home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- INTERVIEW, Page 61"We See a World of More, Not Fewer Mysteries"
-
-
- CIA Director ROBERT GATES talks about Saddam Hussein's still
- hidden Scuds, the KGB's new goals and declassifying the J.F.K.
- assassination files
-
- By BRUCE VAN VOORST/WASHINGTON and Robert Gates
-
-
- Q. You've been making a lot of changes in the CIA's
- procedures. For example, you want to include more dissent in
- intelligence analyses. Why?
-
- A. Every major intelligence failure over the last 20 or 40
- years has been because the analysts tended to accept the
- conventional wisdom. The problem has not been a lack of dissent
- by the various agencies. The problem has come about when they
- all signed up to a view that was in fact wrong. One example was
- the conclusion [before the 1990 invasion of Kuwait] that
- Saddam Hussein would spend the next several years trying to
- rebuild Iraq after the Iran-Iraq war and not be looking for new
- conquests or new territory.
-
- The point is that we see a world of more, not fewer,
- mysteries. It seems imperative to change our approach to doing
- intelligence estimates by building in our judgments alternative
- possibilities -- what if we're wrong? We must help the
- policymakers think through the problems, in addition to
- supplying our best judgment. There is, for example, really no
- way of knowing for sure how reform in Russia is going to turn
- out.
-
-
- Q. General Norman Schwarzkopf complained bitterly to
- Congress about the quality of intelligence during the gulf war.
-
- A. There were some very important intelligence successes
- during Desert Storm. It was intelligence that made smart weapons
- smart; it was intelligence that made the monitoring of the
- sanctions possible. It was intelligence that made sure that
- commanders knew where all the 42 Iraqi divisions were and what
- kind of equipment they had and that there were no technological
- surprises.
-
-
- Q. But intelligence failed to identify the magnitude of
- Iraq's nuclear and chemical threats.
-
- A. The community did a good job identifying the fact of
- the nuclear and biological programs. Where the community did
- not have the information was in terms of the scale and pace,
- for instance, of the nuclear program.
-
-
- Q. By a big margin.
-
- A. By a significant margin, acknowledged. We knew Saddam
- Hussein had a nuclear-weapons program, and the status of his
- centrifuge uranium effort. But we missed his Colutron
- development.
-
-
- Q. How's the Iraqi threat evolving?
-
- A. We think he has a couple of hundred Scud missiles
- hidden. Enough of his nuclear program was found and uncovered
- so our estimate is it would take several years to get that
- program significantly restarted. His biological-weapons program
- could be reconstituted in weeks.
-
-
- Q. What if Saddam is overthrown?
-
- A. It would depend on the nature of the regime. Clearly,
- a successor would not be as strong, would not have 20-some years
- to build a regime of intimidation and fear. Saddam himself is
- clearly not as strong as he was at the outset of the war. He has
- many problems that are growing, not shrinking.
-
-
- Q. What about Iran?
-
- A. Iran is determined to regain its former stature as the
- pre-eminent power in the Persian Gulf. The Iranians are spending
- $2 billion a year on sophisticated weaponry -- from MiG-29 and
- Su-24 fighter bombers, to at least two Kilo-class attack
- submarines, all from Russia. They have a fairly crude
- chemical-weapons program, and we suspect they may have a
- biological program. The Iranians also continue their terrorism.
- In the past few weeks we know they've sent a large number of
- weapons to Hizballah.
-
-
- Q. You speak often of the North Korean threat.
-
- A. The key question is nuclear, and how much plutonium
- they have separated from the spent reactor fuel. We don't
- really know. But once they have the requisite plutonium, they
- can have a weapon in from as little as a few months to two
- years. We believe Pyongyang is close, perhaps very close, to
- having a nuclear-weapon capability.
-
-
- Q. You took a beating during your Senate confirmation
- hearings on the charge that intelligence estimates were
- politicized when you were deputy director of the CIA.
-
- A. There were problems with communications between
- managers and analysts, of managers explaining to analysts the
- changes that are made in a product as it goes from being the
- views of the single individual to being an institutional view
- of the CIA. I want to see a more collegial approach, in which
- people's motives aren't questioned and there can actually be
- give and take on issues of political sensitivity.
-
-
- Q. You have proposed focusing more on human intelligence.
-
- A. Many of our new requirements can be satisfied only by
- human intelligence. Our problem in estimating Iraqi nuclear
- progress was that we had to depend primarily on technical
- intelligence, and that's why we underestimated. This is true for
- a lot of areas -- narcotics, terrorism. But we know human
- intelligence is very difficult in terms of the recruitment of
- agents, staying in touch with them and assuring that their
- information is valid.
-
-
- Q. You are planning to set up a sort of CIA cable network
- to get intelligence reports to key officials. Why?
-
- A. We have spent tens of billions of dollars for technical
- collection systems that will return information to us on almost
- a real-time basis, and then in Washington we revert to a 19th
- century approach to dealing with that information by holding it
- overnight before we can present it to policymakers. We can never
- compete with CNN and don't intend to, but I want an arrangement
- where we can provide updated intelligence information throughout
- the day to policymakers.
-
-
- Q. You speak of a new openness in the CIA. Are you going
- to declassify old files?
-
- A. I've created a new organization to do historical
- declassification, bringing in people with more of a historical
- perspective and less of a "well, how do we protect every single
- line?" attitude.
-
-
- Q. Such as?
-
- A. I've committed to declassifying all of the national
- intelligence estimates of the Soviet Union that we can that are
- older than 10 years. We'll pay special attention to the J.F.K.
- assassination papers, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban missile crisis
- and the events of the early 1950s in Iran.
-
-
- Q. Pressures mount for the CIA to spy on foreign
- commercial firms as their intelligence agencies spy on ours. Is
- that in the wind?
-
- A. We will not do commercial spying. Period. But we can be
- helpful on economic intelligence, by identifying foreign
- governments that are involved in unfair practices, or where they
- are violating agreements, either bilateral or multilateral, with
- the U.S., or where they are colluding with businesses in their
- country to the disadvantage of the U.S. We are following
- high-technology developments around the world that may have
- national security implications: computers, telecommunications,
- new materials. Counterintelligence is also going after those
- foreign-government intelligence organizations that are targeting
- American businesses.
-
-
- Q. Isn't collecting technological secrets pretty much what
- the KGB is up to?
-
- A. The KGB may have disappeared, but the interests of the
- Russian intelligence service in Western technology continues.
- We see operations, attempted re cruitments. Their resources have
- been reduced, but they are more highly focused now than before.
- As a matter of fact, we sense that the military intelligence,
- the GRU, has become more aggressive in seeking technical
- secrets.
-
-
- Q. Have any other former Soviet republics begun spying?
-
- A. None that have come to my attention.
-
-
- Q. Why won't the intelligence community accept the notion
- that a reduced international threat can result in reduced
- intelligence budgets?
-
- A. We've already taken hits. We've lost billions of
- dollars. This has caused substantial personal cuts. In real
- terms our 1993 budget is a 2.5% cut. But it's the President's
- decision, not mine. When the President and Secretary of Defense
- proposed a further $50 billion in cuts, they didn't take a
- single nickel of it from the intelligence budget. I think that
- says something about their priorities. They are prepared to cut
- defense in lieu of intelligence.
-
-
- Q. But doesn't this represent an ostrichlike refusal to
- acknowledge the vast decrease in the threat to U.S. security?
-
- A. My job is not to defend a particular budget level. My
- job is to tell people these are the requirements you want me to
- collect and analyze, and this is the amount of money I think it
- will take to do that job responsibly. If the Congress and the
- Administration tell me I have to spend less on intelligence,
- then I intend to tell them what they have to give up.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-