Somewhere in this immense tome, the author relates how the MI5 leadership believes that telling their institutional story is an important part of preserving it. Or something like that. That remark, and the nature of the content, makes me believe that the target audience for this book is, in fact, MI5’s own members. As a “general audience” member, I found it pretty heavy going.
Don’t blink! If you miss the definition of an acronym, of which the text is positively INFESTED, you will be constantly distracted by the task of filling in “Her Majesty’s Government” for HMG, say, or (worse) be perpetually fuzzy on exactly who is the SIS. I had blinked, see, sometime between the WWI origin days involving Sir Vernon Kell, who was chosen by the War Office to lead the Secret Service Bureau (SSB). At that primordial time, SSB was a meager thing, and at the end of the war the SIS positioned itself to absorb the SSB. Anyway, I blinked, and for the rest of the book, SIS kept popping up in practically every other sentence, to the point where I was asking myself if SIS was actually a synonym for MI5 or what.
No. SIS is MI6, an appellation I swear is found nowhere in the book.
I blinked, and I missed where the term MI5 originated from. Always with the SSB acronym. Google AI tells me they are the same thing. Every so often the text throws in MI5, but most frequently uses SSB. This is a point I was hazy on for the entire book, and I’m happy now to know they are the same, but I had to Google it.
More fundamentally, the book betrays its insider orientation by focusing on the bureaucratic dynamics of SSB and SIS. Vast historical episodes like WWI and II occur, and yes the book mentions the very successful deception campaigns like Patton’s fictitious First US Army Group, and Operation Mincemeat. Look elsewhere for satisfying stories about those, because in this book you get some meager references but they are buried in less interesting stuff like who the DG was, who wanted to be DG, what was the relationship between HMG and the DG, and so on. Notice the acronyms.
Even when it is telling stories, it tends to launch in the middle and cut out before the end: so I remember a little vignette of some guy in a car surveilling a house, but I have very foggy understanding of what led up to him being there, why it was important, and what came next. Because it is an authorized story, “sources and methods” are punctiliously protected, and it turns out you need those things to tell a good story.
Oh, and MI5 would like you to know very clearly that Peter Wright and his book "Spycatcher" is not credible. Interesting how the book links famous CIA paranoiac James Angleton with Wright. Also, the whole Kim Philby thing would have been so much worse for Western interests if the Soviets had handled him more competently. But that was an SIS thing, I think. These are mind-boggling stories of world-changing import, but this is a book from which one grasps little of the end-to-end storylines.