
Why the CIA Doesn't Spy on the UAE - Vaslo
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-emirates-spying-insight/why-the-cia-doesnt-spy-on-the-uae-idUSKCN1VG0V3
======
parsimo2010
First- there is absolutely no way for a civilian reporter and civilian readers
to know if this article is even true. The CIA doesn't make a practice of
verifying where they are/aren't collecting intelligence around the world, for
obvious reasons. If the CIA did collect HUMINT on the UAE they would be very
careful about it- they don't want to damage the relationship we have with one
of the few countries that lets the USA operate _armed_ jets on regular
missions (many countries allow the USA to base jets, but restrict taking off
with weapons or other inconvenient things to the military).

Second, if the CIA actually doesn't collect HUMINT in the UAE, it's not
because we think they are unimpeachable in their conduct. It's because we
don't need to put people at risk to get the information we need. By themselves
the UAE isn't capable of very much. The UAE's power comes from money and they
conduct their business out in the open. The intelligence community gets all
the information they need by watching bank transactions and that leads them to
the people they really need to spy on.

The UAE is different from Iran, which not only funds malign groups but
actually trains and commands its own network. Iran's money and people need to
be watched, but the UAE doesn't get its hands dirty, so we only need to watch
their money.

Edit: rather than fix all my grammar, when I say "we" I mean the USA as a
nation, not that I'm some CIA agent with spare time to comment on HN.

~~~
lucas_membrane
> there is absolutely no way for a civilian reporter and civilian readers to
> know if this article is even true

This is a Reuters article. Reuters has been a respected news agency for a very
long time. Back during World War I, the British government asked Reuters to
slip covert British government propaganda into their news stream. Reuters
responded with a clear refusal to do any such thing without equally covert
monetary inducement.

~~~
parsimo2010
I’m not questioning Reuters’ journalistic integrity. Even if they do
everything right we can’t be sure if the story is true. Their reputable
sources are ex-CIA, so they are out of the loop. Any active CIA persons with
knowledge of operations in the Middle East are not going to be talking to
journalists. Everyone involved in intelligence collection has signed NDAs and
can go to jail if they reveal classified information, even after they retire.
How many people are willing to risk jail for revealing an intelligence gap?
What are the chances that these sources are just guessing or lying instead?

The people talking to journalists after they leave the CIA are looking to
profit somehow, or they are disloyal or incompetent (or some combination of
the above). They may also be good patriots spreading disinformation on behalf
of the CIA.

None of the above scenarios are Reuters’ fault for publishing a story with
multiple sources that were willing to go on the record. But that doesn’t mean
we should doubt the truth of the sources. Why is this story being published?
Who stands to benefit?

------
duxup
I'm kinda skeptical.

Also the article gets a bit more specific later:

>But the CIA does not gather “human intelligence” - the most valuable and
difficult-to-obtain information - from UAE informants on its autocratic
government, the three former CIA officials told Reuters.

Maybe they just don't have any valuable contacts ... at this time? Maybe
everyone's phone is bugged and they don't need them?

I assume intelligence gathering involves a lot of shifting focuses and just
random chance depending on any number of things. I'm not sure I buy into this
article's premise that "doesn't spy".

~~~
awalton
Agreed. Piece reads like a CIA insider wanting funding for a pet project,
designed to be put in front of the eyes of the public as a way to goad the
members of the intelligence committees in congress to act.

~~~
duxup
I feel like this could be any number of things, but ultimately it is a story
with a wonky title that IMO implies a great deal more than the information
does, one source, and who knows what else.

------
briandear
> Robert Baer, a former CIA agent and author, called the lack of human
> intelligence on the UAE “a failure” when told about it by Reuters.

I would take any statements by Baer with an enormous bag of salt. He has built
his post agency career on the Vanity-Fair-ization of CIA. He doesn’t get much
attention or sell as many books when the Agency is doing things right.

Regarding a lack of HUMIT in the UAE, I am reminded of a quote from the Usual
Suspects: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world
he didn’t exist.”

~~~
the_watcher
Exactly the same quote came to mind when I read the headline, and kept getting
louder throughout the article.

------
NikolaeVarius
I'm surprised that electronic intelligence gathering isn't considered spying.
The article correlates spying == human intelligence gathering.

~~~
parsimo2010
There's some background necessary to understand the article. Each of the big
five intelligence agencies has a special type of intelligence they collect.
They generally don't overlap to prevent duplicated effort, wasted money, and
unhealthy competition. The CIA specializes in HUMINT, while the NSA
specializes in SIGINT. So the article saying, the _CIA_ doesn't spy on the UAE
should be read as the US government doesn't collect HUMINT in the UAE, instead
of reading that the US government doesn't collect any intelligence in the UAE.

~~~
thrwwaycit8348
>Each of the big five intelligence agencies has a special type of intelligence
they collect.

What are the other 3, and what is the special type they collect? I can only
just think of the military and FBI, where the FBI does federal law enforcement
(crimes by Americans or on American territory that crosses state lines.) What
were the 5 you had in mind? (Just based on public sources, not anything
classified if you read it, even if you read it off of wikileaks or something.)
Curious.

~~~
parsimo2010
The big five are the CIA, NSA, NRO, NGA, and DIA. You can start here as a
branching off point:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Com...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community)

Each agency's specialty isn't always a type of intelligence, but sometimes a
domain (for lack of a better word).

CIA- HUMINT

NSA- SIGINT

NRO- space domain (shares with relevant agencies, i.e. SIGINT collected in
space is shared with the NSA)

NGA- GEOINT (significant presence in space as well)

DIA- military domain (involved when the intelligence is militarily relevant)

That's a very broad overview. The intelligence community is larger than the
big five, and there are probably very few people who understand the
relationship between which agency should do something vs. which agency
actually does that thing.

~~~
thrwwaycit8348
Thanks! Literally never heard of the other 3 you mentioned. Guess they don't
get much press!!

------
tyingq
Maybe Mossad shares enough that direct US spying isn't necessary.

~~~
dd36
That’s dangerous.

~~~
jandrese
Nobody gets into the Intelligence business because it's safe and easy.

~~~
dredmorbius
I came here for the waters.

~~~
jacquesm
Excellent movie.

------
coldtea
> _The CIA’s hands-off practice - which hasn’t been previously reported in the
> media - puts the UAE on an extremely short list of other countries where the
> agency takes a similar approach, former intelligence officials said. They
> include the four other members of an intelligence coalition called “The Five
> Eyes”: Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada._

Yeah, I call BS on this. There's no way the US doesn't spy on those four (or
UAE for that matter).

------
bsenftner
The shift away from fossil fuels is a significant economic power shuffle. How
the middle east's wealth reinvests is a huge question. I am surprised we are
not in the middle of a Global Spy Agency Renaissance.

~~~
GhettoMaestro
> I am surprised we are not in the middle of a Global Spy Agency Renaissance.

What makes you think we aren't? I suspect every intelligence agency views the
Internet as a god-send. Much cheaper to watch people now than deploying shifts
of teams to follow someone to determine _if_ they are worth something.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Basically, all the big HUMINT questions such as who is this person connected
to, who does this person listen to, what does this person consider important,
and what skills does this person have can pretty much be answered by looking
at their Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn profiles.

------
fmajid
The UAE is a pretty ruthless police state. Perhaps it's just that the CIA
assessed the risk as too high.

------
eulo08
the CIA spies on everyone and yes that includes the UAE, they have never cared
about mass-surveillance and never will. Whistleblowers or not.

------
whatshisface
"I'm not spying."

\- Every Spy

~~~
aalleavitch
I am but a simple tailor

~~~
lowestprimate
I am just a cook. Just a lowly lowly cook.

~~~
SeanLuke
In fairness, neither of these guys was, at the time, spying.

------
somesortofsystm
The truly tragic thing is, if we just had better means of communicating with
each other at a human level, we wouldn't need all this manipulation. Alas, the
CIA interferes in things rather deliberately to undermine and usurp, where a
concerted effort may allow a bigger-picture consensus to form.

I firmly believe that if we spent 25% of what the USA spends on its military
every year instead on cultural interchange, education and language programs,
nobody would be needing to invade anyone. It is the back-room corruption -
i.e. _ALL SECRECY_ and the means by which it is maintained - which is at the
core of it.

Shut the CIA, and build more schools.

~~~
tenebrisalietum
Spies are needed because humans engage in war. You can't eliminate war without
eliminating or subjugating humankind's A) competitive nature and B) very
basic, primitive instinct to engage in tribalism and defend ones own tribe
against others.

I like what Sun Tzu says about it.

"Sun Tzu said: Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and marching them
great distances entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources
of the State. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of
silver. There will be commotion at home and abroad, and men will drop down
exhausted on the highways. As many as seven hundred thousand families will be
impeded in their labor.

Hostile armies may face each other for years, striving for the victory which
is decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the
enemy's condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of
silver in honors and emoluments, is the height of inhumanity.

One who acts thus is no leader of men, no present help to his sovereign, no
master of victory.

Thus, what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and
conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is
foreknowledge.

Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained
inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation.

Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.

Hence the use of spies..."

