Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Art of Intelligence

Aired November 03, 2003 - 08:33   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: As post-war violence escalates, the intelligence that was used to make the case for war coming under greater scrutiny. Sir John Keegan is a military historian. His new book is called "Intelligence in War, Knowledge of the Enemy, From Napoleon to al Qaeda."
Sir John Keegan is with us on AMERICAN MORNING.

Nice to see you. Good morning to you.

You don't believe that intelligence failed prior to the war. Why not?

SIR JOHN KEEGAN, MILITARY HISTORIAN: I think it was a typical intelligence situation, that some of it said one thing and some of it said the opposite. It's very rare in war for intelligence to give you a definite answer, and Iraq was no different from most intelligence situations.

HEMMER: Do you think then the legacy of this conflict may be in hindsight at some point, be it months from now or even years from now, that how the CIA's able to operate in a way that can't be penetrated from the public, let's say from members of Congress, from the outside?

KEEGAN: Well, this is a perennial problem. The intelligence organizations would say that they'd love Democratic scrutiny. But the trouble is that if you allow outsiders to penetrate, you are inviting leaks. The only way to have secure intelligence is to limit the number of people who know to the smallest possible number. So your court, yes, you want Democratic control, but, b, you want intelligence to be secret, and there's no way of squaring this...

HEMMER: Where do you come down then on this argument that's ongoing in the Senate Intelligence Committee right now about trying to get the information from the White House, trying to get the documents prior to the war being waged? How much do you give in a way that maintains secrecy of national, and in this case, international secrets? How do you do it?

KEEGAN: This question is -- well certainly been going on since the beginning of the 20th century. And it's always the same question. It goes round and round and round. Now there are intelligence professionals and political cynics who say, oh, well, there's nothing very secret in the intelligence, so don't bother to keep it secret, put it in the newspapers, tell the enemy, and you end up with the same result. But you've got to be a very sophisticated human being to take that point of view. HEMMER: Would you give it all if you were at the White House right now?

KEEGAN: I'd certainly give a lot more intelligence than what's being given now, than is available, because I think when you actually examine intelligence, later, in retrospect, you're surprised by how unsecret it is.

HEMMER: Is that so?

KEEGAN: Yes.

HEMMER: Go back to what Saddam was thinking. I don't know if you saw "The Washington Post" this morning, but David Ensor and our folks down in D.C. Have been reporting on the various angles on this war prior to the war breaking out. There's a suggestion again today in this article that Saddam Hussein was feigning the possession of WMD to make it look like in Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait and Iran, that he was still a strong man and a tough guy who should not be dealt with. Do you bind to that theory?

KEEGAN: I very strongly subscribe to that point of view. A great friend of mine in Britain said I think he lost all his -- I think the U.N. inspectors have found them all and destroyed them. But he couldn't bring himself to admit that he was no longer the big, Arab warlord, that he spent 20 years building himself up to be. And so he went on pretending he got WMD when they'd all long been scrubbed.

HEMMER: Sir John Keegan. The book is called "Intelligence in War." You recount a lot of history for us. And thanks for spending time with us today. Nice to see you.

KEEGAN: Thank you for having me.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired November 3, 2003 - 08:33   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: As post-war violence escalates, the intelligence that was used to make the case for war coming under greater scrutiny. Sir John Keegan is a military historian. His new book is called "Intelligence in War, Knowledge of the Enemy, From Napoleon to al Qaeda."
Sir John Keegan is with us on AMERICAN MORNING.

Nice to see you. Good morning to you.

You don't believe that intelligence failed prior to the war. Why not?

SIR JOHN KEEGAN, MILITARY HISTORIAN: I think it was a typical intelligence situation, that some of it said one thing and some of it said the opposite. It's very rare in war for intelligence to give you a definite answer, and Iraq was no different from most intelligence situations.

HEMMER: Do you think then the legacy of this conflict may be in hindsight at some point, be it months from now or even years from now, that how the CIA's able to operate in a way that can't be penetrated from the public, let's say from members of Congress, from the outside?

KEEGAN: Well, this is a perennial problem. The intelligence organizations would say that they'd love Democratic scrutiny. But the trouble is that if you allow outsiders to penetrate, you are inviting leaks. The only way to have secure intelligence is to limit the number of people who know to the smallest possible number. So your court, yes, you want Democratic control, but, b, you want intelligence to be secret, and there's no way of squaring this...

HEMMER: Where do you come down then on this argument that's ongoing in the Senate Intelligence Committee right now about trying to get the information from the White House, trying to get the documents prior to the war being waged? How much do you give in a way that maintains secrecy of national, and in this case, international secrets? How do you do it?

KEEGAN: This question is -- well certainly been going on since the beginning of the 20th century. And it's always the same question. It goes round and round and round. Now there are intelligence professionals and political cynics who say, oh, well, there's nothing very secret in the intelligence, so don't bother to keep it secret, put it in the newspapers, tell the enemy, and you end up with the same result. But you've got to be a very sophisticated human being to take that point of view. HEMMER: Would you give it all if you were at the White House right now?

KEEGAN: I'd certainly give a lot more intelligence than what's being given now, than is available, because I think when you actually examine intelligence, later, in retrospect, you're surprised by how unsecret it is.

HEMMER: Is that so?

KEEGAN: Yes.

HEMMER: Go back to what Saddam was thinking. I don't know if you saw "The Washington Post" this morning, but David Ensor and our folks down in D.C. Have been reporting on the various angles on this war prior to the war breaking out. There's a suggestion again today in this article that Saddam Hussein was feigning the possession of WMD to make it look like in Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait and Iran, that he was still a strong man and a tough guy who should not be dealt with. Do you bind to that theory?

KEEGAN: I very strongly subscribe to that point of view. A great friend of mine in Britain said I think he lost all his -- I think the U.N. inspectors have found them all and destroyed them. But he couldn't bring himself to admit that he was no longer the big, Arab warlord, that he spent 20 years building himself up to be. And so he went on pretending he got WMD when they'd all long been scrubbed.

HEMMER: Sir John Keegan. The book is called "Intelligence in War." You recount a lot of history for us. And thanks for spending time with us today. Nice to see you.

KEEGAN: Thank you for having me.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com