Intelligence is a world of maybe and might be!

The best one can hope for is a prediction on the balance of best probabilities... at any given time. Living in a world that clamours for impossible certainty, especially after the fact, one might forget that intelligence is foreknowledge…what might happen in the future…Is the future ever certain?

Bartleman handed in his raw intelligence and his job was done. His input would surely have been afforded importance against the context/priorities the greater analytical body had at the time. For Canada, and any country, disclosing intelligence would expose national priorities, intelligence activity and methodology. This is not a step taken lightly.

If Bartleman felt strongly enough about his own context/instinct at the time, he could have kicked up a ruckus…this would have been contrary to the world of intelligence's mores and would have necessitated a significant career price. Difficult to say what he should/should not have done years later….

The issue is that having decided to speak, why he did not speak up sooner…which brings us to another intelligence rule: Keeping one’s mouth shut is vital if process and efficiency is to be maintained. We the public know so little …and will never really know what goes on behind the scenes…Intelligence operations remain a closed world and unpopular….and have to remain so if they are to work at all… Hindsight provides a vantage point from which accusations that do not fit the intelligence context at the time can be made … We need to accept that humans are imperfect…

While the facts surrounding this particular case may never be known, we should remember that disclosure must be made on a case by case evaluation.

So, ask the question: Did the authorities do the best they could with the information they had at the time?