Weak vs strong

Weak vs strong
intelligence

The Bali blasts have been followed by much criticism of
Indonesia's intelligence capabilities. Recently, The Jakarta Post
published a number of articles, e.g. Controlling our intelligence
(Oct. 29, p. 6), which establish the tragedy as proof of the
country's weak intelligence agency. When reading enough of these
condemnations, one would think the security officials do so
little, they probably operate food stalls on the side because
they are so bored.

Although scapegoating is a natural phenomenon after such a
vicious and gratuitous act, it is important to place Indonesia's
intelligence body in perspective. If one is to qualify
Indonesia's intelligence agency as "weak", a comparison might be
necessary to determine just how weak.

Thus, let us compare with a "strong" intelligence agency, that
of the United States. The C.I.A. certainly has more financial
resources than Indonesia's agency, and, since the Cold War, has
been a leader for much of the international intelligence
community. Yet, for an agency that has access to more financial
resources, more technology, and solid ties to other effective
western spy agencies, it has unfortunately done no better. For if
it had, Sept. 11 would not be a date we so painfully remember.

If the U.S. was unable to prevent such a large-scale act of
terror, I strongly doubt other countries can effectively deal
with smaller scale, inconspicuous-thus-harder-to-detect,
terrorism.

I am sure that this country's intelligence agency acted in its
best capacity. And yes, maybe the government should review how to
increase this best capacity. However, I see little use in blaming
those who work to protect us from such atrocities. What about
condemning those who perpetrated this carnage? Preventing
terrorism is not only the responsibility of security officials;
everyone must be involved. We must teach our children about
tolerance, we should exemplify compassion, and we have to promote
multiculturalism.

MICHAEL KING
Balikpapan, East Kalimantan