A Story of an Intelligence Director Acting as a Fake Double Agent

Subscribe, maybe one day we can do a gender and name reveal if a profile is matched with this hypothetical story.

Hypothetically speaking and for example, I can be a director at an intelligence agency overseeing a critical case with a handful of caseworkers and because I’m bribed I can hinder and obstruct critical decisions that prevent the progression of the case under the cover of being “double” and/or “calculated risk analysis” and at the end of the day if things go sideways and let’s say my caseworkers flip on me (similar to coup d’etat but internally) I can justify that I didn’t bless on and approve those decisions for the aforementioned reasons (being double agent and risk analysis).

That in itself adds a sense of a “plot twist” to the core purpose of the case – again, hypothetically speaking.

She/he is not going to mention that it is acceptable in some complex cases that let’s say involve “war and a disaster” (civil or domestic threats particularly) to incur losses, also may be referred to by “costs” in the “glossary”.

Surprisingly, she/he (the director) studied risk analysis but didn’t study the fact of potential losses that she/he was supposed to cut by blessing on those decisions sooner and maybe accept a loss or two (of what may be referred to by “paid for” also in the “glossary of the case”) because such will yield to larger benefits and winning of the case but she/he didn’t because they’re bribed and corrupt. That is the key difference and fine line between a real double agent and a one who is pretending by so – hypothetically speaking.

Now what has resulted from that? They kept incurring losses regardless amid the rising tensions with let’s say terrorists. The incumbent losses continued, increased in severity and landscape due to the “game of good and bad guys”. Did she/he not calculate that in her/his risk analysis?

Because if they didn’t, they must have failed to iterate on what some in the intelligence sector refer to by the “OODA loop“.

Based on that she/he is unable to justify her/his actions, I’m as a corrupt director will still blame it on “too risky” and let’s just put it on “cognitive mistakes” rather than admitting corruption because I’d rather lose my job than be put in jail.

Deception and psychology is a key, if I’m as a corrupt director “implicate about such corruption” in a speech for example, I cannot be accused for it in a post like this as an example. It tricks and deludes people’s perceptions.

Additionally, as I anticipate the internal “coup d’etat on me”, instead of provoking my agents and caseworkers whom are fed up, I will carefully get a “fall guy” (bait) purposely and give him close or equal seniority in the agency, I will overrule or veto him/her as a person with a lengthy career at the agency and the intelligence sector in overall but they will still be the bait for the entire corruption and atrocities that I as a corrupt director empowered while coming out of such case as the hero of it.

And because no one makes it to a senior level in such agencies right off the bat without a lengthy career in the agency or “at least” in the “intelligence sector”, I will have him/her get hired for a similar position and level of seniority at a sister agency or “Department” before I propose to him the bait position in the agency only 2 years after for example, a hiring anomaly that I don’t think it had ever existed in the intelligence history. Put the polygraph and secret clearance background checks aside.

Now instead of incurring 2 losses you incurred 20 and haven’t solved the case yet. And you can tell she/he (the director) is not that stupid if you analyze their level of accuracy and intelligence among other things, they’re just smartly corrupt.

This is just a rhetoric example and does not necessarily represent the reality even though I’m certain that it must be existing or have existed somewhere that we could simply substitute the “she/he” with their real name and might even just drag and drop their picture into the hollowed area of the included picture above just like a puzzle and it’ll fit their profile perfectly.

Frankly, some agencies are corrupt but often that their corrupt directors talk to you about the sacrifices. They’re corrupt, they send people to the frontlines and from the comfort of their homes they’ll talk to you about the sacrifices that has to be made as a result of their own corruption.

They’ll talk to you in their posts about let’s say “HUMINT” or other terms of the “Intelligence Community” (excuse my unfamiliarity) and the “Human Side” of things portraying how diligent and empathetic they are but between us (leaders of the clandestine corruption) in the agency we know that #HUMINT or other that we portray to people have another meaning just behind the scenes between us.

Again, this is just a hypothetical scenario that highlights my opinion in regards to my previous post.

This is also a “lesson to learn” and to look out for.

Note: Included picture and/or any logos are for demonstrative purposes only and are not necessarily indicative.