Is CNN's new spy show telling you the truth?
By: Rachel Marsden
CNN has launched a new television series titled "Declassified: Untold Stories 
of American Spies." The program, hosted and produced by former U.S. House 
Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, is advertised as "revealing the 
unbelievable true stories of America's covert operations in the United States 
and around the world."
In case you think that the CIA is stripping down to its operational skivvies for 
your viewing pleasure, it's worth noting how difficult the agency typically 
makes such a thing. CIA officials are obligated to have everything they write 
vetted by the agency's Publications Review Board prior to publication, 
particularly if it deals with operational history.
It would be tempting to think that the word "declassified" implies whole truth. 
It doesn't. Good tradecraft methodology transcends time, and operational secrets 
aren't going to be revealed to the public -- and to potential enemies -- for the 
sake of entertainment.
Bad tradecraft often won't be acknowledged, as with the case where French 
counterintelligence busted a CIA economic espionage operation that resulted in a 
roll-up of the Paris station in the mid-1990s. Just try to get the agency to 
formally admit today that the operation involved spying in-country on a supposed 
European ally.
Which raises the question: How much of a show about declassified intelligence 
should be taken at face value, particularly in light of how carefully the CIA 
guards its operational history?
Let's examine the episode about Martha "Marti" Peterson, the first CIA case 
officer to be posted to Moscow -- the hardest and most critical CIA target, 
particularly during the height of the Cold War -- less than a year after 
completing her initial training. About 18 months later, she was busted by KGB 
counterintelligence during a dead drop. Her asset, a Soviet Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs diplomat who had previously been flipped, purportedly killed himself 
after being caught by popping a CIA-supplied poison pill.
The whole story raises far more questions than the show answers. Why was someone 
so green posted to Moscow, a destination typically reserved for the most 
experienced officers? And why is Peterson described as a "deep cover" operative 
despite photographs of her partying at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in 1977? A 
deep cover operative doesn't go anywhere near an embassy, let alone appear in 
photographs with Moscow station officers. Was the inexperienced Peterson used as 
a distraction to lure the KGB away from a more critical operation that has never 
been revealed?
Another "Declassified" episode proclaims Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former 
al-Qaida leader in Iraq who died in 2006, to be the "godfather of the Islamic 
State." It's a nice fairy tale, but the godfather of ISIS isn't a guy who died 
about seven years before ISIS morphed into its current incarnation around April 
2013, and whose jihadist movement had been quashed. If ISIS has parents, it 
would be the organization's Saudi Arabian and Qatari funders, its CIA trainers 
and its Turkish operational-staging hosts. And if any single Islamic figure 
could be identified as the modern leader of ISIS, it would be Abu Bakr 
al-Baghdadi, to whom jihadists have routinely pledged allegiance. Would it be 
too much to ask for some legitimate insight into the rise of the actual ISIS 
leader?
Indeed, it likely is too much to ask.
I routinely interview current and former frontline intelligence operatives for 
my current-affairs programs, and there are generally two types who are willing 
to talk on-air. The first are those whose statements and positions are nuanced, 
analytical and balanced. They seem more interested in deciphering the "ground 
truth" of any given situation rather than promoting a particular position. The 
second are the "true believer" types intent on ramming through obvious U.S. 
foreign policy talking points. Their performances are never convincing. You 
wonder whether they really believe what they're saying, or if they're simply 
hell-bent on peddling what they know to be propaganda and disinformation.
Intelligence work is a critical component of a hybrid war that involves both 
information collection and subversion. Influencing the course of action of a 
target is perhaps the most significant aspect of espionage. In some cases, that 
target may even be you. It's something to keep in mind whenever spies set out to 
entertain you.
COPYRIGHT 2016 RACHEL MARSDEN