A call for humility in national security ‘expertise’

‘Experts’ can help Canadians understand national security and public safety threats, but only if they are truly knowledgeable.

This contribution was published on The Hill Times on March 23, 2020

OTTAWA, CANADA — One thing I have tried to be consistent in since my retirement from a 32-year career in national security in this country is an honest assessment of what I know and what I can contribute to the national dialogue. Somewhat oddly, I have elected to remain active in commenting on these issues in the hopes that my perspectives are found useful to some (hence this column in The Hill Times). There are not many of us in Canada.

There are of course many things I cannot share even if I no longer have access to classified intelligence. Secret is secret after all: much of what I worked on has not been released more widely and I have a duty to protect sources and methods.

Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that I did work in counter terrorism for CSIS for 15 years and was part of a team that carried out hundreds of investigations, some of which eventually led to arrests (thanks to the RCMP, not CSIS), trials and convictions. I have been able to use that experience to write five books to date on terrorism.

I’d like to make a humble entreaty for humility. If you used to work for CSIS or an analogous agency, be honest with your audience. Do not embellish or exaggerate your deeds or your perspective. Do not speak to matters you really are not ‘expert’ in. Do not lie.

I thus believe that I do indeed have something of interest to say on terrorism, particularly when it comes to the threat here in Canada and, more narrowly, with respect to Islamist extremism (as opposed to far right terrorism). And yet I prefer not to be called an ‘expert’ for reasons I will return to.

CSIS has other investigative priorities aside from terrorism such as foreign espionage and foreign interference: the latter was the subject of a public release by the NSICOP recently. I did not work on either of those tasks, both of which are part of the CSIS mandate as per section 2 of its legislation (the CSIS Act). Hence, when approached to comment on these issues (by media, say) I make it clear that I am not the best person to ask. I will sometimes agree to go on air, but am careful not to sound authoritative.

Do not lie

Alas, some of my former colleagues seem to have no problem trying to come across on such threats eventhough, and I know this for a fact, they never worked these tasks. They should know better but appear not to. Don’t worry, I have no intention of naming them.

This is why I prefer not to be seen as an ‘expert’. The term has been so overused, especially in the post 9/11 era, as to be meaningless. There are so many pseudo experts out there now that we have entered a time where it is hard to figure out what to believe. I see this as dangerous.

This is irresponsible at a minimum. Canadians deserve to have the best advice available to them. Since CSIS and CSE rarely come out publicly to speak to us it often falls to others, formers and perhaps academics, to fill the void. These people have a valuable contribution to make, but only if it is truly informed by actual knowledge or experience. Many have neither.

The term ‘expert’ has been so overused, especially in the post 9/11 era, as to be meaningless. There are so many pseudo experts out there now that we have entered a time where it is hard to figure out what to believe.

I’d like to make a humble entreaty for humility. If you used to work for CSIS or an analogous agency be honest with your audience. Do not embellish or exaggerate your deeds or your perspective. Do not speak to matters you really are not ‘expert’ in. Do not lie.

At the same time there is also an onus on the media in this regard. Just because you have succeeded in getting a former spy to have a conversation with you do not assume that person is a know-all or has anything useful to add. Ask the person to elucidate what s/he did (there may be some hesitation, but there is no risk in admitting a focus on terrorism or espionage). Try to ensure that your ‘source’ is a reliable one.

That after all is how real intelligence agencies operate.