James Bond as an International Security case study...
Alec 006
Sydney, AustraliaPosts: 211MI6 Agent
Just wondering about whether some of the board members had an opinion or any ideas on using James Bond overall, or maybe Carte Blanche (Deaver's novel) or something similar, as a serious case study in regard to this question?
Drawing on your own analysis of a case study, explain the meaning of security in contemporary global politics.
Drawing on your own analysis of a case study, explain the meaning of security in contemporary global politics.
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.
Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde
Comments
Plus, Bond never wore overalls, even Tom Ford ones
Duncan
If you are looking for research material it would be helpful to know what are you are specifically interested in and if you are interested in government or private operations. In general two books you may find of interest are Popov's Spy/Counterspy and International Spy Museum Handbook of Practical Spying
Reflections in a double bourbon...
I was more meaning the existence of Bond (fictional or real) showing what security means in GLOBAL politics, i.e. does it demonstrate Realism, Neo-Realism, Liberalism etc? And do the existence of Intelligence Organisations make the world and the general public feel more secure, or in fact does it create perceptions that if the Intelligence Community is this close to home then a feeling of insecurity is heightened?
Oscar Wilde
I have to disagree with your assessment, Fleming's Bond came out of exactly the environment Popov operated in. He was a veteran of WWII operating in a clandestine manner in foreign countries, not necessarily always enemy countries. Popov operated in the US as well as Axis countries, so the similarities are remarkable. I too have Popov's book and it is fascinating. If you have Netflix, there is a documentary on Popov available entitled "True Bond" which you might enjoy.
Generally "security" refers to VIP or facility protection not covert operations. The CIA/NSA-types I know don't usually go armed. Remember, when operating abroad, getting caught with a firearm and being a foreign national is going to present a whole bunch of additional problems and greatly limit any cover story you want to run. In combat zones things are different and case officers do carry for personal protection. When missions require more direct action they are usually farmed out to deniable assets or military spec ops people depending on how much deniability the situation requires. This is not to say that officers may not accompany of observe such operations.
Reflections in a double bourbon...
Sorry if you thought I was trying to infer that Fleming's Bond was not a WWII vet or did not have similar missions during that war. From reading the novels, I always came away with the idea that though he may have been trained as the type of agent they had in the SOE, his missions in the novels were less "commando-SEAL-SAS" oriented ones than purely investigative, spying and surveillance type missions in a post-war (though cold war) environment. He still operated more on the level of a detective than any type of commando or SAS operative. There are instances when he is forced to kill in self defence, or protect others, and in certain situations his snooping forced him to use tactics he was trained in during the war (underwater demolitions and scuba, such as in TB and LALD), but most of the time he's just spying until he get's caught or cornered and has to survive or escape (OHMSS). Fleming based much of Bond and his cold war missions on Bulldog Drummond more than anything else, which is why you'd find him going undercover to investigate smugglers like Goldfinger, Mr. Big, etc. The only times I remember him actually doing SAS type missions were when he was sent out as an assassin as in FYEO. Sure he would be forced to undertake similar SEAL/SAS type actions in some of the stories, as in LALD when he swims to Mr.Big's island, but this was not very often. Even when their was a type of commando action such as in OHMSS, he was participating against M's orders, and though strategically Draco's men were using commando style tactics, it was still in reality just a large scale mob hit against another gangster and his men. Even in Thunderball (the novel), Fleming stretches it by having Bond joining in the underwater battle, when in the real world, being just an agent (even though he's a 00) he would have been ordered to stay on the sub with Leiter.
Getting back to Alex006's question, though (which can get pretty confusing when discussing realisim and neo-realisim, etc.), I think there are people who feel more secure with the existance of active intelligence gathering and spying so we know what's going on "over there" (or even here), even though it has famous failures, and I think those inside the "community" like Bond would feel this way. The rest outside the community may also feel that way, but there are times when the world is dealing with subversive/destructive elements tand the outsiders feel that there are people inside this huge secret world who might abuse that power, or not be effective enough, or actually, through negligence, weaken our security (giving guns to the Mexican gun dealers to find cartel members is an example). Fictional characters like Bond, flawed though they may be in some areas of their personality, help balance out these type of failures. Their was Iran-Contra, but then their was the Bin Laden hit. Theres the history of the take down of organized crime members. There was the Iranian hostage rescue failure, but then there was the SEAL team hit on those pirates that resulted in the rescue of those sailors. There's also the many instances of terrorist's plots being thwarted publicly (and those we'll never know about). It's definitely a real conumdrum. Personally, I feel safer that we have clandestine services and people like Bond. Philosophically, I wish we didn't have the need for them.