The American Spectator

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.09 @ 6:58AM

""In the weeks after 9/11, Fifth Group soldiers scrambled to prepare for the coming war in Afghanistan," explains Times reviewer Bruce Barcott. "Intelligence on the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Northern Alliance was so thin that the men resorted to old Discovery Channel shows and back issues of the National Geographic."

So, what's new? Back in World War II, troops frequently had to resort to such expedients. In preparation for the Normandy Invasion, the British and American governments quietly asked tourists who had visited the French coast to send in any photographs or post cards they may have had, which were used to compile data on the landing beaches (yet somehow they missed the Boccage behind the beaches).

In 1943, the submarine U.S.S. Wahoo was ordered to reconnoitre the harbor of Wewak on the New Guinea coast. It wasn't on any of the charts (indeed, charts of the South Pacific were notoriously bad, the area not having been surveyed in some cases since Captain Cook passed through). A seaman on the sub said he had read about it in. . . National Geographic! He had an old National Geographic atlas, and sure enough, there was Wewak, a spec on a small scale map. The skipper, Cdr. Dudley R. "Mush" Morton, decided to use this to make a chart. The ship's overhead projector was used enlarge the image of the map, which was then drawn on tracing paper. With this literally sketchy chart, Morton then penetrated Wewak, conducted his reconnaissance, and sank a destroyer on his way out.

Remember, this was two years into the greatest war this country had ever waged--and still we didn't have the intelligence we needed.

Don't expect either military or intelligence operations to be "efficient". Efficiency is a peacetime concept. War is fundamentally inefficient, and wars are not won by armies that are 100% efficient over those that are 85% efficient--they are won by those that are perhaps 15% efficient over those that are 10% efficient.

Read Clausewitz on "friction", and the difference between "real war" and "war on paper".

JP| 5.28.09 @ 8:30AM

Stuart,
Actually the Brits had plenty of assets on the ground in France; however, they were very reluctant to share them with thier loose lipped American friends.

Also, the author of this column wasn't referring to military intel (that would be the DIA's job), but strategic intel that is independent of the DOD.

From the 1980s onward, the CIA has been closing down networks, retiring operatives, and relying more and more on eletronic eavesdroppiing. The number of operators that our case officers run are only a fraction of what they were in the 50s and 60s. In many nations, the CIA has no spies. Niger was a case in point. Despite having one of Africa's largest deposit of Uranium, the CIA for whatever reasons had no assets in country. This forced the State Dept and Dept of Energy, and the NSA to rely on intel from Isreal and the UK concerning uranium proliferation. When Cheney in 2002 needed confirmation from the CIA, they enlisted the help of then head of the Nuclear Proliferation desk Valerie Plame. Having not a clue on what was going on in Niger, she enlister her husband, retired ambassador Joe Wilson - a man with no intelligence background, no intel training, and very little to offer than his list of useless diplomatic contacts. The rest of the story is well known.

The CIA, btw doesn't run or operate the electronic eaves dropping equipment -the NSA does. One would ask what the CIA does with its $60 billion budget?

Military Intelligence?| 5.28.09 @ 9:05AM

"Military Intelligence" isn't the original oxymoron for nothing.

Forgive me for asking but was it not peacetime when the FBI/CIA/ABCDEFGHI got the intel about the arabs in the flight schools? I think the point of the article wasn't that we expect the military and/or intelligence communities to be "100% efficient." We do expect them to have some basic knowledge about the enemy they're getting ready to fight and the country in which they'll do the fighting. To have neither is a disappointing return for the $43,000,000,000 investment the taxpayers made in intelligence gathering. Not to mention that if they can't get the basics right what about the hard stuff? Sheesh! If all they really need is a subscription to National Geographic or some History Channel DVDs, I'd like a little of my money back please.

7.5 years and counting.....

Old Texican| 5.28.09 @ 9:37AM

Mr. Reiland
What a delightful satire. Thank you for the wry sad laugh.
Some actually very cogent comments already here, and I will be dropping by today to read more. So far, the mullets haven't even gotten here yet.

Thomas| 5.28.09 @ 10:13AM

The quality and quantity of US intelligence in many parts of the world is appalling. There are several reasons for this.

First, intelligence assets are finite. To operate a humint network anywhere takes money and, most importantly, personnel. These assets are prioritized on the basis of "strategic importance". Afghanistan, before and after the Russian invasion, was of little or no strategic importance to the United States. The only interest that the US then had in that country was the level of its opium production and that was minuscule.

Second, most employees of the CIA are career employees. They want to rise in the company and you don't accomplish that by working for years in Kabul, Karachi, or Beirut. You accomplish that by working in Paris, Vienna, Rome, or Washington. Besides, the restaurants are better there. It is difficult to find people willing, let alone eager, to be posted to most third world countries for years. This is not to say that there are not dedicated professionals working for the CIA overseas. It just means that they are few and far between.

Third, there is the quality of humint intel itself. As it is virtually impossible to maintain a network comprised of CIA operatives who are US citizens anywhere in the world, the agency is forced to rely upon stringers, local citizens of the country who provide information either for monetary gain or for some other purpose. All intel coming from these sources is suspect and has to be verified before it can be acted upon.

Fourth, the sheer volume of raw intelligence coming in is staggering; at all levels. Something that appears trivial may, in hindsight, prove to have been a critical tell. For this reason, intelligence gathering agencies are always behind the curve.

Now, military intelligence has other objectives than those of a general intelligence agency such as the CIA. The DIA; as well as Army Intelligence, Naval Intelligence and the Air Force Air Intelligence Agency; are more concerned with potential military threat factors and therefor have a narrower intel focus. Having no assets in Afghanistan prior to 2001 limited these agencies intelligence concerning conditions on the ground in that area.

But, the biggest problem faced by intelligence agencies is the fact that all of them are run by politicians and they answer to elected politicians. It is a common trait among the political class to ignore anything that is not of immediate use to them, politically, or that intrudes upon their world view. Intelligence is worthless if it is not acted upon. What is heartening, is the fact that intelligence agents and lower level military commanders are able to adapt and overcome the lack of good intelligence and go outside of established channels and find what they need to carry out their mission.

Old Texican| 5.28.09 @ 11:04AM

Amen Thomas!

I especially appreciated your closing:

""What is heartening, is the fact that intelligence agents and lower level military commanders are able to adapt and overcome the lack of good intelligence and go outside of established channels and find what they need to carry out their mission. ""

World war coming soon| 5.28.09 @ 12:14PM

Here is some good intelligence, good book

THE JEWISH GENOCIDE OF ARMENIAN CHRISTIANS
By Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Enlarged Second Edition

AIPAC controled information| 5.28.09 @ 12:29PM

The embarrassing debacle of our sell-out political leaders and 2008 presidential hopefuls falling over themselves and elbowing each other to the podium of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee meeting held in Washington, DC between March 11th and 13th demonstrated clearly that our leaders put Israel first and America last. Fittingly, the hate conference was launched on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath.

AIPAC has been exposed. Its role in putting America and its military needlessly in harm's way in Iraq, and now their smashing success in terrifying Nancy Pelosi into removing any and all restrictions formerly placed on the criminal Bush regime, ensures that an attack on Iran is imminent and no longer avoidable. Bush is a mass murdering criminal maniac, and also totally anti-American. His imprisoning two Border Patrol officers for doing their duty in protecting America and trying to keep a dangerous drug smuggler from delivering huge quantities of narcotics into this country from Mexico, not only confirms Bush's contempt and hatred for US, but our rules and laws as well. And considering Bush's love for Mexico and his addiction to criminal intrigue, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Bush is part and parcel of the illegal drug traffic operation originating in Mexico.

And as the Bush regime abolishes our borders in the Southwest, his airport Gestapo keep wanding and x-raying US, purportedly to keep US safe from our enemies. If we no longer have a safe border in the southern part of our country, why do we need the Department of Homeland Security and its TSA? It's clear that Bush's geopolitical philosophy coincides totally with that of the global one-world communist government philosophy so crucial to the geopolitical objectives of the Zionist international bankers and their New World Order.

Bush is perfect for the role of the American "transitionor," a lawless tyrant postured to negate both our laws and national purpose, and the one selected by the bankers to impose police state tactics against US thereby converting Zionist mass media-imposed "political correctness" into law. A perfect example of this legislative conversion and initiative is the current drive in Congress for "hate crimes" legislation. Partisan affiliation is, understandably, again a mere distraction to facilitate the Zionist divide-and-conquer strategy to render resistance to thought crimes legislation totally ineffectual.

That AIPAC totally controls American foreign policy in the Middle East is now completely unchallengeable considering the disgusting humbling of American political notables at AIPAC's 2007 Policy Conference. Vice President Dick Cheney chose the AIPAC conference as the legitimate venue to lambaste and attack the United States Congress for their "disloyalty" to America and its military by showing signs of balking as regards the continued funding for our illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and unnecessary invasion of Iraq that has cost our military so dearly, and which continues to dangerously threaten the stability of our economy.

And any and all attempts to terminate the slaughter of innocent Iraqi citizens, and/or any attempt to stop the AIPAC-ordered invasion of Iran, will invoke the smear of "anti-Semitism." But if trying to deal justly and honorably with Jews, Muslims and Arabs in the Middle East is marginalized with the epitaph of "anti-Semitism," can we then assume that torture, the mass murders of defenseless women and schoolchildren in Palestine, the torture of defenseless prisoners, and the violations of the Geneva Conventions and United Nations' Resolutions are pro-Semitic and therefore pro-Jewish? Are the world's greatest atrocities now attributable to all Jews?

Wasn't that the gross and inappropriate generalization that brought down Henry Ford's arguments in 1921 in his now-Fahrenheit 451-banned book, "The International Jew?" Isn't this what also negated Adolf Hitler's complaints against the "Jewish bankers" in his "Mein Kampf" of 1926? Isn't this the kind of generalization that both Christian and Jewish Zionists have always hidden behind, that of smearing anyone who disagrees with the horrors and terrorism of Zionism as simply being anti-Jewish? Isn't this the trap that Charles Lindbergh and Mel Gibson fell into? Isn't that why these truth tellers are always stopped even before they can initiate an intelligent debate on this extremely vital subject?

Every responsible American patriot, even those who take extra precautions separating Zionists from Jews, is smeared all the same by the evildoers. The so-called "Reverend" John Hagee addressed the AIPAC hate cabal reversing once again the roles of those actually being discriminated against, and persecuted, and tortured, and mass murdered in their own land, and identified as victims of Zionist horror. It is they, the victims, who are now being called the real threat as was the objective of the role reversal propaganda of Hitler's Nazis in 1938 Germany. But it is Hagee, and AIPAC, and Israel, and Bush, and Cheney who are the 2007 carbon copies of 1938 Nazi Germany! The world fears and hates US and Israel.

The alternate media, America's real free and independent press and voice of the people, has now once and for all exposed AIPAC for what it is: America's one and only political party. AIPAC is the astonishingly rich and powerful party/lobby that controls ALL politicians in America. Even a now-retired former president, Jimmy Carter, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, cannot stand up to the unlimited American political power of AIPAC. Congressional representatives Paul Findlay and Cynthia McKinney can testify to the all encompassing power and terror of AIPAC.

Banker & warmongers| 5.28.09 @ 1:53PM

1913. FED , IRS, FBI, ADL, all formed in the same year.

Hahahahah| 5.28.09 @ 2:35PM

On September 20 2007, an open letter was sent to President Bush with forty signatures, including the signatures of Richard Perle, William Kristol, Norman Podheretz, and Jeanne Kilpatrick. It was an ultimatum: To retain the signers’ support, (AIPAC’s re-election $$$), he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran should they refuse to sever ties with Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, “will constitute a decisive surrender in the war on terrorism.”

But what had Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, had to do with 9/11? Still, the President was given his ultimatum. He must exploit the horror of that atrocity, that “crises,” and channel America’s rage into a series of wars on nations, none of which had attacked the U.S. but all of which were hostile to Israel, or he, President Bush, would face political ruin.

To take advantage of the “crises” of 9/11with its attendant Zionist opportunity, Richard Perle wasted no time in an October 2001 article in the Jewish owned New York Times, warning that time was running out, as Saddam Hussein was getting closer to fully developed nuclear weapons. (It has now come to light that no such weapons ever existed):

Intelligence | 5.28.09 @ 2:43PM

THE JEWISH CONSPIRACY BEHIND THE 1965 OPEN IMMIGRATION LAW

THE DEATH OF AMERICA was enacted in 1965 with the signing of the Open Immigration Law Of 1965.

While serving Jewish interests, the Open Immigration Law Of 1965 was the beginning of America’s death as a unified nation. Jews were behind the law, promoting, lobbying, and “bribing” the law into existence with the fanaticism equalling the most dedicated Muslim terrorist.

Jews have continually evinced hostility toward American Christian culture in their aggressive efforts to change it. The Open Immigration Law Of 1965 is a prime example of that hostility.

Jews are a paranoid people. Wherever the Jews go they fear Anti-Semitism. (Jews have a guilt complex - and for good reason.) Jews fear a homogenous Christian culture of which they would never ascend to influential positions. Rather, in a homogenous Christian culture, Jews are looked upon, (and rightly so), as “Christ-killers.” This is why the Jews tried to get Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of Jesus Christ, removed from the silver screen.

A typical example of what characterizes the Jewish push for open immigration can be seen in the following 1948 quote by David Petegorsky, former Director of the AJCongress

JP| 5.28.09 @ 3:14PM

Hahaha,

"On September 20 2007, an open letter was sent to President Bush with forty signatures, including the signatures of Richard Perle, William Kristol, Norman Podheretz, and Jeanne Kilpatrick.."

Did you commit a typo? Who is Jeanne Kilpatrick? Did you mean Jeanne Kirkpatrick? If you did, she died a year before your alleged letter was allegedly sent out to the President.

JP| 5.28.09 @ 3:37PM

Thomas,
I agree with much of what you said. However, it became painfully obvious during the 1990s that the center of gravity of our threats was fast moving away from Eastern Europe and into desolate regions of the Horn of Africa and East Asia. The 1995 attack on the USAF barracks in Daharan Saudi Arabia was engineerd by the Iranians. AQ attacked US targets in Kenya and Yeman. A horrendous attack on a Jewish center in Argentina was engineered by Hamas. The 1993 WTC bombing had terrorists to ties in Egypt and Iraq. AQ Khan was the lead project manager in the building of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, and he did it right under the CIA's nose. By 2000, there were enough threads to indicate that all was no right in the world, but tell that to the CIA and FBI. They were truely clueless.

I suppose the choice assignments for the CIA are still London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, and Vienna. But they are now relegated to tourist attractions. Other than keeping tabs on Islamic radicals, there's not a whole lot there. The places we need operatives are Pakistan, Iran, China, Yeman, Egypt, Syria, and Russia. I wonder how many assests we have in this nations? The CIA has had almost 9 years to get its act together.

Yes, our Spec Ops guys appear to do the majority of the dangerous intel gathering in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. But, it is the Operations Directorate's branch that is charged with penetrating those nation's goverments, industries, and civil society. The late DCI Casey attempted to get agents and analysts who were independently mindly and who could think outside of the box. The kind of group-think and herd mentality her feared is exactly what we have. The CIA appears to have only one talent - self preservation.

Stuart Koehl| 5.28.09 @ 8:37PM

"Actually the Brits had plenty of assets on the ground in France; however, they were very reluctant to share them with thier loose lipped American friends."

And yet, they were as unprepared as we were to deal with operational conditions once they go off the beach.

"Also, the author of this column wasn't referring to military intel (that would be the DIA's job), but strategic intel that is independent of the DOD."

It doesn't really matter. There was also very bad strategic intelligence in World War II, even though we were literally reading the enemy's mail.

"One would ask what the CIA does with its $60 billion budget?"

My own personal, first-hand experience? Not much.

Richard Baker| 5.31.09 @ 5:28PM

Remember that Stansfield Turner, Jimmy Carter's CIA director, decimated the agent branch of the agency because he and Carter had this boogey man view of their efforts. Ok, it's a dirty business and would be nice if it weren't necessary. However, it is and Turner destroyed our HUMINT capabilities and still defends this action today. Also remember that even with all of our attention focused on the Gulf since Bush 41, our intelligence agencies are crying out for Arabic speakers at all levels. This is the legacy of Stansfield Turner, Arrogant, USN (Ret.).
Finally, remember what George Orwell said,
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf".

Thomas| 5.31.09 @ 5:35PM

JP,

Sorry to take so long to respond. You are entirely correct. The CIA never got out of its Cold War mentality. Intelligence from the Middle East was still largely obtained from Israeli and Pakistani intelligence sources, both of which have always had their own agendas. The Horn of
Africa was bureaucratic no man's land and the powers that be on the Potomac didn't want to hear any bad news from anywhere overseas. Since the 1980's, the CIA has been downplaying any threat to this nation from foreign nations.

As for the FBI, not only did they have their hands full with domestic criminal activity, but, legally, they have to rely upon the CIA to provide them with intelligence of interest from outside the US, something that was not allowed under the Clinton Administration.

There are a number of reasons why it is difficult to get timely intelligence from the CIA. But most of the problems with the CIA and the FBI come from the top, not the bottom.

Richard Baker| 5.31.09 @ 5:39PM

The writer above who mentioned von Clausewitz was exactly correct. It doesn't matter if you spent $1 trillion a day on anything, especially war, you're going to learn or re-learn something when action commences. To those of you who believe that these agencies should be infallible, remember that in your own lives, when you are the source of all personal knowledge, how many concepts/ideas that you constantly have to re-learn or re-discover. And you know it ALL.

Richard Baker| 5.31.09 @ 9:22PM

Thomas:
The Church Committee started the hesitancy and CYA at the CIA. Then along came Carter and Turner and being bold became passe. Now we wonder why we have an Agency which is constantly hedging it's bets. When the leaders of our country are unsure, if not downright hostile, to our fundamentals, it's no wonder that the Intel folks are in survival mode. Make mistakes? Sure. But if we get to the point that our political leadership discounts our intelligence product, then our enemies will have a Field Day. Remember also, as Justice Jackson said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Lingerie| 9.17.09 @ 9:43PM

sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie