Enemies of Collection – cont.
Denial, counterintel, deception.
Cannot have deception without denial or counterintel.
Continuing counterintel. Modern practice, relatively successful. Easy to feed disinfo to another human
intel agency, not impossible to significantly control its sources. Records of human intel as far back as
we can go (1500s) also shows it in use. Counterintel and its specialists sound a bit “cracked” as you're
professionally driven to paranoia – examining reports in minute details, checking against other sources.
Easy to end up mistrusting good sources – i.e. In 1930s, soviets profited from ideological sympathy for
communism vs fascism.Anumber of people do willingly change their sympathies, above all in US but
elsewhere too. In british intelligence, gang of 5 provides intel to soviets from 1930s onward. Senior
levels of intelligence in USSR and Stalin mistrusted these sources because there was such a wealth of
info and all of it so valuable it had to be misinformation.As far as human intelligence work goes,
counterintel is a common, constant, successful element, and wil continue to be so.
Problematic in part because the whole idea of fooling people so they'll do things that profit you is one
that sounds like its from fairytales. Most sensational examples do have a fairytale element. Operation
Mincemeat! (Paper topic?) Brits take a corpse, dress it up as officer, attach briefcase to his wrist, drop
him in the ocean so it'll be found by spanish authorities who are sympathetic to the nazis.Actually
works. Deception, until about 25 years ago, was treated by western govs as most secret technique. Even
in 1980s, Thatcher halts publication of an already written history of british deception in WWII, because
the techniques used then were used in the 80s.
Lots of myths. If you look at how deception works, you're attempting to lead someone to believe that
you're going to doAwhen you plan to do B. Best way to function is to find out what other person
expects and do something else while still leading them to think you plan to do what they thought.
Psychology demonstrates its easy to reinforce preconceptions, but hard to go against them. Better to
appeal to those preconceptions. i.e. Convincing theAxis that the real invasion site for D-Day was the
Pas de Callais, when it was really the beaches of Normandy. Even convinced them that the initial D-
Day attacks were a feint. English officers did agree that Pas de Callais was the best place to invade, but
new the Germans would realize the same. Tricked them into putting most everything they had on the
Pas De Callais. Convince the other side to go on seeing things as they do. Have to understand what the
other side expects. Need good intel to do so. Trying to change what they do, not how they think. To fool
an individual, do not equivocate. Not long stories, brief explanations. Look them in the eye, give them
a reason to believe you're sincere. Politicians have to behave like this all the time. If you're playing
poker, diplomacy, you're deceiving all the time. Businesses do it all the time.
Tactical feints. The trojan horse, a form of deception. Earliest battle we can trace is battle of Kadesh in
1274 BC, and deception is part of reason why Egyptians misread the battlefield and advance into
dangerous situation. Enemy sent people to them with false infthmation. Intelligence and
communication make deception hard to practice. In the 20 century, first year of first world war, that's the moment when governments begin to adopt deception as standard operating procedure.
Deception is quite easy to do, and its argued its virtually costless to try. Easy to do, as misleading
messages can be delivered quite high up the decision making chain. Need smart people to run it, but if
you look at most successful and highly bureacratized system of deception – the british in WWII – it's
mounted by 100 staff officers and 400 enlisted men and NCOs. Bright people, small investment.
How do you lose from deception? Only if you attempt to deceive someone and they can