I suspect even the most exotically-trained black ops agents still have to spend a fair amount of time doing paperwork. You never see James Bond filling out paperwork.
You don’t know how many forms you have to fill out in order to be granted a license to kill.
“Traditional Cultures” have also turned that on CIA (and other agencys of “liberated” nations) by acting in the expected way, and burning that agent (and half her entourage). Happened in Ghana once.
I read a book by a Pakistani ISI officer. From what I could gather.
*The only ones whi resembled James Bond even remotly were paramilitary types, who were often NOT Intelligence officers, but armymen (serving or retired) who were seconded to the agency
*In response to an earlier post about “obvious” CIA men, I did read in said book, that the ISI had a policy in overseas embassies that their would be one staffer who would be the one person who “everyone would know” was the head of station, so nobody would ever suspect the actual head. I don’t know if the CIA follows that?
Wiki has a list of post Cold War spies (all of whom have been authenticated as such either by themselves or others). If you look at the photos of the people, most look physically fit and in-shape. I’m sure self defense is a basic part of the training of course, but I’m also guessing they’d more likely use a gun than mixed martial arts.
Michael Weston- were he real- would I suspect be a member of a very elite and special-ops subdivision of spies. I’m also guessing he was probably more of an assassin and demolition specialist than an information gatherer. (The technical advisor and supposed basis for the show was a man who claims to have been a burn listed spy, though I don’t know how valid this is.)
One of the most common false identities for Soviet spies living in America during the Cold War, incidentally, was- understandably- photographers. It was completely believable and not at all suspicious that they could self employ, lead a middle class lifestyle, people come and go from photography studios all the time so nobody bats a brow, and it was perfectly natural for them to carry cameras in their car. (Most, like Rudolf Abel, spoke with no Russian accent, though they may develop a Swedish or Italian one to cover a “not quite American” accent.)
At the Spy Museum in D.C. it’s said that the most common guise for a spy today is as a homeless person. This is brilliant in its simplicity when you think of it: you see them everywhere but at the same time you don’t see them since most people try to avoid eye contact, especially if they’re obviously demented. They also said D.C. has more spies than any city on Earth, and of course you see homeless people everywhere you go.
So if the homeless man or woman on the corner who asks you for some change as you’re walking down Embassy Row seems to have really oddly well developed biceps and good shoes, might wanna cough up some quarters. But don’t make eye contact.
Sampiro writes:
> They also said D.C. has more spies than any city on Earth, and of course you
> see homeless people everywhere you go.
That’s clever, but the fact is that D.C. has no more homeless people than any random big city, and I’ve never seen a homeless person who looked like they were in great physical shape.
Do you have a link?
Thanks.
There’s another thing: Sex. If I were a Bond-type spy, I would make it a rule to stay celibate while on a mission (unless my mission objective were to turn a well-placed woman into an asset by seducing her). Think about it: Any woman you hook up with might be an enemy agent who’s planning to kill you as soon as she gets you alone. If she’s not, she’s a civilian, and you’re needlessly putting her in danger just by having her around.
It was on the DVD commentary so unfortunately not. However, he goes by Michael J. Wilson in the credits (as a producer) so he’s probably google-able.
No, neither have I and neither have most people, hence the “if they have well defined muscles, they’re probably a badass spy rather than a homeless person”.
Turns out that I once knew a spy. Just before he passed away he mentioned some of the work he did.
He said most spies were like him…quiet and not noticed. He was educated as an engineer and graduated with honors. He was hired by a government of interest to be an engineer. Before he left he was approached by our government and asked if he’d like to make a little extra money.
How?
Take a little course on how and what to observe.
When he moved to the country of interest he was a full time engineer. He just kept his eyes and ears open. When he observed something of interest he’d relay it.
Pretty mundane, really.
Not to mention there’s the risk of leaving a growing quantity your DNA (or half of it) behind, if you see what I mean.
“Beware of pretty faces that you find/
A pretty face can hide an evil mind…”
One of the voiceovers on Burn Notice I thought was interesting and probably true was when he mentioned that seduction of a man by an attractive woman is more difficult and less effective than you might think. Among other problems:
1- While all men have some ego, most men with any secrets are going to be suspicious if a woman 20 years younger and way more attractive than them is coming onto them
2- It’s possible that the woman is gorgeous and effective but not his type (or that he’s gay/happily married/drunk/impotent/whatever)
3- The entire purpose of the ‘seduction’ is to get him alone in his room away from other people where any number of things can go wrong
So it’s probably not used that often.
Washington D.C. is also of a lot more interest for spies than the vast majority of other cities. I know for an absolute fact that the Secret Service often poses as homeless people and they have the homeless “uniform” and everything else it takes to make them look genuine. They are spies of sorts so I suppose other agencies wouldn’t have much of a problem pulling it off. Secret Service agents on presidential detail tend to be pretty big badasses or they wouldn’t have been chosen for the role in the first place. They are also armed.
I always assumed it was an alias, maybe even used by multiple agents (he’s played by different people in different films). Of course, I haven’t watched many Bond films, and the ones I have were a long time ago.
I’ve been interviewed by spooks for a spook job, many years ago. From that, albeit limited, experience some of them are badasses in the sense that they are quite adept at manipulation, some of them are strikingly attractive in looks and personality, but most seemed like average Joes/Janes, although intelligent.
My point wasn’t that it’s impossible that homeless people could be spies. Some of them who I’ve passed at some point may well have been spies, just as, for instance, some of the drivers of the taxis who passed me at some point may well have been spies. My point is that there is no particular abundance of homeless people in D.C. and I don’t recall any of them looking in good shape. If you come to D.C. on your next vacation and go around saying, “Ooh, I bet that homeless guy is probably a spy,” you may be indulging your fantasies, but you’re not really discovering anything interesting.
Actually “honeytraps” were quite popular with KGB, albeit often suffering from not only the problems listed above but also the fact that the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies cottoned onto this method and often either used it to subvert the agent (placing her in a compromising position) or tacitly allowing employees to have affairs with known ‘swallows’ as long as they were reported. There are stories–likely somewhat exaggerated–of CIA employees putting up pictures of their one-night stands with East Bloc honeytraps as a sort of bragging rights.
While the US and Britain no doubt indulged in this to some extent as well, a more effective tactic was to identify Soviet officials and agents who covertly swung left-wise, and bait them with the appropriate lure, then entrap them with damning evidence of homosexual relations that would (regardless of any actual security compromise or espionage activity) condemn the target to gulag or execution if he returned. Because of the reflexive institutional aversion to homosexuality, the Soviets and other East Bloc nations were never able to effectively use this tactic in the West except by happenstance of finding a target already engaging in said relations, while the Western intelligence agencies were at least able to engage in some sort of cognitive dissonance about employing homosexual agents. There are rumors that the British SIS even had a special operational branch and ‘school’ for recruiting and training homosexual honeypots. (Insert Double-Oh joke here.)
Seduction alone as a method of turning someone or obtaining information may not be terribly effective, but combined with blackmail, extortion, or preying on insecurities can be a highly effective tool in compromising a valuable intelligence source.
As for the question of the o.p., I doubt there are any agents as, eh-um, as flamboyant as Ian Fleming’s literary concoction, a fact Fleming himself was well aware; he exaggerated the martial and sexual prowess to create the sort of fictional spy that would make real operatives jealous, and therefore appeal to the broad market of adventure readers in the same way that Leslie Charteris’ Simon Templar and the later Jason Bourne and Dirk Pitt (ugh!) stories would. Real agents operate more like those portrayed by John Le Carre or Graham Greene, and often with about as much effectiveness.
Although the previously cited Legacy of Ashes is short on references and gets a few of its verifiable facts twisted, it appears to be a largely correct analysis of the history and effectiveness of the Central Intelligence Agency, and espionage agencies in general. (One can get a good view of the ‘other side’ by reading Solzhenhitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, where he shows the SMERt’ SHpionam (portrayed by Fleming as the Russian SMERSH counterintelligence bureau, a counterpart to the Double-Oh Section) were actually a bunch of bumbling toadies whose chief objective was to collect their quota of ‘spies’ (i.e. anyone accused, on any grounds or often none of all, of spying or betrayal of the Revolution) and steal as much valuables as possible.
Stranger
John le Carré’s ‘Smiley’ novels starting with The Spy who came in from the Cold are pretty accurate because he was in the Service and Smiley is based very much on a well-known ‘character’ there. There was a TV series Callan Callan (TV series) - Wikipedia that probably gave the truth of the matter as sleazy and sordid with as much danger from one’s own side as the other. The other side of spying is communications eavesdropping and by all accounts that is really boring.
The KGB used prostitutes for blackmail but it didn’t always work because they made the mistake Americans often do of forgetting that other people look at things differently. There’s a story that they filmed President Sukarno of Indonesia (the one before Suharno) with a couple of prostitutes while he was over for negations and told him to do what he was told or they’d find ways to get the pictures round the region. All he told them was that if his people and enemies ever saw what a stud he was at his age he’d be set for life!
Quote from Fleming: “[Bond’s] just a piece of nonsense I dreamed up. He’s not a Sidney Reilly, you know.”