Security
Issues in the 21st Century:
An Intelligence Perspective
Robert
Gates
The
world is now over ten years into the most far-reaching,
multi-dimensional, revolutionary change since World War
I and its aftermath. After a century of war that saw the
demise of ancient empires and the victory of democracy and
market economics over Nazi and Communist totalitarianisms
and their statist ideologies, the world has been transformed,
but the future is still murky.
There
are awesomely encouraging developments underway across the
globe - from Russia and China to India, the Middle East
and elsewhere. But there is a parallel reality: a world
that also is more unstable, more unpredictable, more turbulent
(in many respects more violent) than the world we left behind
with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet
Union. It is this parallel reality that concentrates the
attention of intelligence agencies and officers.
Unlike
most politicians, who prefer to focus on opportunities,
promises, positive developments, and achievements, the intelligence
officer by mission and charter pays attention to threats
and challenges. He may downplay a threat or emphasize it,
or simply place it in a larger context, but the dark side
of human (and governmental) behavior is still the focus
of his attention. As a consequence, the intelligence officer
is rarely glad-handed by the politician or decision-maker.
He is the dark cloud too often looming over their parade.
He was
a necessary evil in the politician's eye during the cold
war. The threat was so cosmic, the dangers so immense, that
his descriptions of that threat were understood as critically
important. Thus, the intelligence officer always had a seat
at the table and an important voice at any hearing. Indeed,
decision-makers heeded his analysis and relied upon his
data as the most comprehensive and reliable available, especially
for military planning and for arms control. His warnings
were taken seriously.
Then
the cold war ended. Throughout the West, just as in 1918
and 1945, politicians and citizens relaxed and assumed that
in the post Cold-War "new world order," no more
serious security threats and challenges would surface. Consequently,
most countries moved promptly to reduce support for national
security: the military, diplomatic, and intelligence instruments
that had played a critical role in the Cold War.
Unfortunately,
these changes, although prompted by genuinely transforming
and positive developments, blissfully ignored the parallel
reality: the continuing threats to peace, democracy, and
stability around the world. Unlike those of the Cold War,
these threats are more difficult to see, quantify, describe,
and deal with.
The
list of threats is familiar: the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, with over two dozen nations possessing
chemical and biological weapons and more that 40 with ballistic
missiles; global organized crime, with resources and technology
far beyond those of most governments, and with national
and regional criminal structures collaborating around the
world rather than competing; terrorism, no longer so much
state supported as promoted by powerful religious, ethnic,
and political forces ranging across borders; ethnic conflict
reaching genocidal proportions in the Balkans, Africa, and
elsewhere; potential regional aggressors, as seen a decade
ago in the Persian Gulf and now in Africa; and worrying
tensions between India and Pakistan, both armed with nuclear
weapons and ballistic missiles. The list goes on.
A few political leaders take these challenges seriously,
but many others rarely look beyond their own borders-even
if those borders are crossed daily by individuals and/or
groups engaged in such activities as described above. Even
in the countries where the challenges are taken seriously,
too many leaders refuse to provide intelligence the necessary
resources to produce the quality information needed for
informed decisions. So capabilities are spread even more
thinly, and the chances of a serious intelligence failure
grow, a failure that could cost many lives.
In truth,
the threats of the Cold-War time were so awesome that leaders
could readily galvanize support for the instruments of national
security; but the security challenges and threats of the
early 21st century are so diverse, so seemingly distant,
and, at this point, so indistinct to the untrained eye,
that few political leaders are even trying to muster the
resources needed to deal successfully with them.
In sum,
serious security threats and challenges continue to exist
at the outset of the 21st century and are constantly increasing.
Because they seem remote, diverse, not so worrisome seen
singly, and so modest compared to the danger of a superpower
nuclear confrontation or a NATO-Warsaw Pact war in Europe,
they fail to excite the concern necessary to provide the
resources to deal with them. That may be the ultimate tragedy.
For security threats today are mostly manageable, containable,
or solvable. But tomorrow, that likely will not be the case.
And, it seems too often, intelligence officers-focused on
the dark side-are among the few who understand the threats,
the opportunity to deal with them, and how much more costly
the remedies will be tomorrow than they are today. Unfortunately,
it appears that no one is listening.