Book Review: "Espionage"

I've been slowly working my way through the book "Espionage, An Encyclopedia of Spies and Secrets" by Richard Bennett, published in 2002.  I'm up to the Es.  There's some interesting general information.  Many  of the details are wrong.  (I've seen few positive reviews)  But there's some real weirdness.

On the rear jacket cover, where you have a short bio of the author, you see three authors listed.  In addition to Bennett, David Shayler and James Bamford are listed.  They both write prefaces.  Shayler's writes, amongst other dubious anti-establishment things, that "The main job of the intelligence in the years to come will concentrate on the conflict created by Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip..."  I almost stopped reading there, as my "he's a nutcase" radar lit up.  You might want to read the unsettling wikipedia article linked above.  Bamford is perfectly respectable, yet you know he has a some history with the CIA and NSA.  In any case, I'm confused as to why Shayler and Bamford appear so prominently, yet aren't listed as authors.  Not sure how much they contributed, but the book does share their biases.

Now, for an innocent yet really strange entry, ANDRE, Major John (1751-80).  Here's the first line:

Major Andre of the 54th Foot regiment was a courageous British officer during the rebellion against the Crown by British subjects in America, popularly known as the American War of Independence.

Who the F calls the American Revolution the"rebellion against the crown"?  "Rebellion against the crown" refers to all such rebellions, such as the Irish, Scots, etc.  So it's imprecise.  Instead of the short and familiar two word term, "American Revolution", the author insists on making a rhetorical point by using nine words in a less familiar phrase.  Does Bennett refer to the French Revolution as the "rebellion against Louis XVI by his French subjects and the unfortunate beheading of his Queen"?  You can Google other instances of uses of this term for the American Revolution.  But at least one of the blogs is, well, unsettling, very conservative Catholic - go read it and his posts.  He legalistically analyzes whether the Revolution was a "just" war, and calls the claims in the Declaration of Independence "boring and silly".  And the fact that I've read two really unsettling posts or blogs in researching this article is, well, unsettling.  :-)

Speaking of legalistic, Espionage concludes its post on Major Andre with legalistic quibbling of it's own:

Until the new state had finally won its freedom, the lands of N America still belonged to the Crown of England.  Therefore it can be argued that Andre could not have been a spy in his own country...

I've always believed that legalistic interpretations of International Law and War don't mix well.  That was further evidence.  I prefer the practical advice from (I believe) Shogun, that the only valid legal defense for treason is victory.  If the USA had lost, would Bennett refer to "rebellion against the Crown by British subjects in America, and the glorious hanging, drawing, and quartering of the traitorous leaders"?

O.K., now for a few examples of "serious" entries that show bias.  How about the entry on ASSASSINATION?  There's one short introductory paragraph that says, in effect, "everybody does it".  Then there are ten paragraphs, some speculative, of litany about the CIA's possible escapades, the Church hearings, etc.  The tenth paragraph is a huge list of foreign leaders whose assassination was supposedly "considered" by the US.  Most of them died naturally or are alive.  The US has "considered" invading Canada.  Doesn't mean much.  The book presents no information about possible KGB, Mossad, or MI6 assassinations. 

DIRTY TRICKS.  Again, one paragraph of general, what does it mean.  Followed by nearly four pages of litany of supposed CIA dirty tricks.  Apparently, the KGB, Mossad, MI6 etc. are have not performed many dirty tricks.  Or is it that the CIA is usually good at them?  Hooray for the USA - your tax dollars at work.


Now, for the most interesting point.  This book is clearly, shall we say, skeptical (one review said "disgusted with") of US Intelligence fairness and veracity.  But under BIOTERRORISM he writes  (remember - the book was written in 2002)

"the chance that rogue Russian scientists have helped expand the Iraqi, Iranian, Libyan and North Korean CBW capabilities is very high"  ...

"Chemican agents have been mass-produced in ... Iraq, Iran and Libya and there is little doubt that Osama bin Laden has been more that a little interested in ... these weapons"

Now, officially I haven't read the entry on Iraq, but a quick glimpse at page 132 reveals

"The Salman Park complex is also the base for intensive training courses for terrorist groups"  ... "in the use of chemical, biological, and possibly crude nuclear devices."

Bennett then writes about training to hijack planes for suicide attacks.  In other words, Bennett, in 2002, details the "Axis of Evil", and then makes a convincing case for war with Iraq that mirrors that made by the Bush administration.