John Adams Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Who will answer for this. The president's somission says the Intel on Iraq- you know- that place where we've spending 250+ billion and some 1500 lives so far- was "dead wrong." This is unreal. Someone should pay. I foresee lots of people getting the axe for what has to be one of the most expensive intelligence failures of all time. What are we looking at? 100-1000 sackings in the next 1-2 weeks because of this horrid gaffe? "Dead wrong" intel- bipartison comission
Adam Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Who will answer for this. The president's somission says the Intel on Iraq- you know- that place where we've spending 250+ billion and some 1500 lives so far- was "dead wrong." This is unreal. Someone should pay. I foresee lots of people getting the axe for what has to be one of the most expensive intelligence failures of all time. What are we looking at? 100-1000 sackings in the next 1-2 weeks because of this horrid gaffe? "Dead wrong" intel- bipartison comission 292028[/snapback] The answer if that we won't pander the the small demographic that wants fingers pointed. The intelligence problems will be addressed, and fixed, which is the correct way of doing things. Regardless of what the reason was for going over there, things will obviously be left in a better state than when we arrived.
John Adams Posted March 31, 2005 Author Posted March 31, 2005 The answer if that we won't pander the the small demographic that wants fingers pointed. The intelligence problems will be addressed, and fixed, which is the correct way of doing things. Regardless of what the reason was for going over there, things will obviously be left in a better state than when we arrived. 292036[/snapback] Very beuracratic of you. No need to point fingers and fire people. Just appoint a few new middle management types and restructure. You could argue that almost any country we invade and topple would be in a better state. I think intel that made us go topple another country at great cost in money and lives is a very big deal. But that's just me. I demand more from my government. You're probably right- I should not be pandered to.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Very beuracratic of you. No need to point fingers and fire people. Just appoint a few new middle management types and restructure. You could argue that almost any country we invade and topple would be in a better state. I think intel that made us go topple another country at great cost in money and lives is a very big deal. But that's just me. I demand more from my government. You're probably right- I should not be pandered to. 292048[/snapback] What is the actual cost in human life? Yes, I realize you will say one is too many, but put into historical perspective, this has been one of the most bloodless wars in history from an American military casualty viewpoint. Put another way, more people died in ONE DAY at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 than have died in three years in Iraq...this despite the fact that weaponry has had nearly a thousand years to progress. I think it's a testament to our civilzed nature that this is so.
Adam Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Very beuracratic of you. No need to point fingers and fire people. Just appoint a few new middle management types and restructure. You could argue that almost any country we invade and topple would be in a better state. I think intel that made us go topple another country at great cost in money and lives is a very big deal. But that's just me. I demand more from my government. You're probably right- I should not be pandered to. 292048[/snapback] Now lets not make this personal. What I meant is that we shouldnt waste time pointing fingers, when we can invest that time by correcting a problem....wouldnt that make much more sense? Look at what is happening all over the middle east right now- all of them want democratic governments now. If this continues, the whole region will stabilize finally. Maybe it was a mistake that sent us over there, but if the end result is good, that is what matters most
KRC Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 * creation of a national counter-proliferation center to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction. I am OK with this. * establishing a separate National Security Service within the FBI that includes the bureau's counterintelligence and counterterrorism divisions, as well as the Directorate of Intelligence. I do not agree with this recommendation. Adding another layer of bureaucracy will not solve anything. It will just make the problem worse. * designate a point-person under the new director of national intelligence who will be responsible for both information sharing and information security "in order to break down cultural and policy barriers." I thought that this was the job of the new DNI? * create a new Human Intelligence Directorate within the CIA to ensure the coordination of all U.S. agencies conducting human intelligence operations overseas. Again, more bureaucracy which will make the problem worse. In my midterm exam last semester, one of the questions was, "Recommend some improvements that might be achieved in WMD S&TI." Here were my answers, since they relate to intel in general: There seems to be glaring deficiencies in our S&TI programs as it relates to foreign governments. There is still no definitive word on the extent of the WMD programs in North Korea. With what happened regarding Iraq’s WMD programs, it is apparent that greater steps need to be taken to improve our S&TI programs. Since S&TI basically combines all other types of intelligence, reforms need to be done throughout the intelligence community in order to improve S&TI. -Better recruiting of intelligence personnel. Resources are needed, especially multi-lingual candidates who speak the languages of the countries of interest to the U.S. I suggest spending more time on college campuses recruiting candidates in fields like engineering, biology, chemistry and physics. -Find better ways of incorporating first generation Americans into the intelligence community. Background checks are extremely difficult, if not impossible for those (for example) who are of Middle Eastern descent. These are the people who speak the languages of countries of interest. They could more easily blend into the respective societies which would, in turn, help them gather better quality intelligence. -“Turf Wars” need to be eliminated. Centralize the intelligence community. Have agents follow cases across country borders, including our own. Intelligence agencies need to work together, not against each other. I, personally, do not believe in adding bureaucracy to an already bloated federal government. Centralizing this does not require adding to the government, but taking away. Some toes will be stepped on, but it is something that needs to be done. Combine the agencies together under one centralized management line, including military intelligence agencies. Again, turf wars are hurting the intelligence community, not helping it. I know that DHS was designed to alleviate some of these issues, but a substantial amount of work still needs to be done. -The FBI needs to focus on domestic intelligence, not work as police officers solving crimes that have already been committed. This is not what an intelligence agency should be doing. The work the FBI should be focusing on can help improve our S&TI program, including domestic threats from non-state actors. -Remove the politicization of intelligence (I know, easier said than done). There is too much CYA, where managers are covering up mistakes and decisions. This does not improve intelligence. One needs to learn from mistakes, and implement solutions to minimize these mistakes in the future. Also, politicization can be inserted in to intelligence analysis by having preconceived notions of the results before analysis has begun. All bias must be removed before analysis can begin. -Instill the attitude, “I do not know everything.” What I mean by this is that some very good intelligence is discounted because some within the intelligence community either cannot think outside the box, or are unwilling to consider points of view that contradict their own. Intelligence analysis is hurt when you analyze with preconceived notions of the outcome. “There is no way that a couple of terrorists could hijack a commercial airline and fly it into the World Trade Center,” is the type of attitude that needs to be eliminated. It was this attitude that prevented the UN forces in Korea from realizing that the Chinese were going to assist North Korea in the fighting of the Korean War. We obviously did not learn our lesson from 1950. -Improve technologies for infiltrating closed or semi-closed societies. WMD programs are going underground in order to prevent detection. S&TI technology must keep pace with this, and develop technologies that can still monitor underground activities.
UConn James Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 When we don't have all of the information, or we can't KNOW for SURE, then the best thing to do is be conservative and let Terri live. When we don't have all of the information, can't KNOW for SURE, but can overfund what has become a bleeding heart mission b/c of the lack of other purpose, then the best thing is to be conservative. And KILL, KILL, KILL some schmoes b/c they wear an Iraqi uniform and want their country to be sovereign no matter who wears the funny hats.
Adam Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 -Improve technologies for infiltrating closed or semi-closed societies. WMD programs are going underground in order to prevent detection. S&TI technology must keep pace with this, and develop technologies that can still monitor underground activities. 292063[/snapback] Very insightful as usual KRC- too bad they can't find a place for you. Still, it would be nice if we could take a bit of the technology out at times, IMHO. Sometimes the best technology is the human mind, which sometimes I think has atrphied over the years from reliance on technology which is sometimes fooled easier.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 When we don't have all of the information, or we can't KNOW for SURE, then the best thing to do is be conservative and let Terri live. When we don't have all of the information, can't KNOW for SURE, but can overfund what has become a bleeding heart mission b/c of the lack of other purpose, then the best thing is to be conservative. And KILL, KILL, KILL some schmoes b/c they wear an Iraqi uniform and want their country to be sovereign no matter who wears the funny hats. 292071[/snapback] Did someone forget their tinfoil helmets at home today? Yes, we're killing babies now didn't you hear? Women and children. We're raping, pillaging and looting Iraq for its oil. Maybe you didn't get the memo. A bleeding heart mission? Thank god you weren't alive in 1941.
KRC Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Still, it would be nice if we could take a bit of the technology out at times, IMHO. Sometimes the best technology is the human mind, which sometimes I think has atrphied over the years from reliance on technology which is sometimes fooled easier. 292078[/snapback] I agree that there is a little too much reliance on technology, but the other problem is radical thinking. You need to think outside-the-box if you want to be an intel analyst. Analysis is part science and part art. If you do not have analysts that can use both sides of their brain, then you will have "there is no chance that a terrorist will hijack a plane and fly it into the WTC" or "there is no way the Chinese will enter the Korean War." You need to think radically and you need managers willing to hear all points of view.
UConn James Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Ken, that's a great analysis of what needs to happen, especially removing politicization and preconceived notions. Operate on facts and rational responses to them rather than feelings and the Risk board mentality of "Iraq info was wrong, but hey, it's all good...."
KRC Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Ken, that's a great analysis of what needs to happen, especially removing politicization and preconceived notions. Operate on facts and rational responses to them rather than feelings and the Risk board mentality of "Iraq info was wrong, but hey, it's all good...." 292097[/snapback] Well, I did get an "A" for the exam and the semester. Thanks.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Ken, that's a great analysis of what needs to happen, especially removing politicization and preconceived notions. Operate on facts and rational responses to them rather than feelings and the Risk board mentality of "Iraq info was wrong, but hey, it's all good...." 292097[/snapback] "When we don't have all of the information, can't KNOW for SURE, but can overfund what has become a bleeding heart mission b/c of the lack of other purpose, then the best thing is to be conservative. And KILL, KILL, KILL some schmoes b/c they wear an Iraqi uniform and want their country to be sovereign no matter who wears the funny hats." Yeah, let's take emotion out of the debate.
jimshiz Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 When we don't have all of the information, or we can't KNOW for SURE, then the best thing to do is be conservative and let Terri live. When we don't have all of the information, can't KNOW for SURE, but can overfund what has become a bleeding heart mission b/c of the lack of other purpose, then the best thing is to be conservative. And KILL, KILL, KILL some schmoes b/c they wear an Iraqi uniform and want their country to be sovereign no matter who wears the funny hats. 292071[/snapback] When we don't have all the information, can't KNOW for SURE, then err on the side of protecting OUR Country. Clinton, Kerry, Schummer, Kennedy, Albright, Gore, etc. have ALL said during the Clinton regime that Hussein was a threat and needed to be dealt with and they even dealt with him in 1998 without a wimper from those who continue to this day to cry about GWB saying what he was going to do, getting Congress approval to do it, and then he did it! "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." "Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities." "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." "If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
Adam Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Ken, that's a great analysis of what needs to happen, especially removing politicization and preconceived notions. Operate on facts and rational responses to them rather than feelings and the Risk board mentality of "Iraq info was wrong, but hey, it's all good...." 292097[/snapback] I don't want to put words in your mouth, but did you think Iraq was better off with Saddam? Not an attack, just a question
RI Bills Fan Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 I don't want to put words in your mouth, but did you think Iraq was better off with Saddam? Not an attack, just a question 292107[/snapback] The first recorded use of this question as a counter to disagreement with current white house policy may be found in Bush II White House Talking Points Memo #4 (dtd 31May 2002). as quoted below... "Whenever it becomes impossible to further advance the agenda using standard responses 1 through 57, or when you realize that the individual you are arguing with is smarter than a grapefruit and can see that you have completely mastered the approved canned responses, use deflection technique #38 and ask THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION, "WOULD/IS/COULD/ IRAQ BE BETTER OFF UNDER SADDAM HUSSEIN?" does not need to be germaine to the discussion, or in anyway related to the facts in question, because any answer other than NO, allows you to instantly portray the answerer as Treasonous, Disloyal, and an all around nasty person. Therefore, THE QUESTION, is now considered to be the ultimate, all purpose, shutter-upper for all instances where the decision to Invade Iraq is in question." /s/ K. Rove
/dev/null Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 What are we looking at? 100-1000 sackings in the next 1-2 weeks because of this horrid gaffe?292028[/snapback] you have to remember you're dealing with government employees, and many are high level GS you will see 100-1000 reassignments and transfers
John Adams Posted March 31, 2005 Author Posted March 31, 2005 What is the actual cost in human life? Yes, I realize you will say one is too many, but put into historical perspective, this has been one of the most bloodless wars in history from an American military casualty viewpoint. Put another way, more people died in ONE DAY at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 than have died in three years in Iraq...this despite the fact that weaponry has had nearly a thousand years to progress. I think it's a testament to our civilzed nature that this is so. 292057[/snapback] Both points are irrelevant to the discussion of bad intelligence and accountability. Bush could not have said to the American people, "I want to go overthrow Saddam in Iraq because he's a bad guy and it's right to spread democracy" back in 2001-2 and been in any way within his Consitutional powers. So instead, he sang the clear and present danger song, which we now know is "dead wrong." Bad intel got us into a friggin war. Doesn't that bother you? What if the next bit of bad intel is about China? Ready to start a war with them over bad info? The people that got us into one war are still the ones at work today. I appreciate that intelligence is not exact, but this was a collossal failure with extreme consequences- not misreading a building location on a map.
UConn James Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 I don't want to put words in your mouth, but did you think Iraq was better off with Saddam? Not an attack, just a question 292107[/snapback] I looked at Saddam the same way as Kim Jong Il. A guy who has a strong amount of control over a small region of the country and less to none the further you got from the main city. The good thing about it was he was basically isolated, until the invasion which drew together the nation (much as it did ours after 9/11). The inspections were thorough and were working. The idea that we had to attack NOW never sat right with me b/c that's the argument someone uses when they want you to make a decision based on less than the facts. I didn't advocate involvement w/ Iraq much as I didn't advocate being World Cop in Somalia and Bosnia. And how I don't advocate attacking NK and causing a tide of nationalism that would make the daily parades seem like standard maneuvers. It's actually sad to see the Repubs who once said Live and Let Die (But If You So Much As Come Near Us, You're Effin' Toast) change places with the bleeding heart Liberals. Saddam killed his own people. Wah. Finland doesn't attack us b/c the BTK serial killer was a Town Dog Catcher. The humanitarian reasons were the only ones I ever actually bought as being the truth, and they stunk.
KRC Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 I looked at Saddam the same way as Kim Jong Il. A guy who has a strong amount of control over a small region of the country and less to none the further you got from the main city. 292243[/snapback] Kim Jong Il only has control of a small portion of his country?
Recommended Posts