Another extension for the ISI Chief

Pasha was appointed DG ISI on promotion, had only a year-and-a-quarter before he was due to retire on age!

Let me state at the outset that I have never served in any intelligence organisation, in any capacity, at any time in my life. However, as a soldier who pretends to be able to think, I am fully conscious of the invaluable role that accurate intelligence plays in war and peace.

But we have another controversy to address; the current director-general (DG) of the ISI has been given another year’s extension and, while a few are supporting this move in the interest of ‘continuity’ during this critical period, others are opposing it as a bad precedent, implying that institutions, not individuals, should be considered paramount. While I am vehemently opposed to this extension, it is for entirely different reasons; those who undervalue the role of the individual in the intelligence business are probably unaware of its complexities.

Let us take a brief look at how the intelligence system works. It has four stages: Collection, collation, interpretation and prediction/analyses. Collection is the simplest; tens of thousands reports are filed daily from various sources, disconnected, many of them useless, but all filed under different heads.

Collation is the beginning of the hard work, and the most tedious. These thousands of reports are read by (hopefully) intelligent intelligence officers to find the remotest connection with any other report. These are then cross-indexed; often one report may be cross-indexed to dozens of others. These are then interpreted, frequently; various combinations will provide numerous interpretations.

Finally comes the most challenging assignment of all: Analyses and prediction. Analyses or predictions that err can result in disaster or cause unnecessary panic. Intelligence agencies are frequently accused of being overcautious in predicting. Like all bureaucratic organisations, intelligence agencies hedge their bets.

Thank you, says my reader, but what does this have to do with the DG’s extension?

Well, only after understanding the complexities of the intelligence business can one debate the tenure of the most important part of that organisation; its head, brain and the ultimate decision-maker on what interpretation/analysis/prediction is to be given credence and how much credence.

Most intelligence agencies round the world appoint their agency’s director or DG for a period of four to six years, and usually these individuals have either been in and out of the intelligence business for many years, or have some specialised exposure to intelligence; this is not everybody’s cup of tea!

The DG ISI is usually a serving three-star officer from the army. Occasionally, he might have had a stint in the intelligence business earlier, but more often than not, he is a raw hand. A three-star officer has a limited number of years in this rank. He retires at the age of 57 or after four years of his promotion; whichever is earlier.

Invariably from a fighting arm, he has usually commanded a corps, or will do so after his tenure as the DG ISI. As a consequence, the DG ISI usually has two or a maximum of two-and-a-half years in this assignment. Just as he has learnt all the ropes and begun to contribute meaningfully, he is replaced. In General Pasha’s case, he did not have even that. He was appointed DG ISI on promotion and had only a year-and-a-quarter before he was due to retire on age! He has now completed just over two years.

On his appointment, I suggested that he should be told immediately that his assignment is for a total period of at least five years, and that he will complete that period out of uniform, on retirement from the army.

That is my objection to his extension of a year at a time, and that the extension includes his remaining in uniform! The DG ISI does not necessarily have to be a serving military officer, but if one is considered suitable, he must know that he has the time to learn his job, formulate long-term policies and see them to fruition; and he must be able to do that post his due retirement from the army.

This farcical system, in which the head of our premier intelligence organisation hands over the assignment to another novice, who begins to learn the ropes only to hand over to another novice, must end forthwith.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 6^th,  2011.