I see that the numbers game is back in vogue. The CIA's Ratcliffe is ramping up efforts to recruit human sources because the number of recruitments by the CIA since 2019 is down more than ten percent. That's double digits, by golly! The actual numbers are highly classified, we are told, so I will make a wild guess; 11,452 in 2019 (I hope no one actually keeps such statistics). What, exactly, does that figure, real or imagined, tell me? Did the CIA recruit a member of Putin's inner circle or Xi's central committee? Don't know. Or perhaps six young Brazilians to form a surveillance team? More likely, but I still don't know. By itself, such a statistic has no importance, but someone on Ratcliffe's staff, it seems, is peddling that story. Rank amateurism., ever so disturbingly present throughout the Trump administration.
Many years ago, as my meeting with a KGB officer was wrapping up, I asked the young man which parts of the world he and his colleagues preferred to be assigned. Some, he said, favored the U.S. and Western Europe because of the quality and quantity of consumer goods available. True, recruitments were hard to come by, but the good stuff an officer could bring home with him--in judicious quantities, of course--was highly important. Blue jeans were prized in those days. Other officers preferred less developed countries, such as those in Africa. Not much to buy, but all you had to do was lay down a trail of dollars and recruits would follow. Or so he believed. Today's Russian spies probably are motivated more by numbers of recruits than pairs of jeans, just like their CIA counterparts. It's still a numbers game.
I see that the numbers game is back in vogue. The CIA's Ratcliffe is ramping up efforts to recruit human sources because the number of recruitments by the CIA since 2019 is down more than ten percent. That's double digits, by golly! The actual numbers are highly classified, we are told, so I will make a wild guess; 11,452 in 2019 (I hope no one actually keeps such statistics). What, exactly, does that figure, real or imagined, tell me? Did the CIA recruit a member of Putin's inner circle or Xi's central committee? Don't know. Or perhaps six young Brazilians to form a surveillance team? More likely, but I still don't know. By itself, such a statistic has no importance, but someone on Ratcliffe's staff, it seems, is peddling that story. Rank amateurism., ever so disturbingly present throughout the Trump administration.
Many years ago, as my meeting with a KGB officer was wrapping up, I asked the young man which parts of the world he and his colleagues preferred to be assigned. Some, he said, favored the U.S. and Western Europe because of the quality and quantity of consumer goods available. True, recruitments were hard to come by, but the good stuff an officer could bring home with him--in judicious quantities, of course--was highly important. Blue jeans were prized in those days. Other officers preferred less developed countries, such as those in Africa. Not much to buy, but all you had to do was lay down a trail of dollars and recruits would follow. Or so he believed. Today's Russian spies probably are motivated more by numbers of recruits than pairs of jeans, just like their CIA counterparts. It's still a numbers game.