Counterintelligence Research Paper

Counterintelligence Present and Past

Michael Smith

American Military University

INTL410

Counterintelligence Present and Past

The ability to protect the nation’s vital secrets from the foreign enemies that intend harm is a vital necessity seen in the past as well as present. The ability to conduct espionage operations on an enemy allow for being able to counter any possible attacks or even gaining a upper hand in many arenas such as economically, technology or even preempt attacks or sabotage on US interests. The need for counterintelligence activities were seen early one especially in the creation of the US, to the present on the war on terror. Counterintelligence is defined as “the information gathered to protect against espionage, defend

against sabotage, assassinations or other intelligence collection operations by foreign intelligence services (FIS) or terror organizations” Counterintelligence is not only a tool to safe guard personnel and the secrets the nation retains that are vital to national security but also, is a tool that can affect how adversaries make their decisions.
Espionage and Counter-Espionage
The need for countering the ability of a Foreign Intelligence Service to penetrate into the US intelligence community and gain vital information was seen early on, and can be seen in the investigation conducted to defend from potential deception or defeating conspiracies as well as catching British spies. This led to the creation of Paul Reveres Mechanics. One of the first cases of espionage seen in the American Revolution came from the American intelligence agency, the mechanics by way of Doctor Benjamin Church, who was an agent for General Thomas Gage. Dr. Church was a British double agent as well as being credited to being one of the most influential spies in the American Revolution. The exact time when Dr. Church had begun spying is still unknown but thought ot have begun spying early as 1771, one of the biggest tells that led to his discovery as well as his downfall was the acquiring of money. Dr. Church had been financially burdened and had been seen living well beyond his means. That (and still is) a common indication of counterintelligence work being conducted. But General Gage was not the only person with spies on his payroll, Revere also had spies who concluded and confirmed that Gen. Gage had indeed gained a person on the inside of the mechanics who was providing necessary intelligence. One of the key issues at this point was the Reveres spy was able to confirm that there was a spy in the mechanics but could not provide a identity for this man. Though there were issues of mistrust, they still leery of Dr. Church especially after being detained by Gen. Gage and released after.
The espionage ability of a spy is good deal of skill, wits and most importantly luck, of which all three Dr. Church had begun to lead him down the path of being discovered. A letter wrote in cipher to his brother in Boston led to the subsequent end of his career as a spy. Church had a mistress attempt to deliver the letter that never was sent, but ended up falling into the hands of the colonial military. This led to the seizure of a woman that was Dr. Church’s mistress who subsequently told of the tale that he indeed was the spy within the mechanics. Though the letter was written in a cipher known as a monoalphabetic substitution, it was easily solved by cryptanalysts Rev. Samuel West and Elbridge Gerry. The letter was brought into question which led to Washington’s disbelief, and Dr. Church being found guilty of violating the 28th article of war.
Throughout the age of counterintelligence in the US, there have been many cases of espionage conducted by agents of FIS that bring into light the espionage operations during the cold war as well as the investigations to combat this. Though the cold war has long since been done, the effects of Russian spies can still be seen in the US. Multiple times since the fall of the soviet union and the end of the cold war there have been discoveries made of spy rings not only operating on the US Government but also in the intelligence agencies as well. One of these rings was one that was being observed by the FBI for over ten years. The staggering amount of suspects that were apprehended in one ring on June 27 2010 shows that espionage and classic methods of spy craft are still in use. 10 suspected spies were apprehended in in the course of a FBI counterintelligence investigation and resulted in the discovery of agents who had come to the US as early as the 1990’s, but most came to the US in 2009. Anna Chapman, Mikhail Semenko, Juan Lazaro and Vicky Pelaez, Michael Zottoli and Patricia Mills, Donald Heathfield and Tracey Foley, Richard and Cynthia Murphy and Christopher Metsos were all indicted for espionage. 9 of these suspects were intended to be deep cover agents to penetrate further and gather more intelligence, some provided with false aliases and even false family photos enough to make them be believable. They used radiograms as well as other forms of communication with Moscow and passed along intelligence not only from these means but also from dead drops and other clandestine methods of passing intelligence. The exact nature of intelligence that was passed is still unknown though the intelligence was known to be of value.
The ability to operate undetected for as many years as they were seen to have been operating came from their ability to maintain their cover and not straying too much or deviating from their established cover.

These agents were operating out of Boston, New York, and Washington D.C. and were under the FBI scrutiny for espionage after the FBI had received tips that a spy ring was operating in the US. The spy had provided the information to the FBI, the spy was Sergei Tretyakov a Russian SVR agent station in the Russian UN Mission in NY. Their intentions were still unclear but there was collections being conducted by the Russian SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) in the US still after the cold war had ended. Both of these cases from the American revolution to the recent cases of espionage being conducted show the ability for the spies to operate and with a simple slip up or a double agent being used (seen in both cases giving the tip of a spy) to gather intelligence is the advantage needed to maintain secrets. The espionage cases seen most recently as well have shown the US government and service personnel are usually first to volunteer

information.
Deception Operations
The ability to maintain and organize an intelligence organizations as well as have active counterintelligence operations against FIS who seek to disrupt the nation’s intelligence operations or even gain intelligence on these operations is imperative. In the offensive operations against the FIS by influencing their information flow, essentially distorting what they (adversarial decision makers) see in terms of the information yielded. Deception and denial operations are one of the best ways to make an opponent trip up and use the information flow with misguided information to ensure the enemy does not make the correct moves. We have seen this being implemented many times in the course of US CI history, especially during wartime. One of the most influential times was once again on the cold battlefields of the fledgling American nation. This came from General Washington ensuring that intelligence that was incorrect fell into the British hands so, that the colonial army numbers were misrepresented, and movements were misrepresented to ensure the British would make mistakes. The colonial couriers were able to carry false information as well as fall into enemy hands to ensure that the British made the necessary miscalculations. But not only did Gen. Washington misrepresent movement orders or troop strength through the documents that had fallen into the British hands but he had also established false military facilities to deceive the British on their strengths. Through these acts, Gen.Washington was able to make the brisith believe that his military element outside Philadelphia was constituted of 40,000 soldiers. Through that deception this allowed him to move his troops not only through Chesapeake Bay undetected but also to Yorktown that gained victory, simply by allowing the British to believe that they were headed to New York instead.
One of these key deception operations came from James Armistead a slave who had joined Lafayette, who took false intelligence across the lines to Cornwallis, under the guise as a runaway slave. The information contained in the message Armistead had passed to Cornwallis was fabricated troop orders to a fabricated element. That deception also led to the victory at Yorktown. James Armistead wasn’t the only one to also cross Cornwallis lines time give false intelligence, Charles Morgan also crossed the lines to give the intelligence to Cornwallis that Lafayette had enough ships to land on the shores with troops and as was planning an amphibious attack which cause Cornwallis to fortify himself and dig in opposed to leaving the area. Morgan had escaped from a stolen British uniform along with freeing a prisoner and taking 5 deserters with him.
The use of deception and false information did not stop here, but also played a historical case in WWII, with Operation Overlord and the allied Landing at Normandy.

The deception that took place and that was needed to ensure that the actual site for the landing was keep secret was using decoy military formations and General Patton’s “Inflatable Army” that was full of decoy military transports as well as inflatable tanks. These gave the Germans the false impression of a military that was amassed for an invasion from Pas de Calais, not only was the inflatable army used, but also the use of double agents and communications that were leading the Germans to believe the operation was to take place, this was done by locating the German network in Britain, through this network they were (allies) able to ensure that the Germans were being fed false information and also being able to know what the Germans assumptions were. By manipulating the information that flowed to the Germans as well as when the information was given, the allies were able to make the Germans do what they wanted to do, and manipulate them to mass their forces in the wrong area instead of the beaches of Normandy. Both of these deception operations show that through the right implementation and use of misinformation, luring your opponent into defeat is an ability that is necessary in some instances to maintain the element of surprise. The use of the false military strengths as well as using the fake military

fortifications and armies play into the enemies’ weaknesses and make them make more mistakes. Influencing an adversaries decision makers with misinformation can be a large advantage as has been seen. Knowing your enemies vulnerabilities is a key as well as ensuring that using ones strengths is a key in the use of offensive CI operations. Using penetrations as well into an enemy’s intelligence or secret operations agencies places a great advantage over them, without being discovered, the ability to know what they know as well as what they are receiving and how they implement that information is a key to a successful offensive CI operation. The same actions that have taken place in the past from many offensive operations are the same in the basic trade craft. Sun Tzu said it best when he said “all warfare is based upon deception” , the use of spies as well as double agents very well could result in victory. Using these techniques in peacetime could also determine what a potential enemies capabilities are as well affect what information they have.

References
"CI Reader Volume 1 Chapter 1." CI Reader Volume 1 Chapter 1.
Burton, Fred, and Ben West. "The Dismantling of a Suspected Russian Intelligence Operation." Stratfor. July 1, 2010. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100630_dismantling_suspected_russian_intelligence_operation#axzz3N8BmTMpJ.
FM 34-60, Counterintelligence, Headquarters Department of the Army,Washington, DC, 3 October 1995
K., Van Cleave Michelle. Counterintelligence and National Strategy. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 2007.
Joint Publication [JP] 1-02
Giles, Lionel. "SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR THE OLDEST MILITARY TREATISE IN THE WORLD Translated from the Chinese By LIONEL GILES, M.A. (1910)." Sun Tzu on the Art of War. May 1994. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/artofwar.htm