[Edit--Not that there is much to read; I wonder what prompted this?]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've been concerned for awhile now that the intelligence agencies are being too heavily micromanaged in their administration, and yet not given enough resources to do what they do best.
No one would argue that America's intelligence has the best ELINT capabilities in the world. But we're sorely lacking on the type of HUMINT that sustained us during the Cold War. Having someone oversee all intelligence operations sounds like a good idea on paper, but I figured it was more of a political move than a move to actually increase efficiency between the intelligence agencies.
This, along with the other resignations, sounds like a dangerous precedent to me. These people feel that the CIA is in some ways being infiltrated by politically minded appointees, and when it comes to secure materials of this nature and importance, people need to be as non-partisan as possible.
This disturbs me, especially when ranking members of the Intelligence Committee say that the CIA is in free fall, no matter how much of that is rhetoric, there's probably a kernal of truth. Whoever is in charge of the CIA next needs to clean house. Drop the dead weight, increase HUMINT and continue efforts as always to perfect our ELINT capabilities, but moreover increase efficient communications between the different agencies and cut out the political bullcrap that has happened as of late involving the CIA.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It would have been funny if Bush had said just once during the conference "Your doing a heck of a job Porty!"
With the creation of the DOHS I would probably just have no idea what to do as head of the CIA. Heck I have heard recruiters for the CIA say they have no idea why the department exists.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I wonder what prompted this?"
Hookergate, amusingly connected to that past scene of political mischief. Ya'd have thought that politicians, political appointees, and other government employees would have learned better than to engage in hanky-panky at the WatergateHotel. If the suspicion is true and even forgetting the possibility of corruption/etc: America's top spy would have to be stupid beyond any natural limit to stupidity to get himself caught in a honey trap, even one laid out by American defense contractors.
[ May 06, 2006, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Some background on the current intel situation.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I agree with Lyrhawn. Although I'm curious about where the INT info is coming from.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This thread title is driving me bonkers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I agree with Lyrhawn. Although I'm curious about where the INT info is coming from.
You mean about where I got my info from on the shortcomings in our intelligence community's HUMINT capability?
Google "American HUMINT shortages" or something similar and you'll get a host of articles that talk about it. It's a fairly popular subject to harp on when there's an intelligence failre. We rely chiefly on defectors and signal intercepts.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I was just wondering where college students could get accurate info on stuff like ELINT and HUMINT that are so highly Classified.
*sigh*
If you only knew.....
Edited to correct stuff
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The information on both past a certain number of years ago is copious, and while the details change many of the general notions don't. As for more modern stuff, its surprising how much leaks out. Not too many details, but plenty of generalized information. For one thing, many of the same people the CIA and others consult as area specialists are writing public papers on related topics. This often results in general impressions of intelligence situations becoming common knowledge in those areas of academia.
Heck, one of my professors from this past year is currently consulting for a group of intelligence agents; he's one of the foremost experts on South Asia, and this group wants to promote a more nuanced approach to the region (particularly Indo-Pakistani and Afghani dynamics) in policy arenas.
Some security is like how the CIA regularly recruits at my school, and they come as a different company every year. Everybody knows who they are, but nobody mentions it out of politeness.
edit: oh, and other countries sometimes publish revealing commentaries on US intelligence capabilities. I think some of them enjoy snubbing US intelligence noses once in a while, since we are the best in the business.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, they aren't going to post the names of intelligence sources and the names of agents in foreign countries (well, unless their husbands are speaking out against their policies, ahem).
But people in the intel community know what is going on, and they commentate on it, they blow the whistle, because it can't stay secret, it gets out. To the press, to the Intel Committees in Congress, to whomever.
You aren't ever going to get details, but the agencies have enough detractors with the right information to where it's not really a big surprise when the shortfalls of any agency will eventually get out, no matter what.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
No-one in intel will ever just spout off Classified for no reason because it's both illegal and irresponsible. The illegal part just makes the responsibility to safeguard the information that much more a part of one's life. The CIA beaurocracy is dumb, so we won't count it.
The bottom line is that people that don't need to be informed generally aren't, and I was just curious where different INTs slipped through the cracks. So where did you find your information, and how did you come to your conclusions?
(And members of Congress aren't cleared to recieve the information that they are responsible for the oversight of. I always thought that was interesting.)
Edited because I can never get it all out the first time
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Either there IS a HUMINT shortage, or the media, the administration, and the head of the CIA and Negroponte are all wrong... which I don't see as very likely. Tenent when he left said they needed more HUMINT, Bush has said the same thing, and there have been tons of articles on just that subject, that US intel needs more boots on the ground in foreign countries.
General information DOES leak all the time. But they almost never give out specifics. And you don't need specifics on a generalized subject like this.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
ELINT's pretty specific. That's what I was asking about.
HUMINT, being much more public, I can see how you could collect enough info from different sources to form an opinion. And while I don't operate in HUMINT, I'm pretty familiar with what goes on, and it's not so much a shortage as a management issue.
A leak's no leak unless you get too specific.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The details of ELINT information rarely leak. However, ELINT capabilities can often be discerned by careful attention to information that does leak (particularly when we choose to do things like announce recent strikes we've made).
Some capabilities are also revealed through, again, reports by foreign governments. For instance, some interesting phone intercept capabilities (of India, and thus definitely of us) came out in the Kargil Committee Report. That same report also provided specific details on satellite and spy plane overflight resolution capabilities of India, again providing a minimum US capabilities are known to be better than.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
After having his first choice for the CIA ExecutiveDirector rejected by the Republicans as none too clean, Goss selected Foggo out of "nowhere" in CIA middle management to the ExDir post with the threat to "then-Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counterintelligence Mary Margaret Graham...that if anything leaked about other Goss appointments — in particular, Foggo’s — she would be held responsible."
Apparently, Goss' hand extends deeply into HomelandSecurity because Foggo's favorite prostitute-providing limo-service was awarded a $21.2million-to-$25.2million contract to provide 12 shuttle bus drivers and to make 10 limousine drivers available -- ie HomelandSecurity provides the vehicles, and Shirlington Limousine and Transport Service would receive $963thousand-to-$1.15million per driver -- even though the owner has a long history of criminal convictions (62page rap sheet) and financial troubles.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
And what do you all think of Hayden?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Personally I think they should have promoted someone from within the CIA who has intimate knowledge of the process and inner workings, and is already comfortable in the position, familiar with the people so on and so forth.
But I have no problem with the fact that Hayden is still an active officer. I'd prefer it if he weren't, but there have been many active duty generals and admirals in charge of CIA before, his active nature doesn't bother me. And his credentials seem to be well in place.
I'm curious as to what CIA itself thinks of this decision.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
He's ubiquitus. Director of the NSA->Principle Dep. Dir. for National Intelligence->CIA. My concern is how obviously political he is. And it was a dumb idea putting the guy in charge of the controvercial wiretapping in front of the Senate for a confirmation hearing.
The whole thing smacks of a President too small-minded to pick someone for an important position that hasn't established themselves as an accomplished yes-man.