Do MI6 have a policy regarding Afghanistan and Iraq independent of government policy?

Craig, what are you thinking of?

What has his new income from Havard got to do with anything?

I think you underestimate the good someone like Iain can do. He’s not just “harmless”, although that’s a good quality for any politician to have.

Interesting that Mr Stewart is lying to his selectorate. That’s just not decent.

Interesting comment on Rory Stewart. About a year ago I met a high ranking ex-SAS officer and brought up Rory Stewart’s name as someone with an interesting perspective on Iraq and Afghanistan. The ex-officer was absolutely dismissive, making the bald retort, “he’s a spook”. I was taken aback and somewhat disbelieving but your post confirms my acquaintances comment.

corelad

Your acquaintance was right. Let me confirm I am speaking from certain knowledge and not speculating. He is MI6.

Brian

you know jolly well that different governments have their own interests and agendas. The spooks especially. To pretend otherwise is silly.

Plato

I think you can expect genuine human rights enthusiasts like me to be legitimately sickened by the appointment of Stewart to head Harvard’s human rights unit – from the service that brought torture back into British public policy.

But Craig, isn’t that a Private-Eye-esque “guilt by association” attack? Unless you have evidence that Stewart was somehow complicit in torture, then MI6′s alleged use of it is irrelevant in him being given the job at Harvard.

I am not supporting Stewart, but it is unreasonable to damn someone for what their organisation may have done when they were a member. You were, as an ambassador, employed by the FCO until 2005 or so but it would be wrong for me to hold you responsible for British policy towards Iraq in 2002/03.

If you have reasons that he personally shouldn’t hold the Harvard post, then I’d be interested to hear them, but the case you make in your reply to Plato is, I think, weak.

Morus -0

Well, except that I left the FCO in protest against these policies and I outed them. Stewart has not done so, and worked for the occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I’m surprised to hear that about Rory Stewart. His book “Occupational Hazards” didnt give me the impression he was a neo-con and the couple of articles i’ve read by him on Afghanistan and Iraq, while i didn’t agree with them entirely, seemed a lot more reasonable than the Bush or Blair approach. I could be wrong though.

As for Iain Dale, he seems to have no knowledge whatsoever of what Conservative or Labour policies in government have been, no new ideas and nothing of any real importance to say. He’s one of the most boring ‘political commentators’ alive and I don’t understand why anyone would bother to read his blog much less give him any airtime on the BBC or anywhere else (though i suppose the BBC is just a mouthpiece for the two main parties, as its purging over daring to report Kelly, a globally acknowledged expert on WMD, trashing the propaganda line on Iraq, shows. The empty justification was that Gilligan didn’t quote Kelly’s exact words – even though he didn’t change the meaning of what Kelly said at all)

“Three years ago I received a message from the FCO asking me not to mention this as, at that time, Stewart was still very active for MI6 in Afghanistan and his life could have been endangered. I agreed, and even removed a reference from my blog.”

Are you therefore partly responsible for this Labour government’s recent controversial amendment to the Terrorism Act 2000, which also applies to *former* members of SIS / MI6 ?

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080028_en_9#pt7-pb3-l1g76

“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc

(1) A person commits an offence who?”

(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been?”

(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,

(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or

(iii) a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) publishes or communicates any such information.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.”

Watching Them, Watching US,

No, I think they thought that one up all by themselves.

Craig – thanks for the response.

That was sort of my point thought – you were at the FCO during the Iraq War, but left afterwards and now campaign against it.

On your account, Stewart was a member of an organisation which may have engaged in human rights abuses, but left and now works for a Human Rights organisation.

You have chosen to be very open in your repudiation of your previous employer’s conduct – I imagine the bond of secrecy imposed when leaving the Secret Service does not permit him the same licence.

It may be your view that, if the Iraq War (involving killing many civilians etc) was itself an abuse of human rights, then anyone (like Stewart) who supports it is unsuitable for the job.

I disagree (plenty of people who cared about human rights supported Iraq whilst recognising Blair and Bush were not acting virtuously, but wanted Saddam gone at all costs), but can accept that point of view.

However, that is very different to the case you made in your comment – that he was unsuitable because he had worked for MI6, which may have done wrong.

If Stewart is unsuitable for that job for some personal reason, I’d be open to hearing your take on it, but I’d want to be clearer on your reasons, and I’m loathe to accept it simply because he either worked for an organisation where people did bad things (which of us could survive that test) or because he supported the Iraq War (I’m assuming there’s at least some nuance as to why he did).

Is that fair?

Best,

Morus

Out of interest, do you also disagree with the policy preventing the disclosure of present, former and even dead members of the special forces?

Morus,

I didn’t leave after I left during, which is different. Amd I did everything I could internally to expose the excesses of the War on Terror – Stewart did not. He was not working quietly in Belguim or somewhere, but in Afghanistan. If you knew what MI6 are complicit in in Baghram your hairs would stand.

S

I don’t think you should lightly “out” people engaged in covert activity, for a number of reasons. But when they seek to engage in the political process without telling the truth about their backgrounds, that is a different thing.

I don’t quite see why the fuss. Everybody knows that Paddy Ashdown is ex MI6.

Craig old son..have’nt you just broken the Official Secrets Act ?

Think it is quite fair for Rory Stewart’s background to be revealed if he wants to run for public office – at the very least, it seems obvious voters should know whether he is still in the pay of MI6.

But interesting news nonetheless – whilst I enjoyed “The Places in Between”, the idea that Stewart suddenly developed a passion for Central Asian archeology and set up a foundation in Kabul to this end seemed very fishy. So thank you for confirming my suspicions.

Oh come on Craig, you’re just jealous because he’s sexier, writes like an angel, and has a more interesting tale to tell than you.

alan,

i accept the sexier. For the rest, have you actually read both his books and both my books?

So you don’t want the military or intelligence officers involved in Iraq or Afghanistan. So what exactly would you do to deal with militant Islamists who perhaps don’t have as many qualms about operating across borders.

You have made it pretty clear what you consider unaccdeptable – but perhaps you should give a little more thought as to what are legitimate ways of dealing with the problem – or perhaps you don’t believe that there is any problem?

Funnily enough, I have. Well actually both of yours and one of his. And I enjoyed all three. But he’s hardly a foaming, swivel-eyed loon. A bit odd, perhaps. But more Thesiger than Cheney.

Craig – I respect your decision and reasons to out him. However I think your characterisation of him as a neo-con is to misrepresent his position – I’m currently taking his class on ‘war, states and intervention’ at harvard and have found his approach challenging and deeply sceptical of the Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just watch him giving evidence on capital hill. He is one of the sharpest thinkers of his generation and (even if I disagree with him on much, and he’s a tory) he would be a great asset to parliament.

Will,

He appears to me to support both wars, but want them done differently. In particular, in Afghanistan he seems to want us to commit less western troops and to supply the warlords, principally Dostum and the Northern Alliance. Which is hardly compatible with an interest in human rights…

If you have a different impression of his views, genuinely interested to hear.

I have no objection to his standing for election. I just think he should be honest about who he is.

Stephen, I don’t think we should have attacked Iraq or invaded Afghanistan. I think we are creating terrorism as a result, not suppressing it.

But there was Islamic terrorism before we attacked Iraq or invaded Afghanistan – and whatever the impact of those actions on its level it still exists and has to be dealt with. You seem to want to rule out the use of intelligence to deal with the problem as well as military means – so what do you want to do instead.

I wouldn’t start from here doesn’t really answer anything.

Btw – I think Dale’s answer to the question on negative campaigning per the linked page should probably disqualify him on the grounds of honesty alone.

http://www.iaindale.net/questions

By posting this you are acting as a traitor to my country and show yourself to be a hindrance not a help to our national security and to individuals working for us.

You should be arrested and put somewhere where you can’t damage national security.

Idiot.

Jeannie Armstrong @3:32 pm

And Dick Cheney outed Valerie Plame as a serving CIA agent.

What would you like to do to him?

Stephen,

There were no really major incidents of Islamic terrorism in Western Europe before we invaded Iraq.

Of course there is a terrorist threat and of couse intelligence is important to countering it. Which is why it is a terrible shame that MI6 got into deliberately crediting false intelligence, and collusion with torture. The two being obviously linked.

Jeannie Armstrong

How precisely has national security been endangered?

As a former member of the Dip Service I am disgusted that you have done this. You know perfectly well that by outing a member of MI6 you endanger not the officer himself but the foreign nationals with whom he has worked in a variety of countries over the years. As someone who once served behind the Iron Curtain, I know how serious that can be.

So you agree intelligence is important to countering terrorism? So as well as the inappropriate activities that MI6 carry out which you detail – it follows logically that they may also be undertaking some legitimate ones?

If this is the case – then your naming of Stewart is pretty despicable I’m afraid. It isn’t fair to tar all MI6 officers with the same brush. My all means highlight proper evidence of wrongdoing – but this isn’t right.

Presumably, if Rory Stewart had been, in fact, as you claim, an MI6 operative, he would have made an undertaking not to go around blabbing about this – and would have been further restrained from doing so by the amendment to the 2000 Terrorism Act cited above?

In which case, isn’t what you are saying, in essence, this: ‘Don’t vote for Rory Stewart, because he keeps his promises and obeys the law of the land?’

Really, I’m warming to him more by the moment.

Barendina,

looking at your website, it seems that you are a bit of a cheerleader for Mr Stewart. In fact it seems a little more than cheerleading….

Phrases such as: “extravagant personal sacrifices…” and “no stranger to penitential hardship…” seem to over egg the pudding just a smidge.

Calm yourself… a little herbal tea might help.

Thank you Craig for this information. What do you think of the books written by Rory Stewart?

Oh Chris, I can’t decide whether I’m more bowled over by your daringly selective quotation or your bracingly patronising tone … but I’m pretty sure it isn’t your grasp of irony.

Caroline,

Yeah, and nobody would ever have suspected that the ex special forces man from the British Embassy was a spy before? Bollocks, and you know it.

He will have mey his contacts with the cover that he was a British diplomat – that is what they will say they knew.

Christ, some of the folks here – Jeannie in particular – need to emerge from mediaeval times. Comments like “traitor to my country” demonstrates how the default flag-waving culture of patriotism creates a thought-crime atmosphere that stifles people who – going against the grain – try to do the right thing.

It’s a shame, of course, that most people involved in this primary won’t get to hear of this important information, the media being what it is. Still, it’s not as if the electorate are in general keen to be much informed about candidates beliefs and principles – though I hope this gentleman’s support for our disgraceful war in Iraq at least is raised by the people involved in the election.

The same would go for Barendina, who I think implies that obeying the law of land is more important than operating to a decent moral code. Do these examples, I wonder, solidify the argument that people of a conservative persuasion are generally given to “authoritarian-type” personalities?

Barendina,

no irony intended and I didn’t regard the quotes as particularly selective, rather reflective of an article on your blog. How you wish to interpret my views is of precious little concern to me.

Could you address the charge that locals with whom Mr. Stewart had worked, in his capacity as an intelligence official, may be at risk? If their meetings were known but previously seen to be harmless, surely the disclosure of Stewart’s status now places them under suspicion? This is true whether or not local foreign office staff suspected that he was a spy, which is probably likely.

I have no doubt that your intentions are honorable and you are acting on the principled belief that a candidate for public office should be entirely honest about all aspects of his life. But I disagree that that principle ought to just trump the right of intelligence personnel to anonymity without a much more pressing interest, and I think that that’s for reasons beyond just “his life is at risk”.

Jon wrote “Comments like “traitor to my country” demonstrates how the default flag-waving culture of patriotism creates a thought-crime atmosphere that stifles people who – going against the grain – try to do the right thing.”

Exactly

do you know what neoconservatism is? doesn’t sound like it.

It is not uncommon for army officers to make a second career in the Dip Service. Over the years I worked with three such people, none of whom were MI6.

Intelligence services find it much harder than people suppose to tell the difference between another country’s diplomats and their spies. Tit for tat diplomatic expulsions often show how hilariously wrong they can be, when some hapless visa clerk is expelled whilst the Head of Station is left unscathed. A diplomat friend of mine in an Iron Curtain country was heavily targetted by local intelligence services who were convinced she was MI6 when she was not.

As for contacts of a known spy being able to get out of trouble by claiming they thought he was a diplomat – try telling that to the old KGB or Stasi.

JWX5xk I want to say – thank you for this!

Caroline, since you are posting here, it would be of great interest to know your thoughts on the wider question, either here or on the more recent “James Bond” thread (link supplied).

My wider question is this. The position Craig is taking, I think, is that it is not just of interest whether someone has worked for MI6 for reasons of abstract detail. It is of critical importance because of the disastrous, politicised role the UK intelligence services played in invading Iraq. I am not of the view that the US administration thought that Iraq/Saddam had WMD – I believe they were lying through their teeth, and there is some evidence that the political establishment here privately believed the same thing.

The distortions in the report appears to have cost over 1 million Iraqis their lives, and that there has not been (to my knowledge) any public resignations from the intelligence service speaks volumes. I see no reason why they could not have opposed the govt publically on this, or stuck up for Gilligan’s “45 minute claim” story that turned out in essence to be true.

It should therefore already be quite obvious to you why people opposed to neo-conservativism and militarism are angry with the degree to which the security services colluded with this deception. But your posts here don’t seem to be at all nuanced with this awareness – why is that?

If you are able to, an expansion on your views of the Iraq war in general may be illuminating.

There is of course a very long history of ‘ex’ (but are they really ever, ‘ex’?)-intelligence officers and associated assets moving into overt, democratic politics. Apart from Paddy Ashdown, it also has been alleged that Andrew Fulton, Margaret (‘Meta’) Ramsey and Pauline Neville-Jones were SIS officers, to name but three of the more prominent figures who hold or have held key positions of influence/ gatekeeping in major political parties and national institutions (eg. the BBC). This is concerning. Frankly, I am surprised that anyone would be at all surprised that a similar trajectory may apply in the case of Rory Stewart; to anyone with eyes and ears, it’s been rather obvious for some time. He’s an excellent writer, as many know, and on a personal level, even though it’s likely that if we got down to it, we would disagree on many things, particularly as regards imperialism, at the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, I have to say on a personal level that he has always been very decent, generous and affable to me. I know this has nothing to do with the geo-political angle and I think the matter which Craig has raised points to deeper issues in relation to the hard state, social control and British politics.

Craig,

We need to see the original letter you mentioned, otherwise this is not reliable.

Please post, post haste.

Jeremy

A few quotes from Rory in a rather interesting 2007 exchange with UK ambassador to Afghanistan – Sherard Cowper-Coles:

“[current policy] is an extravagance we will regret when we need to engage in other countries”

“We will have to reduce numbers to deal with new crises and do more globally with fewer troops.”

“We need a strategy, one which is smarter, more honest and more efficient with our resources; one which can be applied to Somalia, Sudan or anywhere else where trouble emerges.”

This is however leavened with a lot of common sense like:

“For 40 years, Afghans have witnessed international support roar from feast to famine, from high moral rhetoric to lowest cynicism; from billions of dollars to nothing and back. In the absence of a sustainable policy, we will flee again.”

http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/3028909