If anyone thinks the UK doesn't have an agenda in the Middle East separate to that of the US then you might want to consider the Al-Yamamah arms deal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal

NB - of course the UK does a lot that aligns with US interests, but they aren't identical.

Yes, the United States and Great Britain have similar, but not identical interests in the Middle East.

Their intelligence operatives are almost preternaturally good (or at least seem that way due to their extremely precise knowledge of the Middle East.) And unlike American intelligence officers, they have a much smaller risk of "going native." American officers are rotated every few years to prevent this effect, while the Brits can keep people in place for decades without the same worry.

Of course the US and UK have different interests. The UK has as a very high priority abstract objective the question of "how can we exist as something other than a US client state?" Given the other priority of "how can we avoid getting on the wrong side of the US as at Suez?" this often produces incoherent policy: the ""independent"" nuclear deterrent that may not be, the aircraft carrier with no aircraft.

Al-Yamamah is simply about money. The arms industry is corrupt everywhere because such large amounts of money are involved. It's a real scandal and a tragedy that this should override the rule of law in the UK, but there we go. The UK is rather bad at state accountability; the central secret state is too big. The US of course prefers to federalise its unaccountability and distribute the abuse of power to random local police departments.

I'm curious as to why you think Americans are far more likely to "go native" than Brits? Is this perhaps a question of people "going native" in the other direction, like the Jordanian Royal family? Something about your writing suggests you're an "insider" of some sort.

(This feels odd to write, as a UK critic of UK domestic intelligence defending UK foreign intelligence, but hey)

It's what I was taught in an intelligence course.

im not surprised.

every (out of 10 or so) brit ive met overseas and had a good chat with out over the last 3 years of being an expat has been a neurotic and/or belligerent asshole whereas most of the americans (out of 20) were able to communicate and assimilate with the local culture.

its become such a pattern that i wont even speak english to a person with a british accent anymore. quite a few of them are just looking for physical fights. so strange.

and thats the end of my n=30 overseas brits and americans anecdote.

My girlfriend runs a hostel and in my experience, the "Rule Britannia" types are a (vocal) minority. No country has a monopoly on jerks...

Depends on your expat crowd and reason. The british expats to NYC and SF are usually educated H1B immigrant types and are very pleasant people.

The expat who goes to south east asia to retire on their blue collar pension might be a different kind of person.

Your comments are very interesting. It's clear to me you have a unique perspective on this topic. I hope you don't mind me asking some follow up questions.

What does "going native" mean in the context of the intelligence community? Why is it you think British don't have this issue? Why is it harder for the US?

"Going native" in this context means sympathizing with the local population to the extent that their loyalty effectively shifts from the United States to the local people.

I suspect the Americans have this problem due to cultural factors. The binding ethos of the United States includes a hefty (if not total) tolerance to the idea of nationality being less important than their ideals.

The chief unifying principle of Great Britain is ultimately old-fashioned nationalism. They have an expectation that other peoples should become more British, rather than that they should accommodate new cultural norms.

> unlike American intelligence officers, they have a much smaller risk of "going native."

That's interesting. Why's that?