Posted on 01/19/2005 2:42:20 AM PST by kattracks
The CIA's National Intelligence Council has the ability to chronicle facts, but it analyzes them with the all acuity of a banana split. Iraq, reports the NIC, has replaced Afghanistan as the new haven for al-Qaida terrorists. The council further asserts that US opposition to these terrorists has actually helped them by making Iraq not only a training ground for terror, but also a tool for recruitment and "technical skill enhancement" that will eventually culminate into a disbursement mechanism whereby its survivors can then return to their respective homelands to spread newly cultivated killing skills. Basically, the NIC believes we've created more terrorists by fighting terrorists. Are we to believe that if left unchallenged, terrorists would surrender under the relentless blows of our acquiescence?
It is entirely sensible for our intelligent community to assess worst-case scenarios. But these projections must take into account the formidable realities that confront our enemies. Unless analysts factor in our continued anti-terror efforts -- and American "technical skill enhancement" -- they render a projection that grossly exaggerates our difficulties.
A pivotal example of our own technical advancement is the Passive Millimeter Wave Technology, which allows U.S. troops to detect suicide bombers from 15 to 150 feet away even when these individuals hide among of civilians. This portable technology has passed the prototype stage to receive additional funding from Congress. Once implemented, the new tool could weaken what has been a terrorist strength: suicide bombing.
But the future of this technology plays no role in NIC projections, which stress the terrorists' evolution to the exclusion of America's. Such an incomplete picture narrows our view of America's security -- instead of broadening it.
Alan Nathan is the nationally syndicated daily talk host of "Battle Line with Alan Nathan" on the Radio America Network.
Indeed.
The CIA should be at least a LITTLE pessimistic. I'm not sure what this has to do with Porter Goss. This guy seems to want CIA to factor in happyland rainbow gumdrop guesswork and come up with superlicious estimates! That will just bite us in the ass later. Estimating extra income and higher stock prices was one of Enron's problems, wasn't it?
Sure thing. Tempering their pessimism with some optimism would be a nice change though.
................'vested-interest!'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/925wciab.asp
The CIA Fights Back
The Agency fights back as Porter Goss and the Bush administration push for institutional reform.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/15/2004 11:00:00 AM
I found this...
It's all I could find about the CIA..I did not have a point except to show some are not happy campers.Remember "Anonymous" the book?..Remember Wilson and the Niger story he leaked..his wife was CIA.
It's all I could find about the CIA..I did not have a point except to show some are not happy campers.Remember "Anonymous" the book?..Remember Wilson and the Niger story he leaked..his wife was CIA.
The group who did this report is advisory. I have no idea what the CIA thinks about it.
http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_home.html
Here's the NIC site
It's a big organization, so I'm sure there are unhappy campers. That's true in any organization. I can't imagine a good CIA officer talking about what goes on inside the CIA, even if he got fired. Anyone who does, should have been fired.
Perhaps the CIA top brass are deeply concerned about twenty or more suitcase nukes floating around out there. And the PM of Canada gave a major speech last year in which he said that Saddam's WMD were smuggled out of Iraq to Syria and as far away as Denmark. The PM of Canada is a liberal! Why does the U.S. remain silent about Saddam's secret stockpiles of WMD? Why are they playing the game this way, just accepting MSM disinformation as gospel?
I dunno. Do yo?
The NIC is saying it is how we chose to fight terrorism, not if we should chose to fight it that has exasperated the problem. A subtle and important difference.
It's not about pessimistic or optimistic. it's about being REALISTIC. Which the CIA hasn't been in decades.
Odd how silent the CIA was all during the clinton years, and how they have suddenly found a voice.
Typical sour grapes! They could've done it better, of course, but then we'd be helping the wrong side!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.