Posted on 06/15/2009 9:00:58 PM PDT by Milhous
I've overdone this metaphor, but I really do see the panoply of sources we have about Iran as an intelligence service to the masses.
We've got reliable Humint -- on the ground sources. We've got open-source reports from broadcast and newspaper media. We've got analysis, in the form of great aggregation by smart observers. We lack, um, signals intelligence, but Twitter is really a form of SIGINT, isn't it? There's plenty of misinformation out there, like rumors that Ahmadinejad is going to stage an assassination attempt, so we need to be careful about how we judge the information. If we're a savvy analyst, we need to be careful about the weight we attach to photographs and video accounts. They're the most immediate and emotionally powerful, but they can distort our understanding of the situation, particularly of about the importance of specific developments.
To start with, here's the raw data stream from Twitter, with the hashtag of the Iranian election. Remember, this data is unfiltered. There are some nuggets surrounded by garbage. Follow the debates: "(I hear that NPR is claiming that it is false news that Mousavi is in crowd now. IT'S NOT! Tell them pp, we have pics!)" -- that's a real tweet. How would you evaluate it if you were on the Iran desk?
Watch for disinformation. There's a temptation to equate the size of one's twitter follower universe with authority, but that's not logical. This source seems to have good information about Tehran's universities. I'd judge it as reliable because none of the other twitterers are arguing with its conclusions, and there is some independent corroboration for some of what it has to say.
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.theatlantic.com ...
ping
No question on that point.
Why would we believe Moussavi is any better then Ahmadinejad? It could be that they are both muslim rat-bags.
No Twitter is just another form of Open Source!
SIGINT is a source YOU control
Very true. By de-legitimizing BOTH candidate, it will make it more difficult to Obama to have his sit down talk with either.
Signals Intelligence
The National Security Agency is responsible for providing foreign Signals Intelligence, or SIGINT, to our nation's political policy-makers and military forces. SIGINT plays a vital role in our national security by providing America's leaders with the critical information they need to save lives and advance U.S. goals and alliances globally.
What IS SIGINT?
SIGINT is a category of intelligence that includes transmissions associated with communications, radars, and weapons systems used by our adversaries.
Follow Iran like a CIA analyst! (Found this on a FR’s Finest thread a long time ago)
U.S. intelligence missed Pakistan’s nukes, India’s nukes, the Soviets’ nukes, North Korea’s nukes, Iraq’s no nukes, the Soviet collapse, the Cuban missile crises, the Holocaust, Tet Offensive, Iraq invading Kuwait, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Sudan’s Aspirin factory, the Shah’s fall, and Osama’s and Mullah Omar’s whereabouts. Other than these, U.S. intel is the best (except for the Mossad, Britain’s MI6, Russia’s SVR, Canada’s CSIS, etc.) and there’s nothing more intellectually challenging and rewarding than a career as an intelligence analyst. To qualify for employment in this demanding field, critical thinking is important. Analytical skill is essential. You must be able to look at seemingly unrelated bits and pieces of complicated facts and data points and consistently connect the dots, then methodically disconnect them.
To give you an idea of what to expect, and to see if you possess the amazing skills required, try the sample test questions below and see if you qualify to be a CIA analyst!
1. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate says ignore the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate. It was wrong. The 2005 NIE judged with high confidence that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. The 2007 NIE judges with high confidence Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program — or the program was mothballed in 2003 and it took 16 agencies only over four years to find out. In 2003, the U.S. was bombing Iran’s neighbor, Iraq, believing Iraq possessed WMDs, based on the slam-dunk 2002 NIE. Given these facts, which of the following is the most likely reason behind the timing of Iran’s suspending its nuclear program:
A. The Iranian mullahs did not want to suffer the same fate as Saddam, so they reached for the pause button, just in case.
B. The Iraq war had nothing to do with it — Iran’s rulers were always filled with peaceful intentions, and were moved by the power of diplomacy, although it wasn’t happening yet.
(If your answer was “B”, CONGRATULATIONS! You’re on your way to being a CIA analyst.)
2. Iran holds the world’s second-largest oil and gas reserves. Iran is the world’s fourth largest oil producer. Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel with nuclear annihilation, vowing (in Apocalyptic language) to engulf the Mideast in a nuclear conflagration, to pave the way for the return of the 12th Imam. So, given these facts, which of the following is the most likely purpose behind Iran’s uranium enrichment program, with 6,000 centrifuges going full tilt:
A. To produce the bomb.
B. To generate peaceful electricity.
(Correct answer: B)
3. Iran has just finished successfully testing the Ashura, a solid-fuel, multistage missile with a range of 1,240 miles, putting Europe in range. Given these facts, the Ashura missile:
A. Represents a giant milepost on the road to developing a nuclear-tipped, Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, since an ICBM without a nuclear warhead makes little military sense.
B. Represents a milepost in peaceful Iran’s space program!
(Correct answer was obviously B, again.)
4. The 2007 NIE involves events in Iran in 2003, which took four years to uncover, by accident. Which means:
A. The latest NIE is four years out of date and useless in formulating current policy, since Iran could have restarted its nuclear program after 2003 undetected.
B. The NIE is very timely and accurate; driving using only the rear-view mirror can be very safe.
(The only correct answer is: B)
5. The 2007 NIE claims that Iran’s uranium enrichment and weaponization programs were shelved in 2003. Ahmadinejad then gets “elected”, the uranium enrichment resumes, so it’s logical to suspect the weaponization program:
A. Resumed as well.
B. Did not resume. Relax. Islamic republics led by madmen are always peaceful.
(Only possible answer: B)
6. The 2007 NIE pegs its revised assertions about Iran almost solely on an Iranian defector, the kind of source which:
A. Should be viewed with suspicion, given Iranian deception.
B. Should not be viewed with suspicion because Iran would never use the oldest trick in the book. Trust us. We’re the experts.
(No-brainer answer: B)
Now, to experience what it actually feels like to be a CIA analyst, think of your head as a thermometer. Next, take this thermometer and move it near the terminal section of the anal canal; insert the thermometer . . . there! You’re now a CIA ANALyst!
LOL, good for you.....I still say Twitter is more Open Source that SIGINT
Might be a hybrid.
If you look at the way it is being used, yea I can see it a SIGINT, but it is so much easier to exploit than intercepting a phone conversation.....I dunno, juries out, but I stick with my original assessment.
I’m sure the CIA analysts are hard are work watching CNN and the home shopping network!
mega-bump!
Thanks ,...just getting around to this...
This is fascinating to watch. This has been brewing in Iran for many years. With President Bush, they knew they had someone who would at least be with them in spirit. With That One, they know exactly the opposite, but they’re willing to put it all on the line to rid themselves of this monster who is putting the entire country in danger of attack from the Israelis.
That post is an instant classic.
The problem with the CIA is that it lacks accountability, and the CIA uses secrecy to hide its performance. Secrecy is, of course, important to protect operations and identities when conducting clandestine operations, but the CIA instead uses secrecy to hide from accountability. ...
I estimate that more than 90% of CIA employees now live and work in the US. I would be happy to be challenged on this figure.
Former CIA employees now working in Congress or for think-tanks tend to have a good understanding of the issues I raised. Agreement from within the CIA’s ranks is unlikely, though, because they’re all making too much money. A retired middle manager can easily take $250,000 a year from the government for an eight hour day, and ambitious retired senior managers, by forming contracting companies, can take tens of millions of dollars. As the wealth of these individuals and their companies has grown, so has their power and ability to lobby Congress.
So my effort is quite lonely compared to what the CIA can do. The ability of Congress to turn off the money flow will be difficult to achieve. The intelligence budget, as disclosed by the CIA, is $44 billion, and so that’s a lot of wealth being created. ...
and reruns of “Maxwell Smart”.
Bwahahahahaahaha ... too much truth for late at night on the Internet!
Does that 44 billion cover all of the agencies?
Bout my bedtime...will read again in the morning....
LOL! ;)
Yeah, *ideal* CIA analyst is better. I had a professor who worked for the CIA for some time; she was a nut. She claimed Saddam had no WMDs, the Iraq war was a failure, and all that bunk.
During the Islamic Revolution in Iran, we had no CIA agents who spoke Farsi; they completely missed the Shah’s fall. Fail...
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.