In physics and chemistry, there is an interesting concept about the beginning and ending of things.
Those properties or quantities whose values depend only on the starting point and ending point are called "State" functions. In physics, the concept of "work" is a state function. That is, you may climb a mountain any route imaginable, but it is only the height of the base camp and the summit that are taken into account into the calculation of "work". In a path function, the state of the system depends entirely on the way in which the effort was achieved. The process is everything.
I am coming to believe or understand that human interactions and endeavors are path functions. There seems to be some fundamental law of life which says that the ends do not justify the means. In fact, it seems that when we take actions for the sole purpose of achieving a particular end, that ending is somehow spoiled or tainted, or we find that it was not worth the damage we incurred to achieve it. This is counter-intuitive to the pragmatist, the manipulator, and the Machiavellian. But it seems to be true.
This thought has particularly struck me as I write this biography of a Dutch spy, unwrapping my notes, and stitching together memories and analyses. The ethicist in me sees the vast moral ambiguity and immorality of MIVD's actions, and the scientist in me sees the technologies that they deployed, and the tactics and procedures they used (or, in this case, misused) on Sjors and on me. The analyst in me sees that this type of behavior, though intended to achieve economic advantage and institutional security, has the grave potential to undermine both. The analyst in me disapproves of these methods not merely on the basis of their being unethical, but on the basis of their being ineffectual.
On the strategic level, consider that the current threats to national security come from asymmetric, non-state actors. Their detection and elimination is certainly dependent on technology, but it is increasingly important to have access, understanding and, ideally, shared objectives with well-positioned people or organizations. You can buy or manipulate your way into this access, but these types of purchased relationships are shaky and uncertain. what you want is a partner who will have your back even when you're not around to request it. This is the difference between intelligence operations and security force assistance. In the first case, you have a "source" whose motives are varied and possibly changeable. But in the second case, you risk to make genuine friendships and partnerships. You risk to be successful in building a lifelong, capable ally whose goals align with yours. They help you because they want to. Because it is the right thing for everyone. This is the difference between what Sjors was doing, and what I was doing.
On the operational level, I think about the MIVD team's misuse of their technology. They were, I believe, intending to block communication between Sjors and myself. They were trying to minimize risk and bring Sjors in line. Certainly it must have made sense to them at the time. But the way that they went about doing this was so wrong-headed and illegal, and it made them wildly vulnerable. I saw what they did. I recorded it. I filed a criminal complaint. Everything that they've done afterwards (the denial and sliming) has been to cover that fuck-up.
On the tactical level, I think about Sjors' lies to me. He was trained to lie. It was his job to lie. But his lies were intended to prevent me from acting - and they had the opposite effect. I loved him. I wanted to help and protect him. I saw his lies (how could I not?) and interpreted them as symptoms of coercion. And I deployed every weapon in my arsenal to help him.
I remember when I first learned that Sjors was married. I loved him so fiercely and the situation devastated me. I wanted so badly to be with him. I remember thinking that I would give up everything I had - happily give Sjors' wife all my earnings for the rest of my life if I could be with him. I would have given anything in the world to be with him. But I understood somehow that this was a path function. It was too important to me to do this wrongly. Sjors was so vulnerable and open to me at the time and there were so many things I could have said and done to manipulate the circumstance to my advantage. I could have pulled strings and pretended and feinted and punished to achieve my objective. But I chose not to. I was always open and honest. I wanted Sjors - but I wanted Sjors freely. Because he chose to be with me - not because I had manipulated to get what I wanted.
The other side did not play fair. MIVD manipulated and conned and coerced and threatened and rewarded. And he chose them.
I look back over my decisions and I know that, if I had done everything I was able to do, I would have lost something fundamental of my self. I might be with Sjors today. But the victory would be Pyrrhic. What would I have to offer him if I had lost my soul?
No comments:
Post a Comment