Spooks and the Art of the Dissenting Footnote

A presidential commission is recommending that disagreements among intelligence analysts be clearly flagged to alert policymakers to the fact that the intelligence community, which likes to use the imperial "we," is not really of one mind. This is an idea that pops up now and again, no matter that it rarely seems to work. In fact, the IC has paid lip service to the importance of airing dissent for years.

The result has been the birth of a netherworld that few on the outside have contemplated -- the dissenting footnotes that dangle precariously from the text of intelligence assessments on key issues. For example, if an intelligence assessment were to say "we believe that Posiland has a developed long-range missile capacity and is about to commence deployment," a footnote might appear at the bottom of the page in small type saying, "The Director of [fill in the blank] believes that there is no evidence Posiland has either the intent or the means to produce, much less deploy, long-range missiles."

How does a footnote get into an intelligence document? An intelligence agency that disagrees with the majority view will "take" a footnote -- as in (spoken with clear exasperation after much arguing) "We're going to have to take a footnote." Other agencies may then choose to "join in the footnote," a sentiment usually expressed sotto voce.

Endorsing the principle of dissent and actually integrating contrary ideas into analyses are two different things, of course. Everyone knows that footnotes in intelligence community documents are very much like unpleasant noises at a banquet. No one will say so exactly, but footnoting an intelligence estimate is a sign of, well, let us be frank, ill breeding.

And of all of the intelligence shops, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research has long been considered the most ill bred. INR takes a lot of footnotes, the best known in recent times being those that appeared in various intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Proportionally, INR probably takes more footnotes than any other intelligence shop in the world.

Traditionally, few agencies join INR in footnotes. A CIA element once threatened to line up with INR against a sister office, but eventually it was decided such a move would violate the laws of nature.