The Intelligence Community: past and present - a discussion

DarthKarde and Mr44

The thing is, they had some of the basics right: Iraq had a LOT of programs in progress to acquire WMDs. David Kay's report makes that clear.

Given the situation after 9/11, the attitude also was, "What we don't know could bite us in the butt." Given Saddam's past conduct, assuming the worst was the most prudent position.

 

The thing is, they had some of the basics right: Iraq had a LOT of programs in progress to acquire WMDs. David Kay's report makes that clear.

I'm not saying that they got everything wrong but pretty much every major western government believed Iraq had a fairly significant amount WMD material. This is looking increasingly unlikely to have been the case. To me this looks like a massive failing of inteligence.

Given the situation after 9/11, the attitude also was, "What we don't know could bite us in the butt." Given Saddam's past conduct, assuming the worst was the most prudent position.

I can understand that arguement (although I disagree with it) from a political and security point of view but such thinking should not effect the assessments of intelegence agencies.

 

Agreed on both counts.



Interesting idea...should intelligence go 'open source'? Don't think I agree, but thinking outside the box has its merits...

 

Well, on the positive side, I can't remember if it was this thread or another where we discussed this, but America's intelligence services are about as open as you are going to get, especially compared to other Western nations..

We do have something similar to what was discussed in your link..

I can tell you, form a military standpoint, one of the best open resources out there is Jane's Defense Weekly and Jane's Intelligence review..

Right there, in one hard copy is a list of all the miliatry transfers and arms deals that have been conducted for that week..

Granted, it is not going to have access to the shadow deals, but can still be useful in determining even this..

For example, Jane's might report that Syria just purchased new upgraded radars for the Exocet missle...

But wait a minute, Syria isn't suppose to have the Exocet..Well, you can conclude that they acquired some from somewhere...

 

Mr44, you're right. You don't have the Official Secrets Act or the equivalent thereof. For example; ASIS, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, was only publicly admitted recently and only developed a website int he last 2 years. MI6, or SIS, does not to this day "exist". You won't find publicly available information about Six anywhere - although the identity of C is known. Similarly, you don't have comparable Security Services like MI5 or ASIO (interesting note: the UK show "Spooks", about Five, had to be renamed "MI5" in the US because of the connotations the word "spook" invoked. You crazy Americanos! ).

I stand by previous assertions that intelligence must be conducted outside the regular channels. I think that the CIA has proven that, in a roundabout way. The meddling of politicians in the Agency has drastically impacted on the Agency's ability to function, and political concerns over illicit activity abroad has caused the CIA to be risk adverse. A similar situation here has happened, where ASIS officers are no longer allowed to carry arms abroad, at DFAT's (Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade - ASIS' ministerial profile is within DFAT) insistence.

The bloggers don't appreciate just what intelligence agencies do, or maybe they're commenting on a CIA driven by DI analysts. There is no way that open source intelligence will be able to cultivate the necessary assets to produce good CX. How, pray tell, does one pay their agents? A good intelligence agency has officers in the field, recruiting agents with access to the information the officer needs. Let's say I needed information about what goes on in Mod Squad here on the JCC. I find a Mod with a weakness - a fault, a grudge, an ideological rift - and I cultivate a friendship and pitch a recruitment. If it works, I get a stream of CX out of the mod squad. If not, I wait a while and find another mod, or similar. If I start publishing that info somewhere, then I've blown my source. Hence, why open source is a bad idea.

Now, this open source idea these bloggers have come up with would assume one of two things, both totally out of touch with the reality of intelligence gathering. Firstly, they have assumed that the CX is readily available. Often it is, but you need someone to make it available and they in turn need an incentive. Walk in agents are bloody rare, except around 1990-1992 when the USSr died. Secondly, they assume that open source intelligence, when published, would not compromise their source. Once that CX is out in the open on this open source list, any decent counter-intelligence officer or Security officer can find the "Leak" and plug it - a "barium meal", as it used to be called. It's how Adrian Kim Philby was discovered.

So, as you can see, I find the idea of "open source" intelligence to be rather dangerous and somewhat naive. The intelligence world should be secret, so having the CIA as transparent as it is was never going to work once the purpose of the Agency - to fight the USSR - was gone.

E_S

 

But what you seem to be glossing over is the unique ability of US intelligence services for massive resource speciliaztion..

While admittedly, I have never interacted with anyone from ASIS, I gather the agency is, overall, more of a jack of all trades..

This has its postives and negatives, of course, but realistically, even without the cold war, its focus is much more narrow..

The US, even if the process is inefficient, is able to spend huge amounts on intelligence matters, despite what the media has one believe..

Our problem is not with collection, it is with analysis..

It is a joke that the NSA has the ability to monitor every single cell phone conversation in the world.. This is not far off either..But what do you do with the massive amounts of information coming in?

Logic filters only go so far..

The Same is with the NRO, who could recreate the Earth, using 1:1 scale photographs..

I'd wager that the DIA knows more about some militaries, than their own countries..

Anyway, now I've forgotten the point...

Oh, yes..I personally don't think that in many situations, a strict veil of secrecy is needed anymore..

To quote a movie here, we are almost to the point where there "are no more secrets.."

Unfortunately, the isue now comes down to specifics..Closed AO's are still a major problem..

Because you are right, the old anti-Soviet capitalistic tools no longer really apply, especially in the ME..

How do you effectively break into a group to develop true HUMINT, when the only power that the members answer to is God?

 

Mr44

An excellent point. Plus, there are folks who do not like the types of activities that intelligence agencies conduct - which will create problems as well.

 

Mr44, ASIS is like MI6; you interact with someone from Six, who's really from Six (or ASIS), and you won't know.

Gathering intelligence about terrorist groups can be done with HUMINT sources - Bob Baer had an agent in HAMAS, so did the legendary Dewey Clarridge.

E_S

 

Ender_Sai

Agreed. But too many folks don't seem to understand that the intelligence community has to deal with folks who ain't exactly Mother Teresa.

To be very honest, I woul dnot be surprised if twenty or thirty years from now, it is revealed that the CIA had contacts with Carlos Castano and the AUC - despite the fact that the AUC is on the State Department's [crap] list. And rather than say, "How smart, the CIA worked with someone to take down FARC and ELN, plus some drug lords", politicians and journalists will instead throw a world-class fit because Castano's not an angel.

(As an aside, I will concede that Carlos Castano is NOT an angel, but I also think he is an ally, and his work woth Los Pepes was essential in bringing down Pablo Escobar. With out the efficiency of the Los Pepes against the Medellin cartel, Escobar would still be out there as opposed to being a good drug lord.)

 

Agreed. But too many folks don't seem to understand that the intelligence community has to deal with folks who ain't exactly Mother Teresa.

Which is exactly why they should operate outside the normal political radar. To deal with unsavoury people, sometimes you must do unsavoury things...

E_S

 

sometimes you must do unsavoury things..

?

Like putting Vegimite on toast?

 

No, like mixing peanut butter and strawberry conserve (jam, or "jelly" as you crazy Yanquis erroneously call it! ) on the same bloody sandwhich.



E_S

 

Ender_Sai

Precisely. Which is why I see organizations like "The Campus" (from Tom Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger) as inevitable. The politicians seem unable to accept that concept.

 

MI6, or SIS, does not to this day "exist". You won't find publicly available information about Six anywhere - although the identity of C is known.

Actually Ender I believe that this no longer the case. A piece of legislation passed in 1995 acknowledged the existance of MI6.

 

I beg your pardon, that is correct DK. However, I think that their budget is still, um, "hidden", no? And the "public HQ" at Vauxhall Cross isn't the main HQ at all...

E_S

 

You mean they don't have special speedboats that are ready to come bursting out onto the Thames?

Something is seriously wrong if that isn't the case...

At least the head of intelligence is driven around in a special Bentley, surrounded by a phallanx of motorcycles right.....right...?

 

Are we talking about M or C?

E_S

 

I beg your pardon, that is correct DK. However, I think that their budget is still, um, "hidden", no? And the "public HQ" at Vauxhall Cross isn't the main HQ at all...

MI6 is a branch of the Foreign Office and so they are funded out of the Foreign Office budget so I guess "hidden" is an appropriate term.

You mean they don't have special speedboats that are ready to come bursting out onto the Thames?

Of course they do, the roads in London are always grid locked and the London Underground is always packed. Speedboat is the only way that agents can get out of London in time to stop some dastardly plot to hold the world to ransom

 

About the British SIS:recently the UK government acknowledged the existance of the SIS and even their leader is currenty known.But the SIS budget is hidden amongst different departments within the Foreing Office.Also you need to remember one thing-every single government of the world has a secret,undeclared budget.

I might be wrong here but I think that the only country that hasn´t confirmed the existance of their intellegence service is Israel.For them,publicly,the Institute(in hebrew-Mossad)doesn´t exist.

 

Indeed, SIS' head, "C" (named after Sir Mansfield Cumming, the founder of Six), is named and it's Sir Richard Billing Dearlove.

If Mossad doesn't exist what does Meir Dagan officially "do"? ?

E_S

 

Oh he´s the new head of Mossad ehe?Guess Mossad´s existance is official now.


Ender_Sai-there was NO failure of intellegence about 9-11.What happened was "political correction taken to the extreme" like Forsyth said.His new book "Avenger" deals with this situation.The Clinton Administration was the main responsible for the attacks,when sucessful operations to recruit top members of Al-Qaeda were shut down.The top brass of CIA and FBI never took seriously the warnings of their operatives and agents about a new terrorist attack to the WTC.Even after the 1st attack on WTC(unsucessful)the Al-Qaeda started immediatly a new plan to bring down the towers.

 

The top brass of CIA and FBI never took seriously the warnings of their operatives and agents about a new terrorist attack to the WTC.Even after the 1st attack on WTC(unsucessful)the Al-Qaeda started immediatly a new plan to bring down the towers.

This seems to contradict your claim it was simply political correctness gone amock as opposed to an intelligence failure .... Was it simply political correctness that led to no follow up on the flight schools? Was it simply political correctness that led the FBI and CIA to not share info on terror suspects under surveillance from a meeting in Malaysia that turned out to involve two of the 9-11 hijackers ( I can't remember the names, I'll have to look them up)? Was it political correctness that led authorities to more or less disregard info gained RE the Bojinka plot, aspects of which clearly influenced the planning of the 9-11 raid?



Incidentally, RObert Baer's book, See No Evil tends to indicate our counter terrorism programs were going to the dogs before Clinton (although he wasn't much help) ....

 

Ender_Sai-there was NO failure of intellegence about 9-11.

Yes, there was. How many assets did the CIA have in terrorist groups? Bob Baer had one that we know of, and so did Duane Clarridge, but it's rare to find too many assets in terrorist groups. As the Great One noted, Baer pretty much confirms my assertions about an intelligence failure.

ES

 

I need to explain this a little bit:

Yes Ender_Sai,few people in the CIA were involved in terrorist activities,but those responsible to control their agents did their best to protetct the US.The head of CIA and FBI was more preocupied with the drug fight than with the terror networks.Mossad probably knew something funny was going on with Al-Qaeda and even warned the jews not to go to WTC in the day before the attacks(I´m not sure if this is real,but I fear it is).Clinton himself ordered that the CIA shouldn´t have agents that were war criminals,human-right´s violators etc.How can you get reliable info about terrorists if you can´t recruit people like this-this is the "political correction taken to the extreme".

We must also remeber that is HARD infiltrate an operative in a terrorist group.Even if that happens,it´s going to take YEARS before he can have top info.

 

We must also remeber that is HARD infiltrate an operative in a terrorist group.Even if that happens,it´s going to take YEARS before he can have top info.

I'm aware of this; however, the only real sources we have indicate that there was a minimal pre-9/11 effort to recruit assets within terrorist groups. Bob Baer alleges that from the Church/Pike inquiry onwards, HUMINT was secondary and politically risky. For instance, Baer asserts that the CIA were forbidden from doing a NIE - National Intelligence Estimate - on the Saudi government for fear of upsetting the al-Saud family. Consider how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and then think - the CIA was forbidden from collecting hard core intel and running assets in Saudi Arabia.

infiltrate an operative

I'd be wary of the word "operative" - the correct term is either asset or agent.

E_S