I Have A Question

[Steel Tiger]

For the last two nights the news down here has had pieces about the apparent failure of US intelligence gathering and the fact that questions are seriously being asked of the administration and the intelligence community.

What I would like to ask is this.

Is the intelligence gathering bad?
In this specific instance 16 agencies supposedly indicated that Iran was seeking nuclear weapon technology and it now appears that is not the case.

Or, is the administration simply interpreting the information it is given so as to present an alarmist picture?


The reason I have posed this question is that in the light of current revelations, focus will slip away from Iran with people saying, "Its just another beat up like Iraq and the WMDs." But I think that the current regime in Iran is actually dangerous and should be watched by all of us.

 

[theletch1]

I agree with the danger posed by the current regime in Iran. As to the intelligence, it is interesting that many of the people that were screaming over the failure of the '02 report on WMDs and the 180 degree turn from the '05 report on Iran are so quick to point to this report as true. It boils down to which side of the fence you happen to be on and whether the report fits your world view.

Now, intel gathering and intel analysis are two entirely different things. The raw info gathered is filtered by the guy in the field doing the gathering, then filtered again by his immediate supervisor, then filtered a third, fourth and fifth time before getting to the NSA/CIA (whoever). Once there it will be re-analyzed, re-filtered and so on and so on. It's really not much different from the old "telephone" game played by school children the world over. "Johnny has a red wagon." eventually becomes "George has a nuclear powered submarine" by the time it reaches the highest levels.

 

[Big Don]

Carter's Church Commission destroyed the United States' ability for HUMINT, human intelligence. We placed such a big emphasis on gee whiz satelites and other murderously expensive forms of ELINT (Electronics Intelligence) and SIGINT (Signals intelligence) because those were the only eyes and ears we had. For almost 12 years (Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations) we slowly rebuilt, until we had eight years of Clinton in office who, along with Jamie Gorelick's Wall(Which wouldn't allow our intell agencies to share intell amongst themselves) came along and further bashed our capabilities.
I am not sure what specific "intelligence failures" you refer to, but, the successes of our intelligence agencies are rarely, if ever seen, the only news we ever get from them is bad.

 

[jks9199]

Carter's Church Commission destroyed the United States' ability for HUMINT, human intelligence. We placed such a big emphasis on gee whiz satelites and other murderously expensive forms of ELINT (Electronics Intelligence) and SIGINT (Signals intelligence) because those were the only eyes and ears we had. For almost 12 years (Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations) we slowly rebuilt, until we had eight years of Clinton in office who, along with Jamie Gorelick's Wall(Which wouldn't allow our intell agencies to share intell amongst themselves) came along and further bashed our capabilities.
I am not sure what specific "intelligence failures" you refer to, but, the successes of our intelligence agencies are rarely, if ever seen, the only news we ever get from them is bad.

Intel gathering is a hugely complex field, and interpretation is even harder.

For many years, through multiple administrations, US intelligence was focused on defeating the Soviet Union. In many ways, that was easier than the current focus, which has to be worldwide. The Soviet Union was basically European in philosophy and population; we "got" them, more or less, and we played the same game. Our people and theirs looked alike, so we could infiltrate (or be infiltrated, but counter-espionage is a whole different question).

Today, we need to be able to work sources in places where our agents don't necessarily speak the language with native fluency, and don't understand some of the cultural nuances. We have a hard time getting direct intel because we can't simply work someone into a facility; we almost have to rely on local sources. Interpreting what those sources pass along is even harder; how do you sort deliberate misinformation from simple misunderstandings?

And then, there's the simple point that if intelligence is working well -- nobody is going to see it directly. Good intel will shape policy -- but won't be mentioned. Successful interception or detection of attacks may be invisible -- because that attack never happens.

There's also a huge temptation and, functionally, incentive for intelligence analysts to shape their product to what the client wants... After all, the client is the one who decides the budget. And, outside intelligence work, just how much call is their for experts on various cultures, societies and governments?

 

[Steel Tiger]

I am not sure what specific "intelligence failures" you refer to, but, the successes of our intelligence agencies are rarely, if ever seen, the only news we ever get from them is bad.

I have to say I don't know the specific failures myself. It was simply reported as an intelligence failure and I saw a director of one of the agencies getting very defensive in light of some questions about intel on Iran. And last night President Bush was getting seriously grilled by the press gallery over the issue.

 

[michaeledward]

Intelligence gathering is not bad. Every country in the world does it. It is, however, and imperfect endeavor.

Without seeing the articles, and how they are playing in Australia ~ which, with the recent change in government probably is demonstrating a different angle on the story ~ it is not hard to image attempts to interpret the 'spin' coming from the Bush administration.

You see, the Bush Administration, under the direction of Vice President Cheney has a record of mis-using the intelligence services. (See Valerie Plame).

With popular opinion in both our countries fatigued with Iraq, those mis-uses will take on new significance when applied as a lens to the Iranian situation.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, we were told of mushroom clouds, and pilotless aircraft that could deliver WMD to America's shores in 45 minutes. These ascertions came from the Bush Administration, not from the intelligence services. Now, the Adminstration's line is World War III, and nuclear programs in Iran.

The National Intelligence Estimate released this week tells us that Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program four years ago. This 'estimate' is just the best understanding of our Intelligence Services; not a guarantee.

The noise about it over the past couple of days is because the statements within conflict with what President Bush has been claiming. In the end, however, the Current Administration has aims on several middle-east countries, and Iran is next on the agenda. They will manufacture a reason for attack.

 

[michaeledward]

The reports keep coming on the concern of the most recent NIE. They are certainly worth investigating.

This version of the National Intelligence Estimate was originally completed a year ago, in November of 2006. There have apparently been several scuffles between the Office of the Vice President and the National Intelligence Director over the content of the report going back to early this year.

Throughout the year, the Administration has been discussing, in ever more dangerous tones, the threat of a nuclear armed Iran; culminating with a pronouncement by President Bush in October of 'World War III'.

This raises an issue, not about the intelligence community, but instead about the operation of the Administrative Branch of our government.

President Bush said he first learned of the new NIE about a week ago (Late November '07).

Why didn't he know of this National Intelligence Estimate finding before Late November '07, when it was prepared in November '06?

Who is responsible for keeping this information, this very important information, out of the hands of the Commander-in-Chief of our military and Chief Executive of our Country?

And, if the President did know, but continued to make claims about the (now we know) phantom menace, why is he qualified to serve in the Oval Office?


What did the President know? And When did he Know it? And if he didn't know it, why not?


I recommend searching for content 'National Intelligence Estimate' and 'Seymore Hersh'.

 

[Big Don]

So when BOTH Clintons, Kerry, Kennedy, et al said Saddam Hussein had WMD's they were acting on intelligence, but when Bush and Cheney said the same things they were lying? Why was the intelligence about the Yellow Cake uranium, intelligence that the British intelligence agencies continue to stand behind, btw, suspect, but, since this NIE, most of which will never be released to the public, agrees with your worldview, is some kind of holy writ?
Nobody is infallible. Certainly no committee is ever infallible. Your protests are based a bit too much on your hatred of President Bush and not nearly enough on common sense.

 

[michaeledward]

Big Don,

Why do you attack the questioner, rather than the question?

Michael

 

[Big Don]

Big Don,

Why do you attack the questioner, rather than the question?

Michael

Is asking why you believe intelligence when some (Democrats) report it and disbelieve it when others(Republicans) report the same thing attacking? I don't think so. If I attacked your obvious bias, get over it, you repeatedly attack the Bush administration and when it is pointed out that democrats made the EXACT SAME ASSERTIONS, you claim that is an attack?

 

[Big Don]

Every nation that has developed nuclear weapons has done so secretly, even the US... They even made a movie about that...
While Ahmadinejad claims Iran has 3000 centrifuges, which aren't needed for generating power, only for enriching uranium to weapons grade... http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-11/07/content_6238302.htm
If, as some would have us believe, intelligence can never be trusted, are we supposed to trust this little dictator, who, less than a month ago claimed to have 3000 centrifuges and today claims other nations lied about his nuclear weapons programs?
All the facts aren't in, and to act as if this guy isn't a threat, when Iran is still a major state supporter of terrorism, is worse than foolish.

 

[Big Don]

Thomas Fingar, one of the authors of the NIE that has so many panties in twists, testified in congress four months ago:

Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

What did Fingar know? When did he know it?
Most thinking people realize the government has lots of information that they do not disseminate to us for a variety of reasons, perhaps the NIE wasn't deemed reliable...
The Wall Street Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010946
cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." Now why does that sound familiar? What reason would they have to skew the estimate?

 

[Sukerkin]

Don, I'm sure you know that all politicians, of any 'colour', are not above manipulating anything as and when it suits their purposes.

To give you an outsiders perspective, all American presidents (given the ties to interest groups that provide their campaign money) are seen as worse than most for doing that. But I think that 'reputation' arise because they are given a spurious illusion of authority i.e. it is not as widely acknowledged as it is in other countries that the civil servants run things whilst the figure heads just take the credit or the flak, as appropriate, for what goes on.

Regardless, the real question is more apolitical than otherwise i.e. why is it that intelligence organs are being perceived to have failed?

Mikes points were quite valid in that the spooks provide the data but the politico's decide what to do with it as advised by those they choose to interpret it for them. If the implication you took was that Bush was being singled out as a sole exemplar and you're a 'fan' then I can see that that would upset you but in order to keep the thread rolling so that something useful might be discoursed I hope that you can keep that battened down. As in the climate change thread, intelligent discourse is one thing, partisan infighting is another.

 

[thardey]

What I would like to ask is this.

Is the intelligence gathering bad?


Or, is the administration simply interpreting the information it is given so as to present an alarmist picture?

Define "Bad" --

Is it useless? No.
Is it trustworthy? No.
Is it a necessary tool that we are learning how to use? Yes


It is always the administration interpreting the information it is given. Sometimes it is to alarm, sometimes to distract, sometimes to build faith, sometimes to sell news. It depends on what the current administration is trying to accomplish, and what will help it towards that goal. A good politician (like a good general) will use everything, whether good or bad, to turn it to his advantage.

And then, there's the simple point that if intelligence is working well -- nobody is going to see it directly. Good intel will shape policy -- but won't be mentioned. Successful interception or detection of attacks may be invisible -- because that attack never happens.

Big point there. Done right, spying or intelligence gathering will never be praised. If you see it at all, you will only see the failures.

The only part of successful "intelligence gathering" that you will see is long after the "intelligent" part has outlived its usefulness, and politicians and newspapers begin to use it for their own advantages.

Don, I'm sure you know that all politicians, of any 'colour', are not above manipulating anything as and when it suits their purposes.

Regardless, the real question is more apolitical than otherwise i.e. why is it that intelligence organs are being perceived to have failed?

Mikes points were quite valid in that the spooks provide the data but the politico's decide what to do with it as advised by those they choose to interpret it for them.

As I've brought up in other threads, and in discussions especially with Michael, the facts themselves are not nearly so potent as the interpretation of those facts. We could throw facts at each other all day, and in fact agree on them, but fight until the apocalypse about how to interpret them.

So, I would say that the question would be: "Is the interpretation of intelligence bad?"

 

[Sukerkin]

As I've brought up in other threads, and in discussions especially with Michael, the facts themselves are not nearly so potent as the interpretation of those facts. We could throw facts at each other all day, and in fact agree on them, but fight until the apocalypse about how to interpret them.

That is such an important general point when it comes to interweb conversations. That's also why it's so necessary to keep things dispassionate because nothing clouds long-distance communication quite like axe-grinding and hot tempers.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Define "Bad" --

The implications of the reporting I have seen on this 'new' Iranian issue were that either the intel gathered was flawed or it was misinterpreted or ignored. As JKS pointed out, in the last 30 years there has been a change of emphasis in US intelligence gathering, at least. That change has brought to the fore mechanisms that are not as reliable as those formerly considered primary. The introduction of an additional level through which information has to pass could potentially be the 'bad' element.

So, I would say that the question would be: "Is the interpretation of intelligence bad?"

Yes, I think this might be an appropriate adjustment to my original question.
The thing is information collected is analysed and interpreted many times before it is either ignored or acted upon. So, where has the interpretation gone bad? Is it with the field agents, the in-house analysts, the supervising analysts, or (with the US anyway) the White House staff?

 

[michaeledward]

Regardless, the real question is more apolitical than otherwise i.e. why is it that intelligence organs are being perceived to have failed?

A - There were and are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
B - The United States military was completely unprepared for the Phase IV of the invasion of Iraq.
C - The United States military has not captured or killed Osama bin Laden.

These facts are why the intelligence community is being perceived as having "failed". On each of these facts, the current Administration told us the opposite - they were wrong.


This, however, is not why the President was the recipient of the news reports Steel Tiger talks about. The President was getting a grilling, and the intelligence communities are in the news, because the recently released National Intelligence Estimate is contradictory to what the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and others, have been claiming for most of the year.

Don's attempt to obfuscate the issue by saying 'Democrats too' is really irrelevant. The correct response is ... So What. It was President Bush who ordered the troops out of Afghanistan, and into Iraq.


This article, from a year ago, provides an interesting light from which to view the current story.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27/061127fa_fact

The Administration’s planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House’s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The President said "World War III" in October. When one is President of the United States, one does not throw phrases around like that casually. A year or so back, President Bush told us his biggest mistake was misunderstanding the languages he used when he said things like "Bring 'em on", and "Wanted Dead or Alive". We can only assume he learned the lesson of his earlier mis-uses of hyperbolic language.


Lastly ... as to why there were intelligence failures earlier in this Administration, I would suggest a search on the term 'StovePipe' and a close examination of the Office of Vice President. There have been plenty of books documenting how Mr. Cheney mis-used his position, vis-a-vis the intelligence community.

 

[thardey]

The implications of the reporting I have seen on this 'new' Iranian issue were that either the intel gathered was flawed or it was misinterpreted or ignored. As JKS pointed out, in the last 30 years there has been a change of emphasis in US intelligence gathering, at least. That change has brought to the fore mechanisms that are not as reliable as those formerly considered primary. The introduction of an additional level through which information has to pass could potentially be the 'bad' element.



Yes, I think this might be an appropriate adjustment to my original question.
The thing is information collected is analysed and interpreted many times before it is either ignored or acted upon. So, where has the interpretation gone bad? Is it with the field agents, the in-house analysts, the supervising analysts, or (with the US anyway) the White House staff?

It's bad enough if you assume that the information goes through a series of channels, each of which interprets what they got, before sending their interpretation on to the next level. It's even worse if you introduce the idea several different entities in each level. It goes from the "telephone" game to the "rumor mill." The facts themselves get dropped at the lowest levels, and the "higher-ups" have to figure out their interpretations of the interpretations.

Plus you have the issue of sources. Hypothetically I could factually state: "Bob told me that he owns an original Colt .45." Now, that would be a fact that Bob actually told me that. It may or may not be true that he actually owns said item. It may not be an original. He may be trying to impress me. He may be telling the truth. It depends on how much I trust Bob.

With the very little I know about cold-war era intelligence gathering, most of it came as information gathered from the insight of some source. That's dubious enough. With the new, anti-terrorist thinking, I don't even know what they do now.

 

[michaeledward]

Plus you have the issue of sources. Hypothetically I could factually state: "Bob told me that he owns an original Colt .45." Now, that would be a fact that Bob actually told me that. It may or may not be true that he actually owns said item. It may not be an original. He may be trying to impress me. He may be telling the truth. It depends on how much I trust Bob.

That is not really a very good way to describe intelligence gathering. I don't claim to be all that smart about it, but there are safeguards built into the process to avoid the 'phone booth game'.

It is when those safeguards are bypassed that we get into problems.

See ... Stove Pipe

See ... Curveball

 

[Big Don]

A - There were and are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

There might not be now, but, we know for a fact they were there at one time, he used them on his own people... Gee, after only 12 years of time to hide or sell them, big surprise.

B - The United States military was completely unprepared for the Phase IV of the invasion of Iraq.

What is this Phase IV? By the way, to advance from one phase to another it is necessary to do certain things, you know, like kill the enemy...

C - The United States military has not captured or killed Osama bin Laden.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or Iran or, the price of tea in China.

These facts are why the intelligence community is being perceived as having "failed". On each of these facts, the current Administration told us the opposite - they were wrong.

A - Yes, administrations of both political parties told us Hussein had WMD's. The fact that Hussein had over a decade to hide, sell or donate to terrorists R us is immaterial how?
I know for a fact that when you were in grade school you had socks. There is no way that I could produce those same socks now, so does that mean you wore your shoes without them? No, it means given a decade or so, things disappear, especially when someone is motivated to hide them... The Kurds know he had him, because he used them on the Kurds. One assertion down.
B - What the hell is this Phase IV you mention, I have never heard the term before?
C - The US military told you they killed or captured bin Laden? Really? I think that would have made the papers... You know, the way Clinton passed on his capture more than once did...

This, however, is not why the President was the recipient of the news reports Steel Tiger talks about. The President was getting a grilling, and the intelligence communities are in the news, because the recently released National Intelligence Estimate is contradictory to what the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and others, have been claiming for most of the year.

and to what one of it's authors testified before Congress less than four months ago...

Don's attempt to obfuscate the issue by saying 'Democrats too' is really irrelevant. The correct response is ... So What. It was President Bush who ordered the troops out of Afghanistan, and into Iraq.

At least I can answer questions without whining about being "attacked"

This article, from a year ago, provides an interesting light from which to view the current story.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27/061127fa_fact



The President said "World War III" in October. When one is President of the United States, one does not throw phrases around like that casually. A year or so back, President Bush told us his biggest mistake was misunderstanding the languages he used when he said things like "Bring 'em on", and "Wanted Dead or Alive". We can only assume he learned the lesson of his earlier mis-uses of hyperbolic language.

So, Iran under Ahmadinejad wouldn't be extremely dangerous, given their unabashed support of Hezbollah and Hamas, given Ahmadinejad's statements about "Wiping Israel off the map" Yeah, none of those people would be any threat were they armed with nuclear weapons...
Saying a man largely responsible for the loss of thousands of lives, is wanted dead or alive is bad? OK, I'll go along with that, no one really wants bin Laden alive, just send us his head, we'll send a check.
Ahmadinejad, a whacked out middle eastern dictator, with the requisite delusions of grandeur running around with nuclear weapons doesn't scare you? You don't see how him setting off a nuke in Tel Aviv or Riyadh or Baghdad would draw other countries in? Maybe you should read a little about the causes of the first world war. You don't have a problem with a nuclear armed whack job, who, by the way, wants you dead because you aren't Muslim? Really?
MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction kept the Cold War from overheating for one reason, the leadership of both sides were more or less sane. This is not the case with Ahmadinejad. Anyone who supports "martyr" operations is damned scary, letting that person get a hold of nuclear weapons is not a good idea.

Lastly ... as to why there were intelligence failures earlier in this Administration, I would suggest a search on the term 'StovePipe' and a close examination of the Office of Vice President. There have been plenty of books documenting how Mr. Cheney mis-used his position, vis-a-vis the intelligence community.

There have been a number of books about how Bill Clinton was too busy chasing skirts and fending off lawsuits to be bothered by little things like terrorists blowing up our embassies in Africa, or running around whacking people for the crime of being Jewish, etc.
While the Bush administration may have made some bad calls, they at least have tried to fight back rather than treating it as a law enforcement problem.
You complain when the elected (Twice now) President leads us to a war we didn't choose, and wail hysterically about the dishonesty of the administration, and yet, you ignore Charlie Trie, renting the Lincoln Bedroom, Inviting Known Terrorists (HELLO, Yassar, I'm Talking about Arafat) to the White House. While undercutting the military's budget and screeching that our troops aren't armed and armored better, gee, I guess after 8 years of cuts, having a Republican in office was supposed to fix everything instantly... Claiming to support the troops and running down their mission or declaring, as did Jack Murtha (LAST WEEK) that there is no way we can win militarily. Gee, and you wonder why we question your patriotism.