for the health of ourselves and the energy dependence we suffer under? Doubtful, yet it was done in very businesslike manner.

I speak only for myself, yet I cannot say that I really practice the business principal of “personal profit” which we are told will cure all ills and from which all good flows. I doubt the majority of Americans practice that principal, family, friends and community are too real to us. If we continue, in the intelligence sphere, to put in place business principals and business people, we are edging toward the dissolution of the public good. Dickens reminded us a long time ago that “the business of mankind is Mankind,” we are looking at a bleak future if we ignore that reality. Especially in Intelligence. It functions almost as a brain functions, giving us vital information we need to survive. It helps direct our movements, our planning and our dreams. These are not areas of balance sheets and cost benefit analysis. They are areas of human concern, and just as with the terrorists, areas of individual choice. Intelligence must somehow filter down to each of us so that each of us can make decisions on how to live our American lives. It must give us options to support our government and rationally plan our future. Let us all pray that is what happens.

An example of how such market based thinking can lead to problems, is the recent hoopla over container fees. Since ports are a possible danger area for us, security agencies have had to plan on beefing up port safety and container tracking. This resulted in a possible $30 to $50 hike in container charges. Many businesses began clamoring about such hikes, saying they would cripple the shipping industry and drive up costs for goods throughout the economy. As far as I know, they have finally accepted the raises, I hope. However, the very fact they tried to avoid such fees, shows the contrast in their concerns versus the security of the American people. They must know, as most of us do, that there are hundreds of nuclear missle warheads “loose” in the world. When the Soviets collapsed, they left ballistic missles in their former satellites. These are probably in the ten to fifteen megaton range and they might well be on the black market. They do not even have to come into our ports to endanger us. Such a warhead, secluded in a container ship on its way to South America and outside territorial limits, could well take out a 150 mile semi-circle of the Eastern or Western Seaboard. We must have accurate container tracking worldwide, for our sake and the world’s.

And lest you think I am totally anti-business, let me clarify. Business, as practiced in its highest form and in the spirit of Adam Smith, is the servant and the benefiter of Humanity. Even Smith noted that there were “merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind.” We should take that caution from the father of modern economics to heart. It may be too late to get business out of politics, policy and international associations, but we can prevent its entry into and dominance of the Intelligence community. Using a previous metaphor, if intelligence is to government as the brain is to the body, then we are fighting a general infection. It is now reaching to breach the blood-brain barrier and to multiply through the very survival mechanisms that sends messages to all areas of the body politic. If those messages are distorted by profit and cost-benefit analysis, then be prepared to hear of only half-measures and economically stunted efforts. For Humanity, America carrying some of its most advanced efforts, this is a time of decision. We may either allow a segment of society with wealth and power to rule all areas of our lives, or prevent it from infecting our information agencies, so that we may in time begin to get a realistic picture of what we are facing. And we may be facing much.

Only recently, in part based on information from satellite surveillance, we are finding the Arctic and Antarctic are melting at alarming rate. We are seeing a change in climate and species dispersion. It may be global warming, it may be natural process, yet there are those in the seamier sections of business who are trying to say it is not happening. Let us not quibble over the reason, as my Pappy said, pictures don’t lie. Neither do the evacuations of islands and the rising sea levels. And this may be only one crisis we face. Some astronomers, again based on satellite information, have theorized that our Sun is really a variable star. If it is, then we are on borrowed time unless we accept the possibility and begin to plan. If the Sun is variable, then it can reduce or increase its output by amounts capable of eradicating life on this world. And, if as some astronomers have postulated, that it is also a Flare Star, then if such a flare is emitted in our direction, all life on at least one side of our planet could be wiped out in a day. And these are rather simple scenarios, not some of the more intricate of possibilities. These include the possible “polluting” of natural genomes by bio-genetically altered species, the introduction of cloned species into the food or medicine chains and the actual altering of the genome of Humanity itself.

Intelligence, especially if we can make it more responsive to the education and will of the American people, and the world, is a last bulwark against such self-seeking and selfish manipulation. It is capable of forming our national interest with factual information to set us on a path, not only of victory, but also of reasoned decision. Let us not have this last, somewhat secretive enclave, co-opted by an influx of financial decision-making. Intelligence should have as close a connection to facts as possible. It should not have to consider supply-side philosophy before delivering those facts, nor need to justify a needed but expensive investigation to some third-rate clerk doing percentages. And if we do rescue intelligence from such a fate, in turn Intelligence must expect that it must truly serves its masters, the American people. Thus the above suggestion that we need an information clearinghouse that can guide the decisions of average Americans as well as that of their government. There need be no animosity between Americans and their secret agencies, they can both be coworkers together in the strengthening of America. They can both be beneficiaries of that association.