WEBVTT - Sir Richard Dearlove Talks Intel Concerns

0:00:02.480 --> 0:00:04.200
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios.

0:00:04.360 --> 0:00:07.600
<v Speaker 2>The French newspaper Express recently asked Europe's top spies, which

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:12.520
<v Speaker 2>country has the best clandestine agency? The winner six and

0:00:12.520 --> 0:00:15.640
<v Speaker 2>the runner up is frances DGSSE. The Netherlands, Ukraine and

0:00:15.680 --> 0:00:17.680
<v Speaker 2>Germany round out the rest of the top five.

0:00:17.880 --> 0:00:20.079
<v Speaker 3>That's all right, but how has a spy game changed

0:00:20.079 --> 0:00:22.599
<v Speaker 3>in the modern era? Is AI making the job harder

0:00:22.680 --> 0:00:25.479
<v Speaker 3>or easier? And where does the CIA factor in? We

0:00:25.520 --> 0:00:27.560
<v Speaker 3>sat down with Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of

0:00:27.600 --> 0:00:30.680
<v Speaker 3>British Intelligence and co host of the One Decision podcast.

0:00:31.760 --> 0:00:34.360
<v Speaker 4>I mean, if you look at the European intelligence agencies,

0:00:35.040 --> 0:00:40.440
<v Speaker 4>but largely historical reasons, there's no question that the United

0:00:40.520 --> 0:00:46.320
<v Speaker 4>Kingdom in six has let's say, the agency with the

0:00:46.479 --> 0:00:54.640
<v Speaker 4>broadest international remit, with representation in many countries, and with

0:00:54.760 --> 0:00:58.760
<v Speaker 4>a depth and length of experience which is unmatched by

0:00:58.800 --> 0:01:02.800
<v Speaker 4>any other Europeans. I mean, bearing in mind am I

0:01:02.920 --> 0:01:05.640
<v Speaker 4>six as a historical creation that goes back to nineteen

0:01:05.720 --> 0:01:09.640
<v Speaker 4>oh nine, and there's no other European service that has

0:01:09.680 --> 0:01:13.360
<v Speaker 4>a history with that depth, So I'm not surprised, of

0:01:13.360 --> 0:01:18.240
<v Speaker 4>course it's the best European service. I would say that.

0:01:18.040 --> 0:01:22.240
<v Speaker 3>Why is human intelligence so important? What makes it so valuable.

0:01:26.400 --> 0:01:28.880
<v Speaker 1>Because I think you can only really.

0:01:30.319 --> 0:01:35.319
<v Speaker 4>Find out the sort of detail of what you're searching

0:01:35.400 --> 0:01:40.880
<v Speaker 4>for by talking to the people who've actually got access

0:01:42.080 --> 0:01:44.880
<v Speaker 4>to the decision making process and the foreign government. So

0:01:45.120 --> 0:01:49.720
<v Speaker 4>let's say the current war in Iran, I would imagine

0:01:50.280 --> 0:01:55.480
<v Speaker 4>that let's say Mossad has human sources amongst the Iranian leadership.

0:01:55.560 --> 0:02:01.040
<v Speaker 4>You therefore get a much more integrated and clear picture

0:02:01.440 --> 0:02:05.200
<v Speaker 4>of how the leadership of the IRGC is thinking in

0:02:05.240 --> 0:02:09.200
<v Speaker 4>the conduct of the war. I mean, intersept can be

0:02:09.360 --> 0:02:14.640
<v Speaker 4>valuable and really important, but you might only have a

0:02:14.760 --> 0:02:21.399
<v Speaker 4>partial picture. And you know, data analysis doesn't give you

0:02:21.480 --> 0:02:23.280
<v Speaker 4>that human dimension.

0:02:23.840 --> 0:02:26.800
<v Speaker 3>Is it getting harder to recruit and train people to

0:02:26.919 --> 0:02:30.520
<v Speaker 3>be successful operations agents? I mean, do people still want

0:02:30.560 --> 0:02:33.119
<v Speaker 3>to be spies? It seems like in an era where

0:02:33.120 --> 0:02:36.280
<v Speaker 3>everybody wants to tell everybody everything. Is it hard to

0:02:36.320 --> 0:02:38.480
<v Speaker 3>say to a smart young person, we want you to

0:02:38.480 --> 0:02:40.400
<v Speaker 3>do a lot of risky, amazing stuff, but you can't

0:02:40.440 --> 0:02:42.960
<v Speaker 3>put it on Instagram.

0:02:43.120 --> 0:02:44.560
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I guess that's a good point.

0:02:44.600 --> 0:02:49.480
<v Speaker 4>But I think if the career is regarded as the prestiges,

0:02:50.480 --> 0:02:54.560
<v Speaker 4>if the career offered is good, I mean, I can

0:02:54.600 --> 0:02:59.360
<v Speaker 4>honestly say I was in I six for thirty eight years.

0:03:00.080 --> 0:03:06.400
<v Speaker 4>Despite the discipline, the restraints, the secrecy, I've probably never

0:03:06.480 --> 0:03:08.960
<v Speaker 4>had a boring day work. How many people say that

0:03:09.080 --> 0:03:13.440
<v Speaker 4>in a thirty eighth career. So there is an attraction.

0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:19.680
<v Speaker 4>I think it requires a special type of character that's

0:03:19.680 --> 0:03:23.680
<v Speaker 4>suited to the work. Of course, not everybody is, and

0:03:23.800 --> 0:03:27.400
<v Speaker 4>the selection is pretty fierce. But certainly in the UK

0:03:28.320 --> 0:03:32.520
<v Speaker 4>it's maintained its reputation of an attractive career. In some

0:03:32.600 --> 0:03:37.360
<v Speaker 4>other countries where the intelligence community has been more politicized,

0:03:37.400 --> 0:03:39.400
<v Speaker 4>I wouldn't say that's necessarily true.

0:03:39.960 --> 0:03:42.840
<v Speaker 3>Well, speaking of I'm wondering what your assessment is right

0:03:42.880 --> 0:03:45.960
<v Speaker 3>now of cooperation between six and the CIA. I know

0:03:46.000 --> 0:03:47.880
<v Speaker 3>when you were head of the agency you spent a

0:03:47.920 --> 0:03:49.520
<v Speaker 3>lot of time in Washington, you spent a lot of

0:03:49.520 --> 0:03:52.480
<v Speaker 3>time both at the in Langley and in the White House.

0:03:53.200 --> 0:03:57.000
<v Speaker 3>But is that cooperation as good as it used to be?

0:03:57.240 --> 0:04:01.000
<v Speaker 3>And does the CIA have a retention and recruiting problem

0:04:01.000 --> 0:04:01.480
<v Speaker 3>at the moment?

0:04:03.840 --> 0:04:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Well, the last of your questions first untold that CIA

0:04:07.240 --> 0:04:07.640
<v Speaker 1>does have.

0:04:07.600 --> 0:04:12.760
<v Speaker 4>A recruiting problem of remaining but that's maybe because there

0:04:12.880 --> 0:04:18.320
<v Speaker 4>has recently, I think rather shockingly been a purge of

0:04:18.480 --> 0:04:22.960
<v Speaker 4>senior officers on the basis of the degree of their loyalty.

0:04:23.520 --> 0:04:28.360
<v Speaker 4>Loyalty to Maga Republicanism. I mean, it shouldn't be a

0:04:28.400 --> 0:04:31.919
<v Speaker 4>party issue, but I think it's become so. And I

0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:36.760
<v Speaker 4>think the previous or departing DDA that's the head of

0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:39.839
<v Speaker 4>the operational bit of CIA. I think it's called Tom Silvester,

0:04:40.600 --> 0:04:45.640
<v Speaker 4>who should have finished his career in London, has been

0:04:46.480 --> 0:04:52.080
<v Speaker 4>denied the job and has retired because it wasn't absolutely

0:04:52.120 --> 0:04:55.400
<v Speaker 4>clear that he was a sort of uncritical Maga Republican supporter.

0:04:56.240 --> 0:05:01.320
<v Speaker 4>I find that very alarming, not good for the service

0:05:01.360 --> 0:05:05.560
<v Speaker 4>at all. I mean, the tradition in MI six is

0:05:05.600 --> 0:05:08.440
<v Speaker 4>that you work whatever the party is in government, that

0:05:08.560 --> 0:05:13.679
<v Speaker 4>you don't express a political opinion, and okay, you'll deny

0:05:13.760 --> 0:05:18.839
<v Speaker 4>that opportunity publicly to advertise your own views, but you know,

0:05:18.880 --> 0:05:23.600
<v Speaker 4>that's part of the discipline of being a national intelligence officer.

0:05:23.720 --> 0:05:28.360
<v Speaker 4>And I think CIA at the moment certainly seems to

0:05:28.400 --> 0:05:32.039
<v Speaker 4>have a problem. I guess that will pass because it

0:05:32.160 --> 0:05:36.520
<v Speaker 4>has a tradition of producing and training very capable field officers.

0:05:37.400 --> 0:05:40.239
<v Speaker 3>When you look at other intelligence agencies, including MI six,

0:05:40.680 --> 0:05:43.760
<v Speaker 3>at the moment, do they trust the CIA. Do they

0:05:43.800 --> 0:05:46.560
<v Speaker 3>trust sharing intelligence with the United States?

0:05:49.520 --> 0:05:51.479
<v Speaker 1>Yes, I think they do.

0:05:52.839 --> 0:05:57.240
<v Speaker 4>I would say that over time there have always been

0:05:57.360 --> 0:06:02.800
<v Speaker 4>issues of complexity in those sorts of relationship because there

0:06:02.839 --> 0:06:08.120
<v Speaker 4>can be divergence in political aims and there can be

0:06:08.240 --> 0:06:12.480
<v Speaker 4>problems which arise sometimes which are not publicized. I mean

0:06:12.560 --> 0:06:16.440
<v Speaker 4>during my time, although we were very very close to CIA,

0:06:17.200 --> 0:06:19.159
<v Speaker 4>I'm talking about nine to eleven, or let's.

0:06:18.960 --> 0:06:21.239
<v Speaker 1>Say the war in Afghani's not law in Iraq.

0:06:22.160 --> 0:06:24.719
<v Speaker 4>If you go back a step before that, there were

0:06:24.839 --> 0:06:30.160
<v Speaker 4>problems between the UK and the US over the conflict

0:06:30.160 --> 0:06:34.200
<v Speaker 4>in the Balkans. Where there's a product, differences and problems

0:06:34.240 --> 0:06:38.200
<v Speaker 4>arose which were more of a political nature. This isn't unknown,

0:06:38.279 --> 0:06:41.760
<v Speaker 4>but I mean I would have thought that both sides

0:06:41.800 --> 0:06:47.760
<v Speaker 4>will be trying to make the operation work. But sometimes

0:06:48.720 --> 0:06:51.599
<v Speaker 4>you have a view in the White House, or maybe

0:06:51.640 --> 0:06:55.640
<v Speaker 4>you have a viewer in Number ten Downing Street, which.

0:06:56.080 --> 0:06:57.280
<v Speaker 1>Can cause problems.

0:06:57.320 --> 0:07:02.440
<v Speaker 4>I mean, these relationships can be quite complicated, and you know, objective,

0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:05.480
<v Speaker 4>particularly short term ones, can diverge.

0:07:06.440 --> 0:07:08.760
<v Speaker 3>Would you still recommend a career in intelligence for a

0:07:08.800 --> 0:07:10.920
<v Speaker 3>young person, either in Washington or in London.

0:07:12.080 --> 0:07:13.160
<v Speaker 1>Yes, I think I would.

0:07:13.280 --> 0:07:16.560
<v Speaker 4>I mean if you're interested in geopolitics, if you're interested

0:07:16.560 --> 0:07:20.920
<v Speaker 4>in the state of the world, if you are cool headed,

0:07:22.440 --> 0:07:25.880
<v Speaker 4>if you like, if you feel at home in foreign

0:07:26.040 --> 0:07:31.240
<v Speaker 4>countries and you are comfortable in those sorts of environment,

0:07:31.880 --> 0:07:33.880
<v Speaker 4>that career can still offer a lot.

0:07:33.960 --> 0:07:37.480
<v Speaker 1>And I think maybe some of the current difficulties that

0:07:37.600 --> 0:07:38.920
<v Speaker 1>may have arisen.

0:07:38.520 --> 0:07:41.760
<v Speaker 4>Between Washington and London, I wouldn't write ever emphasize the

0:07:41.840 --> 0:07:44.080
<v Speaker 4>match in the relationship is still quite close on the

0:07:44.120 --> 0:07:47.880
<v Speaker 4>intelligence side. Probably you know these things come and go,

0:07:48.320 --> 0:07:51.560
<v Speaker 4>and I'm sure that you know that your present administration

0:07:51.720 --> 0:07:55.000
<v Speaker 4>in the US I think we regard as something of

0:07:55.080 --> 0:07:57.840
<v Speaker 4>an aberration, but there are still areas of cooperation wh

0:07:57.840 --> 0:07:58.960
<v Speaker 4>should hugely important.

0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:02.400
<v Speaker 3>Maybe I missed my calling. Although I do like to talk,

0:08:02.440 --> 0:08:08.120
<v Speaker 3>I'm not great at keeping secrets appreciating great thank you

0:08:08.160 --> 0:08:10.720
<v Speaker 3>all right, well maybe i'll circle back, sir Richard. It's

0:08:10.720 --> 0:08:11.400
<v Speaker 3>so nice to see you.

0:08:11.520 --> 0:08:12.200
<v Speaker 4>Thank you so much.

0:08:13.160 --> 0:08:16.480
<v Speaker 2>I don't know about that. I was trust everything said

0:08:16.560 --> 0:08:18.040
<v Speaker 2>until the end when he was like, you'd be very

0:08:18.080 --> 0:08:19.400
<v Speaker 2>good at the job. I'm not sure about that.

0:08:19.680 --> 0:08:20.600
<v Speaker 3>He's a very polite man.

0:08:20.640 --> 0:08:23.480
<v Speaker 2>Can you just let me have this, shrewd perspicacious you

0:08:23.560 --> 0:08:25.480
<v Speaker 2>have made a good spot. I would not have, mostly

0:08:25.520 --> 0:08:27.720
<v Speaker 2>because of all of the restrictions he was talking about.

0:08:27.960 --> 0:08:31.000
<v Speaker 2>I also like to talk, and I don't know, I

0:08:31.040 --> 0:08:31.320
<v Speaker 2>don't know.

0:08:31.480 --> 0:08:33.760
<v Speaker 3>I think the operations part of it are very similar

0:08:33.760 --> 0:08:35.439
<v Speaker 3>to journalism, right, you got to get people to trust you,

0:08:35.480 --> 0:08:37.160
<v Speaker 3>you got to get in the field. But the back

0:08:37.280 --> 0:08:38.640
<v Speaker 3>end where I want to tell everyone everything.

0:08:38.679 --> 0:08:40.880
<v Speaker 2>Whenever I watch like old spine movies or read old

0:08:40.920 --> 0:08:42.760
<v Speaker 2>spine novels, it seems like you had a level of,

0:08:42.920 --> 0:08:45.240
<v Speaker 2>you know, anonymity, You could cultivate a level of anonymity

0:08:45.360 --> 0:08:46.920
<v Speaker 2>or a different identa you can't really do now.

0:08:47.200 --> 0:08:50.280
<v Speaker 3>I do wonder how to be undercover. I was just traveling.

0:08:50.320 --> 0:08:53.200
<v Speaker 3>You know, everything is facial recognition now and everything is digital.

0:08:53.240 --> 0:08:54.959
<v Speaker 3>It's I don't know if it's easier or harder, but

0:08:55.880 --> 0:08:56.520
<v Speaker 3>he won't tell me.

0:08:56.760 --> 0:09:00.520
<v Speaker 2>Well sworn to secrecy. Very good conversation. Interesting thing about that,

0:09:01.600 --> 0:09:03.440
<v Speaker 2>how he said, you know, the relationship between the US

0:09:03.480 --> 0:09:06.520
<v Speaker 2>and the UK spy agents, you know, goes ups and downs.

0:09:06.559 --> 0:09:07.800
<v Speaker 2>I think he put it their cycles to it

0:09:07.920 --> 0:09:10.960
<v Speaker 3>Like the special relationship overall indeed pulling back for him