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