A Different Kind of Intelligence Failure

N Y Times ^ | 04/17/2004 | ADLAI E. STEVENSON III

[Phlap]

HICAGO — Intelligence failures are to blame, so we are told, for the tragedy of 9/11 and the unfolding catastrophe in Iraq. If the Bush administration had heeded its intelligence agencies, say its opponents, it might have prevented the 9/11 attacks and avoided its mishaps in Iraq. Administration officials, meanwhile, say that their intelligence was either not accurate or not "actionable." This finger-pointing reflects misconceptions about the nature of intelligence — and suggests an intelligence failure of a different sort.

If one looks closely enough, there is generally a chance to see what lies ahead. For instance, shortly after the Six Day War in 1967, I trailed Israel's troops into the West Bank and Golan Heights and visited a Palestinian refugee camp. Ten years later I returned. By then — especially after Israel announced its plans to build settlements in the West Bank — anyone with experience in the region could foresee the dangers to come.

When I was in the Senate, I conducted a study of terrorism, which concluded in 1979 with predictions of "spectacular acts of disruption and destruction" in the United States and proposals for preventing them. These recommendations required no use of foreign intelligence. Similarly, the chaos in Iraq should come as no surprise to anyone with knowledge of Iraq, a quasi-state of tribes, religions, sects, ethnicities and foreign interests carved from the carcass of the Ottoman Empire.

Foreign intelligence supports foreign policy. Its priorities are determined by policy makers. Sometimes the products of foreign intelligence are tailored to fit the preconceptions of policy makers. Intelligence is often flawed. The intelligence agencies have conflicting and overlapping missions, lack central responsibility and are overwhelmed with information, much of it technical. It requires "production" — often without the necessary regional specialists and linguists.

Investigating the Iran intelligence failure in the late 1970's, I learned that the C.I.A. had no analyst who spoke Farsi. The agencies rely on foreign intelligence services, which support the policies of their own governments.

Foreign policy in the Bush administration reflects a lack of experience in the real world away from a Washington overrun with armchair polemicists and think-tank ideologues. Too many inhabitants of this world have no experience in the military, where one learns to expect the unexpected, or in international finance, where America's vulnerability also resides. This White House is well known for its hostility to curiosity and intellectual debate.

After all, terrorism is not a phenomenon of recent origin. Gavrilo Princip, the Serb nationalist who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand in 1914, did not expect his gunshot to bring about the demise of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He expected only a reaction — and the empire's reaction led to World War I and its own downfall. The United States government's reaction to the attacks of 9/11 could end up inflicting great damage on America.

The Bush administration demonstrates the point. One pre-emptive war against the dictator of a desert quasi-state crippled by international sanctions has stretched the American military thin. The United States is widely perceived to be waging war against Islam in the Middle East, a perception reinforced by the president's decision this week to support Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel and his settlement plan.

Meanwhile, the dollar — a barometer of confidence in the American economy and polity — has sunk against other currencies. In Spain, Argentina, Germany, South Korea and Pakistan, candidates win public office by denouncing or distancing themselves from the Bush administration. This record owes nothing to failures of intelligence.

Studies have recommended reforms of the intelligence community. But reform does not change the limited nature and function of intelligence. There is no substitute for the pragmatic intelligence of policy makers acquired from history and experience in the real world — and the courage to act on it.

Before 9/11, neoconservatives like Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Vice President Dick Cheney inhabited a world of contending great powers in which force and technology were transcendent. Terrorists armed with box cutters — and now Iraqis resisting the occupation — have exploded their fantasy. The failures of the Bush administration are not those of foreign intelligence but of a cerebral sort of intelligence.

Adlai E. Stevenson III is a former United States senator from Illinois.

[Phlap]

Yet another democrat calling Bush an idiot. Of course thats why he is president. Keep it up dolts.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

You forgot the Barf Alert.

[Mercat]

His grandpa was an original elitist snob and that's why he wasn't elected president.

[Thom Pain]

"...pragmatic intelligence of policy makers acquired from history..."

...such as appeasement? Adlai is waaayyy too old senile to be listened to. Dems, sigh, Quislings all. and the fifth columnists who promote their treason. And that includes the New York F'ing Times, too.

[jonno]

So....I guess what we should take away from this article is that someone with INTELLIGENCE should have done NOTHING (except curl into a ball and moan).

IMHO:
Someone with intelligence wouldn't have written this article.

[an amused spectator]

Post-NewsMedia Conservative History ping - Elitist Democrat Snotbag Alert: Addled Stevenson III, Rocket Scientist

I get the warm fuzzies knowing that I'm paying for this unadulterated Demi leech's retirement & bennies.

On, Off, or grab it for a Media Shenanigans/Schadenfreude/PNMCH ping:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~anamusedspectator/

[Grampa Dave]

Adlai E. Stevenson III is a former United States senator from Illinois.

The key word is former. That title and a $5 bill will probably get this elitist left lunatic a cup of coffee in a Starbucks. That is if he can find a Starbucks. That might stretch his over rated CNS system.

[avital2]

speaking of intelligence failures.....he seems to have had one with the sweeping assumptions and generalizations he has made

[MarkBSenior]

No, no, no.

A person of intelligence would have automatically have sided with the Arabs, since the Israelis were installing a civilization in the Mideast in the midst of the bankrupt, corrupt and inept tyrannies that existed before and exist now.

Stevenson is intelligent. Just with different goals.

[Moonmad27]

I gave up after reading this tired old line: "This White House is well known for its hostility to curiosity and intellectual debate." There's no proof of that, only the frequency that libs say that about him. Why did the writer bother saying "this White House" - why not say what he's probably thinking, "that Texas cowboy who has no right to be in the Oval Office". I'm GLAD that Texan is "this White House".

[prognostigaator]

And the NY Times dares to promote this trivia by allotting valuable space to it as "news fit to print"?

[samtheman]

Right. Another dimowit calling Bush an idiot. Not worth responding to. And I'm not going to respond to the gist of this left-propaganda-argument, that Bush and his advisors lack sufficient mental ability to deal with international situations. Rather, I'd like to focus on one sentence and not because this nimrod dimowit wrote it but because it gets repeated a lot, by a lot of dimowits and media echo artists:

One pre-emptive war against the dictator of a desert quasi-state crippled by international sanctions has stretched the American military thin.

For the record:

1. The dictator fell easily. As planned. The war now is with a whole new army of foreign fighters, from all over the Islamic world. Fighting a fairly sophisticated guerrilla campaign in which the use of an entire population as human shields is an extremely potent weapon.

2. Whatever else this engagement is, it's excellent practise for the US military for 21st century style warfare. Whether or not we're "stretched thin" is a debatable point (size of our military being subject to change, 100k not being a large percentage of nearly 300b), but one thing is certain: every time we fight a war we as-a-nation get better at fighting wars. Not only does practise make perfect, but in this case, the practise is worth it.

I am very sad for the losses we are taking. Please don't think I'm callous about our lost soldiers, killed, wounded, kidnapped. But I do believe that this war is an important war on its own merits, and with that in mind, point 2 above should be factored in to the equation.

[reed_inthe_wind]

This guy confuses the notion of intelligence with the concept of risk. Risk requires controls, while intelligence involves monitoring, analyzing, and summarizing. His thoughts are as rigorous as a bowl of noodles. Each time he criticizes Bush policy he elucidates a potential risk. However, He fails to identify the risk of an alternate policy (I assume his alternative is to do nothing), and he considers his assessment a matter of intelligence/analysis.

One of the many characteristics of risk is a lack of complete or even partial information. The 9/11 commission clearly shows that this type of risk prevailed under Clinton and was abetted by the voting history of senator Kerry. This particular characteristic of risk acts as a segeway from risk to the arena of intelligence. A systemic response to the 9/11 commission findings should result in a comprehensive report on the holes within this nexus between risk and intellegence. Some of the more thoughtful commentators (like Brzezinski) have noted that terrorism is only one of the risks we must control. The 9/11 commission is considering a czar that exercises authority over all the agencies. I submit that the various agencies needs a kind of auditor/oversight function. The primary audit report would develop a matrix that shows the holes in the nexus that was discussed above. It would be up to the President and his cabinet to respond to the reports from this audit function.

[catpuppy]

Adlai Stevenson was adored by the press, Mary McGrory calling his speech at the 1952 Democratic Convention "... the Christmas Morning of our lives." Article after article gushed about his brilliance. There was not enough crow to feed all of the press when Ike trounced him with 55% and 58% of the popular vote and 442-89 and 457-73 in the electoral vote counts of 1952 and 1956, respectively.

Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton: Each terribly flawed and each causing severe damage to the nation. But along with Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale and Gore, all were heralded for "brilliance" while their Republican opponents were said to possess the IQ's of turnips. Times change but the message does not. As Adlai III's article and John Kerry's candidacy demonstrate, the Democratic Party's platform of "We're smart and they're not" remains about all the Democrats have.

Fortunately, most folks don't buy it.

[WOSG]

"This White House is well known for its hostility to curiosity and intellectual debate."

Barf alert needed! Another disguised attack on Bush white house... What a travesty. The NYTimes is full of arrogant prigs who have no understanding nor curiosity of how real conservatives think, and assume that disagreement with their liberal world views is based on some genetic defect and not on different ideals and values.

This is truly the pot calling the kettle black. It seems to me the most uncurious President was Clinton, who really believed in nothing, had no ideas except those tactics that would keep him in power.

[WOSG]

2. Whatever else this engagement is, it's excellent practise for the US military for 21st century style warfare. Whether or not we're "stretched thin" is a debatable point (size of our military being subject to change, 100k not being a large percentage of nearly 300b), but one thing is certain: every time we fight a war we as-a-nation get better at fighting wars. Not only does practise make perfect, but in this case, the practise is worth it.

This is a profound and excellent point. We must win in Iraq, and we must win these low-intensity guerilla-style anti-terrorism conflicts, because our future will have many more conflicts like it - especially if we fail to win now.

[WOSG]

That line is a 'big lie' by the liberals. Keep repeating the lie until it becomes considered true.

To a Liberal, 'closemindedness' means not agreeing to their lunacy.

[an amused spectator]

Excellent post, samtheman. It's a keeper. Your analysis of the situation on the ground is spot on. Do these idiots want the "army of foreign fighters, from all over the Islamic world" crashing the gates at the Mall of America, or do they want them in the sands of Iraq?

Right. Another dimowit calling Bush an idiot. Not worth responding to.

This is what I call NewsRap, from the Liberal News Ghetto: "Thump, Thump, Bush is Stoooopid, Bush is Stoooopid, Thump, Thump, Bush is Stoooopid, Bush is Stoooopid, Bush is Stoooopid, etc., etc."

They're not even worth talking to anymore.

[samtheman]

Thanks. I think a slim majority of the American people realize that we have to take on the Islamofacist Hordes. We either fight them on their own turf, or we fight them on the highways and biways of America.

Unfortunately it's a slim majority, but I do think it will hold for a while longer.

And when I say Islamofacist Hordes I am referring to the smaller group of active murderers, such as Al-Qaeda. There is, of course, a much larger group, a generally more peaceful group, that confines itself to merely pouring over the borders of western countries.

This much larger horde of Islamics generally support the Islamofacists in spirit, but isn't actively engaged in the fighting. Maybe someday they will join "the cause" and then woe to those western countries with the greatest numbers of them.

Right now, on the subject of Iraq, the fight is between the West and the Islamofacists. If the much larger war ever develops --- one in which the Islamofacists are actively promoting --- then I can only hope that our State Department and Immigration officials have done their jobs, and kept as many of the Islamic Hordes from over-running us as possible.

[samtheman]

We must win in Iraq, and we must win these low-intensity guerilla-style anti-terrorism conflicts, because our future will have many more conflicts like it - especially if we fail to win now.

Right. Just as in the age of nuclear showdown we won by being ready willing and able to fight, and developing by far the best arsenal for that war, so we win now by showing ourselves ready, willing and able to fight this new kind of war.

It's the only way we can win. The alternative is surrender, capitualation, John Kerry and a french-fried USA.