It's terribly unfortunate that election politics sometimes make it impossible to have discussions of important issues. People whose partisanship is more important to them than their patriotism often make much-needed discussions impossible by their kneejerk tendency to make cheap-shots instead of thoughtful points.
So is the case today with our intellegence services. Obviously, America and the United Kingdom, not to mention most of the other Western intelligence services, all guessed wrong on Iraq's WMD programs. All of them. And we know now that they had all been wrong about Iraqi WMDs since at least 1997.
Jim Hoagland has an excellent, sobering analysis you should read. While he doesn't say so directly, his column does point out a crucial fact: in recent years, the US has invested far more money in spy technology (satellites, radio and phone surveillance, etc.) than it has on the most expensive and difficult type of intelligence: human intelligence, paid spies on the ground who will tell you what's going on.
Human intelligence is expensive, it's slow, and it's often frustrating. It's also irreplaceable. We don't have enough of it, and should probably be addressing that.
Too bad some people, intent on bashing the President rather than using their common sense, will make that a tough discussion to have.
By the way, Hoagland also notes something I've said before: Hillary has been exemplary on this whole thing. If she keeps up this kind of behavior, I might even vote for her in 2008.
Hoagland's nailed it...I'm very concerned about the longterm strength of our intelligence capabilities, crippled since the Carter/Church inquisition in the 70s...this is an issue that has to be held above the lowbrow ranting that's going on right now...the smart Democrat is going to be the one that rises above the Rockefeller/Levin/Kennedy screeds and puts forth a bold vision of how to bolster intelligence gathering for the country, possibly with the creation of a national intelligence secretary or czar, which has authority over the THIRTEEN different intelligence operations in the federal government...so far, the only sane Dem I've heard is Hillary...she's taking the smart play and overcoming the temptation to score short-term political points...Dubya's doing the same...the cumulative effect of all this noise coming from the Dems and the Left is that they come across as hateful and self-indulgent, there is no wisdom in it...I want a strong two-party system, but I fear the Dems are going to have to be taken to the woodshed one more time before saner and cooler heads step to the fore...to quote Theoden, "what can men do in the face of such reckless hate?"
I remember about September 12 or 13, and Tom Clancy was being interviewed on TV. He laid the blame pretty squarely I think on the lack of Humint, and then blamed the news media for facilitating that.
Pretty quick...
Cut to commercial, and Clancy is not on when they come back.
Just remember this when the media rants about 'speaking truth to power.'
Tadeusz
If we are to have human intelligence on the ground, then we have to accept a certain amount of unsavory behaviour - thus I am opposed to really trying to rebuild our human intelligence networks on the ground. If we can get something easy without having to compromise national honor, then fine...but if we're required to deal with scumbags in the sense of being nice to them and perhaps even giving them American citizenship, then its just not worth it.
Better to just have the Bush Doctrine - if a nation is perceived to be a threat, then we will as necessary use pre-emptive force to remove the threat. Generally, this boils down to a death sentence for all tyrannical regimes in the world, and thats a good thing.
Well Mark, I can't say I quite agree with you, but I must admit there is soemthing clean and simple about that position.
I have to go with Dean and differ with you Mark...we're going to have to get our hands a little dirty to get ourselves in a strong intel posture...like it or not, intelligence gathering is not like going to the library, it's done in the shadows and with shady people, some of whom are quite unsavory...the policy of not wanting to deal with "icky" people on the ground was what Sen. Frank Church thought back in the 1970s, and Pres. Carter went along with it...and we've been woefully lacking in good intel ever since...I don't think Pres. Bush believes paranoia is not a sufficient substitute for having people on the ground and actually knowing what's going on.
Well, folks, as a certified and school-trained case officer (in case you don't know, that's the guy who actually handles what we call the asset or source), I have to say that I agree with Hoagland. We went south in this area in the 70s and 80s and have never recovered. I retired early largely as a result of the decisions to emphasize technical collection to the detriment of my line of work, which was, I have to admit, a lot of fun, even though there were times when I wondered why I was doing it.
Here's what you pay for a case officer: six months of intensive (12 hours+ per day) training, along with two years of full-time foreign language training (I have two different languages). This is a guy who makes 40-70K per year and who spends a lot of time overseas. I have nine years.
IMO, Mark Noonan is full of shit. He'd rather have U.S. troops die in a foreign country than have Americans deal with unsavory characters. Well, Mark, I can always take a bath, but those troops will be dead for a long time.
Everyone is writing as if more money is the answer. Isn't the real problem a lack of personnel qualified and willing to be spies? Whatever the value of the other technologies, they don't have that particular limitation.
Follow-up, WRT J. Bowen's post. HUMINT is not and never has been expensive. It is way cheap because people will sell out their country for chump change. And those handling the sell-outs certainly don't get rich. Bowen is right on in addressinq qualifications and willingness.
Case officer: Special skills include being good with people, flexibility, non-linear thinking, willingness to put up with a lot of shit from higher-ups who've never been there or done that. Native intelligence, language aptitude and strong sense of self and country needed. Millions of talented people in the U.S. could do it. But you've got to really want to do it. It's not 9-5 work and if you don't have a spouse who will put with literally not knowing where you are for a month or more, it's not the job for you.
Spy: Willingness to sell out one's country, either for ideology or money. Americans don't understand, but most people in this world do not love their country as we do, because most countries do not really deserve the name "country." They are often weird conglomerations of tribes pulled together by this strong man or that, or they are artificial political constructs put together by ideology, e.g., Communism. Money and ideology will work in these countries. There are probably no more than 30 countries in the world where residents actually have an abiding love of country. This is the "First World." People in these countries will still sell out for money, though. Spies also need to be smart and willing to follow direction, not to mention having access to something worth while.
I always laugh at movies where the brave American is referred to as an intelligence agent. No. The agent is the foreign devil. The American is the case officer.
We've always had trouble with intelligence. Pearl Harbor caught us with our pants down around our ankles, our aircraft neatly lined up in the open to make it easy to guard against ground-based sabotage.
America has always been uncomfortable with spying, after all a gentleman does not read someone else's mail, right?
As for Hilary being reasonable about this issue, she has no choice. Remember how she was 'the most involved First Lady in history'? Much of the intelligence we went on was developed during the Clinton Administration and everyone knows it. She cannot take a shot at Dubya over this, remeber the awful enthnic joke about the Polish Duelling Pistol? If she took the shot she'd hit herself right between the running lights.
Mark Noonan:
"Better to just have the Bush Doctrine - if a nation is perceived to be a threat, then we will as necessary use pre-emptive force to remove the threat. Generally, this boils down to a death sentence for all tyrannical regimes in the world, and thats a good thing."
Sounds good to me! And let's start by destroying our #1 Enemy abroad: Saudi Arabia
Spook and Mark have both nailed it, in my opinion.
It's easy to say, "we need more HUMINT", but the hard part is you've got to get people to do it. Millions of people in the US now are able to do it...how many are willing?
I have the language ability, personability, cultural knowledge, etc, to be a HUMINT officer....but I won't. My own sense of honor will not allow me to try to persuade/cajole/deceive someone else into betraying their country, into doing something I would be shot for doing to my country.
I guess I'm glad there are people willing to do that, willing to let the end justify the means, willing to "get their hands just a little dirty" in order to get some advance warning of a threat, but I won't be that person. I have to live with myself.
Nathan, I think you might find the reality somewhat surprising. Sure, one might have personal reservations about engaging in HUMINT work, but the reality is the work is done against real bad guys. In my case, it was usually the Soviet Union or its surrogates. Inasmuch as I strongly subscribed to the "Evil Empire" philosophy and believed that the Soviet Untion posed a significant threat to my country and western civilization as a whole, I had no moral qualms about what I was doing. Nor did the foreign nationals with whom I worked, who generally had a burning desire to rid their countries of their masters and live a free life.
If I were still in the business today, I would have no problem targeting the worldwide terrorist threat or North Korea some other nations I can think of. You may wish to remain above the fray, but I value our way of life too much. In this case, I believe the ends certainly justify the means, especially if the lives of U.S. troops and/or civilians might be saved as a result. IMO, yours is a hopelessly naive stance. I respect it, but I sure am glad not all Americans feel the way you do. This country has paid far too high a price in the past for intelligence failures.
FWIW, you do realize that we don't do clandestine work against the democratic nations. Even though some of them have done it against us. Right?
spook,
sorry to not respond until now...
I do realize all that. Here's a case in point: China.
I hate the govt, love the people. So how can live with myself if someone I care about as a friend is apprehended while spying on his country and killed or tortured? Because if we spy in China, it's not to overthrow the govt, is it?
I can't do it. I just can't. I guess I'm glad others can. Now, Counter-intel is something I could sink my teeth into...