Abstract
For generations scholars have defined covert action as plausibly deniable interventions in the affairs of others; the sponsor’s hand is neither apparent nor acknowledged. We challenge this orthodoxy. Turning the spotlight away from covert action and onto plausible deniability itself, we argue that even in its supposed heyday, the concept was deeply problematic. Changes in technology and the media, combined with the rise of special forces and private military companies, gives it even less credibility today. We live in an era of implausible deniability and ambiguous warfare. Paradoxically, this does not spell the end of covert action. Instead, leaders are embracing implausible deniability and the ambiguity it creates. We advance a new conception of covert action, historically grounded but fit for the twenty-first century: unacknowledged interference in the affairs of others.
Highlights
Anxiety about ambiguous warfare and ‘hybridity’ is all the rage
The proliferation of terms emphasizes that conceptual clarity is in short supply, and this elasticity obscures more than it explains.[2]. We argue that this lack of clarity turns upon the paradoxical nature of covert action
Some have remarked on the varying degrees of exposure associated with hybrid warfare, little systematic analysis exists of the role of visibility and acknowledgement.[3]
Summary
Taking their lead from US executive orders and legislative statutes, scholars have long referred to ‘plausible deniability’ when defining covert action. It considers secrecy/transparency in a more or less binary manner, sees exposure as negative, and offers little consideration of the paradoxical nature of covert action—or of covert action at all.[20] The vast literature on signalling, for example, has largely ignored the value of covert communication, focusing instead on public threat as a means of coercion or signalling resolve.[21] A rare exception is Austin Carson’s work on secrecy and non-escalation which, limited to ‘covert’ warfare, recognizes that exposure is not dichotomous and that violent action conducted within the twilight world of quasi-secrecy can prevent escalation.[22] It is, in paramilitary covert actions—or ‘secret wars’—that plausible deniability has long been paper-thin. The complexity of plausible deniability should be embraced; otherwise, as demonstrated above, we are left with a misleading and impoverished concept
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
