Is US Intelligence working?

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

One person's industrial espionage is another person's economic forecasting and strategic planning, when it occurs transnationally.

So what about reserves of uranite, from which uranium is extracted, found only in a few places like Kolwezi, Congo and Joachimsthal, Germany. Was the US supposed to wait until private companies happened to find out what the state of reserves of this raw material was? If this had occurred, the Manhattan Project would never have gotten off the ground, and Nazi Germany could have gotten the Bomb first.

Strategic intelligence can never be exclusively a matter for private corporations pursuing their business interests overseas, nor for boots on the ground under a chain of military command.

None of those activities are the concern of the government. In fact interference in the economy is probably what throttles us today.

The Germans were NEVER going to develop nuclear weapons. Note that we defeated them without nuclear weapons.

QED they were not going to develop them.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Hitler was morally repugnant; but quite separately he made at least two quite unwise strategic decisions:

i) to restrict the Abwehr in intelligence gathering in Great Britain, his likely opponent, until by the time when he needed it most it was too late;

ii) to fail to become informed about the effect on industrial production of simultaneously waging a war on two fronts, when he invaded the Soviet Union (which even his organizational genius Albert Speer could not ultimately mitigate).

It should be possible to learn from Hitler's mistakes without adopting his morals.

 

[faroukfarouk]

None of those activities are the concern of the government. In fact interference in the economy is probably what throttles us today.

The Germans were NEVER going to develop nuclear weapons. Note that we defeated them without nuclear weapons.

QED they were not going to develop them.

There is no virtue in not knowing what China's or India's industrial capabilities are likely to be in 20 or 30 years' time.

It's not use policymakers saying, 20 or 30 years down the line, and looking at certainly Asian countries: "Oh! whoever would have thought! but we isolationists were virtuous! We did nothing!"

What about the V2 and the V3 rockets? Remember that submarine based missile launches were pioneered by Nazi Germany, and that numerous U-boats were present off the eastern seaboard in WW2. Remember it was Einstein's letter to FDR about the Nazi threat on building on the work of Heisenberg and others that ultimately set Fermi, Groves, Winant, Oppenheim and others on the Manhattan Project. Already in WW2, doing nothing was not an option for FDR.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

In the 1970s this was tried; the activities of the Church and Pike Congressional committees severely restricted the CIA's role, in a practical sense, because it became highly lawyered and risk averse. Thus, when the Ayatollah emerged in Iran, CIA failed to predict it; and the complex nature of assisting and funding Aghan opposition to Soviet intervention was not well appreciated either.

But the moralizers on the Church and Pike committees and their sounding boards in the media did not come back and say: We were wrong to restrict the CIA.

Instead, the CIA gets blamed for the effects of the restrictions upon it.

Absolute nonsense. The CIA attempted to use the Church Committee as a scapegoat to hide it's failures. This is actually very simple. We installed the Shah. The Iranians knew that. We continued to support the Shah and all of his excesses. That the Iranian Ayatollahs would exploit that in removing the Shah was a foregone conclusion (not that they much cared for Mosaddegh, who had his own defficiencies according to the Iranian Ayatollahs). One did not need espionage to see this coming.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I think the intelligence agencies just need to be purged of Obama's political appointments.

Obama has politicized just about every part of the government.

That's an alluring idea but unfortunately I don't think it's quite that simple. While I'm no supporter of Obama, it looks to me as though they have defied him at times. Indeed, they seem to defy anybody and everybody when it suits their purpose.

What they need is widespread reform. Simply purging Obama's appointments may help in that process but I don't think the effort can stop there considering the extent of the problem.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Absolute nonsense. The CIA attempted to use the Church Committee as a scapegoat to hide it's failures. This is actually very simple. We installed the Shah. The Iranians knew that. We continued to support the Shah and all of his excesses. That the Iranian Ayatollahs would exploit that in removing the Shah was a foregone conclusion (not that they much cared for Mosaddegh, who had his own defficiencies according to the Iranian Ayatollahs). One did not need espionage to see this coming.

Oh I have read Stephen Kinzer's book on the toppling of Mossadegh and its long-term consequences.

This does not prove that severely curtailing the CIA in its proper strategic intelligence role was right.

Remaining ignorant of the rivals and threats 20 or 30 years into the future is never a virtue.

It's all very well to behave like the press and complain about the CIA's strategic intelligence role, strongly implying this should be drastically curtailed and then blame the CIA when something major goes very wrong.

 

[faroukfarouk]

That's an alluring idea but unfortunately I don't think it's quite that simple. While I'm no supporter of Obama, it looks to me as though they have defied him at times. Indeed, they seem to defy anybody and everybody when it suits their purpose.

What they need is widespread reform. Simply purging Obama's appointments may help in that process but I don't think the effort can stop there considering the extent of the problem.

Building on its strengths, what it does well, is the way to do it.

 

[cow451]

There should always be some tension among the Intel agencies, DoD and the civilian CIC. A good leader must balance the agendas. Mr. Trump begins every dialogue by publicly disparaging the other party. He doubles down by then asserting he is "smarter" than the other party and/or has secret knowledge or plans that will "quickly" fix the complex problem. Consequently, his remarks so far are without cred of any sort. It's New York real estate politics.

 

[HannahT]

I watched part of the hearings this morning about the hackings. One thing Clapper said is the hardest part of the job? Speculating about the motive of - in this case Russia. How they are always asked that part, and I can understand why that would be the hard part. Another gentleman at the hearing - I can't remember his name, but he had a military uniform on - mentioned that they give intel to the higher ups, and at times they rebuff the findings. If they don't like what they see? They basically blow them off.

None of them said they were opposed to questioning the findings, and not agreeing the speculation they had put forth. They were used to people NOT liking what is presented, and the powers that be not using it or taking it into account with decisions.

 

[wing2000]

I watched part of the hearings this morning about the hackings. One thing Clapper said is the hardest part of the job? Speculating about the motive of - in this case Russia. How they are always asked that part, and I can understand why that would be the hard part. Another gentleman at the hearing - I can't remember his name, but he had a military uniform on - mentioned that they give intel to the higher ups, and at times they rebuff the findings. If they don't like what they see? They basically blow them off.

None of them said they were opposed to questioning the findings, and not agreeing the speculation they had put forth. They were used to people NOT liking what is presented, and the powers that be not using it or taking it into account with decisions.

I was listening in as well---

Senior Intelligence Officials Resolute Russian | Video | C-SPAN.org

The Intel Leaders understand they are not the decision makers. However, they do expect to be respected and consulted. As Clapper noted there is a difference between " skepticism and disparagement."

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

the failure to predict 911

That really shouldn't have been necessary. A group of Middle Eastern men show up at the airport just prior to the flight's departure and bought one way tickets with cash. Why were they not detained on the spot?

 

[faroukfarouk]

That really shouldn't have been necessary. A group of Middle Eastern men show up at the airport just prior to the flight's departure and bought one way tickets with cash. Why were they not detained on the spot?

An Italian professor of math was kicked off a flight because he was going to a math conference in Canada and was looking at calculations. This was regarded as too "suspicious" for a man of Mediterranean appearance to be "allowed" to do on a 'plane.

This is paranoia.

Ivy League economist ethnically profiled, interrogated for doing math on American Airlines flight

 

[wing2000]

That really shouldn't have been necessary. A group of Middle Eastern men show up at the airport just prior to the flight's departure and bought one way tickets with cash. Why were they not detained on the spot?

The profiling you reference was not deemed necessary in an age when the biggest threat involving civilian airliners was hijacking. No one ever imagined airliners would be used as missiles.

More troubling was the fact that the 9-11 terrorist were already known to US security and intelligence agencies....but they failed to cross-communicate, coordinate and successfully connect the dots...

 

[wing2000]

An Italian professor of math was kicked off a flight because he was going to a math conference in Canada and was looking at calculations. This was regarded as too "suspicious" for a man of Mediterranean appearance to be "allowed" to do on a 'plane.

This is paranoia.

Ivy League economist ethnically profiled, interrogated for doing math on American Airlines flight

...the very paranoia that fuels terrorist narrative.

 

[HannahT]

The profiling you reference was not deemed necessary in an age when the biggest threat involving civilian airliners was hijacking. No one ever imagined airliners would be used as missiles.

More troubling was the fact that the 9-11 terrorist were already known to US security and intelligence agencies....but they failed to cross-communicate, coordinate and successfully connect the dots...

So, maybe US intelligence isn't working.

 

[Vylo]

Given the war of words between Trump and the Intelligence community one wonders if they are in for some serious cutbacks.

Is there a case to be made for the US intelligence community or are cuts and reforms long overdue?

Given:

1) the failure to predict 911 2) false predictions about WMDs
3) a failed Middle Eastern policy that has led to a genocide of the Christian church , a magnification of civil strife combined with general religious illiteracy
4) the failure to prevent the hacking of the Democrats whoever carried it out

What do these guys add to American security and by extension to that of of its allies? Has political correctness and politicial interference wrecked American intelligence?

What can be done to turn this around?

Cutting the intelligence community could have very grave consequences for our safetly.

1. The CIA warned about 9/11. It was ignored.
2. This wasn't a failure of intel but of administration which took one piece of intel and ran with it, and it turned out to be faulty. You can have all the intel in the world, if you don't make use of it, you will be in trouble.
3. This isn't the intel community's job, that's military and administration.
4. Again, intel means nothing if you don't do something with it. The intel community is not going to sit with every congressman and make sure they don't set their password as P@ssw0rd. Cutting intel and cyber security will only make this problem worse.

 

[mindlight]

The intelligence community is a problem no doubt about it. It has been a problem since Truman separated it from the military in 1947...and yes, it bit Harry Truman a couple of times too.

It has been involved with every spectrum of corruption from blatantly disregarding Presidential orders (Truman ordered the VERONA intelligence gathering mechanism shut down and destroyed during his administration...it continued into the 1980's), to the politicising of intelligence, as was demonstrated with Bush 43 and Obama.

The cure would probably be to give it back to the Military where it can be used as it was designed as per the Church Amendment in the 70's. Besides that there would be accountability to the President, SEC DEF, Joint Chiefs, and the individual chain of command of the various military establishments. If somebody is accountable to people who can and WILL put you in Ft. Leavenworth for disobeying an order, it tends to make people more inclined to follow lawful orders.

After that the US should affirm the protections of the 4th Amendment, and stop the mass collection of data without warrants for each individual who is having his or her data collected. That means the FISA courts need to be disestablished.

The question of cyber protection is separate from the gathering of intelligence. It is an area that SHOULD be bi-partisan. However, both the left and the right (whatever those terms mean) seem to be opposed to people being secure in their communications. i have been told that every version of Windows since Windows 95 has hard back doors embedded into the code. It's one reason i don't use any Microsoft products, and this computer is too old to have any hardware that is questionable.

Restoring military control under presidential and congressional oversight is one idea. However when this separation was first made were there not legitimate fears that the military and the industrial complex that supported it were unhealthily powerful in a democracy. Intelligence should be accountable to the politically elected representatives of the people. The problem is when the partisan nature of the Democrat - Republican antagonism intrudes on that oversight to the point of damaging the effectiveness of the intelligence community.

 

[mindlight]

We don't get to hear about the 99% of problems and threats that they successfully take care of.

Fair point and it is not our call here on the Internet to make a final judgment on the effectiveness or otherwise of the intelligence services in the USA or its Western allies. But we can come to a considered opinion based on what we do know. There have been some obvious intelligence failures.

 

[mindlight]

Sure cuts are needed. We need to cut administrative overhead and devote the savings to intelligence gathering...BOOTS.ON.THE.GROUND, the old fashioned way. Only so much that intercepts and satellites can tell you, and easy to spoof both.

Boots on the ground may be a part of the solution but is that any cheaper. Also it requires a very long term view of intelligence as people need to be planted in contexts years before they are used and familiar to an intimate extent with these cultures.

 

[mindlight]

Prayer.

(We're working on draining the swamp).

Yes of course we should pray for those in authority over us and that includes the military and intelligence tools at their disposal to promote the common good. But one of the problems in the American state apparatus is that it has bought into a secularisation/liberalisation narrative that is increasingly at odds with an increasingly religious world and which blinds it to this world - reducing its effectiveness and its legitimacy. This secularisation myth was originally promoted to guard against religious conflicts but now it seems like a handicap as intelligence agencies no longer recognise or understand basic clues from increasingly religious contexts. Christians are no longer the problem Muslims are and you cannot interpret them from the presuppositions of this secular narrative.