people spy for many reasons.
1- ideological reasons. They're opposed to a certain dogma, religion or way of life.
2- Hurt: They've been hurt or abused by people from a certain country, ideology, dogma or religion.
3- Common interests: Their world view coincides with yours, so they forge an alliance of common interests.
4- Purely selfish reasons: this could be money, sex, power, fame. love or all five.
if you look at all the incentives for spying, you'd see that people who have been hurt by a system would make the best spies. if they have been hurt bad enough, Vengeance would overshadow all other feelings.If the hurt has been broad enough, they'd stereotype and blame an entire group of people or an ideology for the hurt, and it would ultimately turn into an ideological struggle against a system, that they now considers evil enough to be taken apart.
These spies though can be hurt easily and alienated. they have a very low tolerance for injustice and hurt.
Since they have resisted an entire system in the past, they can be extremely stubborn to the point of self destruction.
Jewish people working against nazi germany could have been spies of this kind. Shiite persecuted by saddam and kurds would also fall into this category, but then the shiites would have stronger loyalties to another hostile power iran.
ideological spies, make good spies provided their convictions aren't superficial. They still can have national or regional loyalties. they might want to change the system, but their loyalties still might be to their country, race, or religion.
philby, burgess blunt and most MI5 spies were of this kind.
spies who work for a common interest, like the iranians and us who both wanted saddam gone, have loyalties only to that common interest. that common interest is because of their loylaties to another country, religion or race that is served by those interests.
As soon as that interest is served, their loyalties are gone.
This has been true for both the shiites in iran and islamists fighting the soviets in afghanistan.
These people invariably are double agents. They'd be passing your secrets to iran, pakistan or saudi arabia and their disinformation to you. They'd be just manipulating you against a common enemy. they might consider you a long term enemy as well.
Spies who spy to serve themselves only, invariably end up as double agents. Even if they're making millions from you, they'd still try to make a few extra grands by selling you to the other side. Now if they don't even have any ideological leanings towards your side, they'd most likely pass your secrets to your enemies and their disinformation to you.
Robert hansen and ames might bave been spies of this kind.
you have to realize that muslims have very strong loyalties to islam, loyalties strong enough to overcome almost all other incentives as a result they end up as double agents, passing you disinformation and passing your secrets onto the islamic world.
If you pay attention. The US had been successful against the germans and russians because american linguists were used to spy on them. We have been somewhat successful against cubans as wel, mostly for the same reasons.
we apprehended ames and hannsen, because the americans who had them undersurveillance didnt have oyalties to another
entity. We have failed miserably to catch islamic spies though, because muslims will not let another muslim down.
They will only frame people, who they consider a threat to islam and who refuse to be a part of their global pan islamic conspiracies.
He is a politician. He wanted a particular outcome in Iraq - a constitutional government with basic justice and the Baathists gone. Originally he thought the best way to get that would be a constitutional monarchy under a restored royal family - and worked with Jordan toward that end. This was a perfectly decent political goal. The Jordanians found it useful - until they sold out the idea to appease Saddam, state to state, instead of trying to change the Iraqi regime. Then they tossed Chalabi and smeared him on his way out.
So Chalabi came to us. But then we stopped and left Saddam in power rather than removing him - after calling on Chalabi's people to rise against him. 50,000 of his compatriots and supporters were killed by that little head fake on our part. He knew we had the power to remove Saddam. But we hadn't decided to do so. We seemed to want the shredders to remain on instead, to avoid the difficulties we face right now, and to keep Iranians out, and the like.
Chalabi would have to be an immoral fool to trust us - or Jordan - after that. But we were still indispensable. He needed our power to remove Saddam. And he needed some model of a secular republican Iraqi, which would need us as a patron. He could have burned bridges, but didn't. Instead he went over the CIA's head, to Congress, and lobbied for the Iraq liberation act and a US policy of regime change rather than the status quo.
He was not anybody's agent. He worked with whoever was opposed to Saddam. We only were at times; at other times, like Jordan, we appeased Saddam or made our peace with him or found him useful against somebody else. Chalabi wasn't waffling around, we were. He stood for the same thing for 20 years - a free Iraq. We didn't. Eventually we arrived there - and now the spooks who opposed our taking Saddam out (right up to the day of the invasion, CIA was opposed) blame Chalabi and the Iranians for "manipulating" us into it.
They simply had their own foreign policy, as an agency. That policy was - keep Saddam in power, in order to keep the shredders running and the Shia down, and thereby keep Iran out. That was the brilliancy we saw implimented in 1991. Just before the US invasion, they were saying Saddam is contained, he won't hurt anybody unless he is attacked, and if we attack him he will use WMDs and bring down the house along with him. You can look it up. That was the public position of the CIA. It's public position now - on the cover of Newsweek - is that the entire war was a mistake.
The double agents here are the US CIA. They don't work for the Bush administration. They are already presenting their bona fides to the Kerry administration.