More NIE Cherry Filling (Running Updates)
December 31, 2006
Love those tart cherries . . .
As predicted, it turns out that the recently leaked NIE isn’t exactly the scathing indictment of current war/counterterrorism efforts as certain elements would have you believe. In fact just a few snippets of the rest of the story paint a much more interesting picture. Amazing thing context.
Something no one seems to be talking about is the basis for claims about the terrorism problem allegedly getting worse. “Based on what?” is the question that should be asked. Reminds me of the day Rumsfeld’s snowflake came down asking about “metrics” related to our IO efforts. Everyone dutifully marched off to collect and cook numbers, but no one had the guts to say, “Ah, accurate metrics would require that we have baseline numbers collected before the war.” Funny thing math.
So, the real politicization of intelligence continues; pick the bits you like and leak them for a few bonus points during the news cycle and then hope that no one will call you on it.
Update: Leaks - they’re what’s for dinner! Will try to post as often as I can as things develop. Reportedly NIE Key Judgements are destined for release this afternoon. KJs are basically the “executive summary” of the larger report. Highly-distilled meta-view of the larger report.
Chocolate in My Peanut Butter
December 16, 2006
Cross posted at Haft of the Spear
As incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates plots a fresh path through Iraq, he is also expected to chart a different course for Pentagon intelligence programs, rolling back some of Donald H. Rumsfeld’s aggressive expansion of intelligence operations that rankled agencies such as the CIA.
You see these stories every once in a while and it is like watching a slap-fight; no real damage, but you always hold out hope. More than anything it is simply embarrassing for the participants. In this case it is CIA vs. DOD/DIA, but depending on the issue it could be any one of the larger agencies against any other.
The arguments follow a familiar pattern: the dominant agency (and its supporters) in whatever the given issue is gets to point out their dominance and that now the interlopers will be brought to heel; the interlopers slag on those in dominance and point out that re-establishing the status quo would leave them the worse for wear. Both sides have points.
On the one hand (we’ll use HUMINT as an example) the CIA has a point that they are the large canine in the yard; they run the training programs, they’ve been around the longest, and they have a variety of umbrella authorities. On the other hand the CIA focuses on a very key but small member of the overall audience, leaving everyone else who is involved short. How short depends on a variety of factors, but when you are bearing the bulk of the burden, any shortfall is too much. Consequently you go out and get what you can the best you can and screw anyone who tells you “no.”
In reality any given agency would gladly assume all of any given shared mission if money and resources were no question. There is no reason why all of a given disciple could not fall exclusively under a single roof, with subordinate groups responding to the needs of their former organizational masters. Save for pockets of unique analytical expertise (e.g. squints) analysis is a fairly universal capability; what makes any agency special is the collection it brings to the table. The IC is not so old that radical change on this front would have the same impact as say rolling the Marines into the Army.
Rather than waste time and energy fighting over rice bowls, why is there not more serious discussion about consolidation?
