A Different Kind of Intelligence Failure
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 04-17-2004 - 8:45pm |
April 17, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
A Different Kind of Intelligence Failure
By ADLAI E. STEVENSON III
CHICAGO — 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.

Pages
1) They neglected to mention that the shiites and the Sunni COMBINED make up less than 3% of the population. It would be like the skinheads and the PETA organization rising us against the rest of the population over here.
2) According to this publication America is supposed to be all things to all people. Not only are we to liberate the people of Iraq while trying not to get killed by 10 year old children, but are at the same time supposed to immediately restore electricity to all remote areas of Iraq.
3)This quote is revealing: "Bremer, at the beginning, was a brother," says Ali, leaning against a sack of grain in Sadr City's Jamila Wholesale Market. "But now he is worse than Saddam. Saddam said about us that we are a mob. And Bremer said the same thing -- he said that we are criminals."
Ali was reacting to U.S. authorities' arrest warrant against Moqtada Sadr, the firebrand Shiite cleric whose Mahdi Army has been battling coalition forces ever since the U.S. Army padlocked his newspaper on March 28. Like many moderate Shiites, Ali is not a follower of Sadr, but he supports Sadr's opposition to American forces."
HELLOOOOO????? The newspaper was CALLING ITS READERS TO KILL AMERICANS!!! You don't find that a little bit DANGEROUS TO OUR TROOPS??? What if a prominent right wing Newspaper posted this headline tomorrow morning was "A Call To All Who Love Jesus You Must Starting Today MURDER Any Abortion Doctor That You See On The Street." WOULD YOU RESPECT THEIR FREEDOM TO POST THESE CALLS TO ARMS???? Would you want to shut down ANY paper who activly solicits MURDERING anyone, ESPECIALLY our brave military who are over there protecting this country????
And it APPALLS ME that he would be surprised that Bremer would call these barbarous murders "criminals" after MURDERING innocent non-military and dragging their dead bodies around the town and hanging them upon bridges? YOU DON'T THINK THAT IS CRIMINAL????
The left-wing leadership is trying desparately to make this a repeat for political reasons. Fortunately America doesn't have to depend on the left-wing anymore to figure out what is going on.
This is incorrect. The Shiites are 60% and the Sunnis are about 20%. Think about that.
It is not appropriate to demonize the Iraqi's. They are humans and we invaded their country. They have been very patient with GWB's bumbling while they suffer. The problem with your kind of vengence is that you won't be able to spot a way out, should it come your way. You want to defeat the Iraqi's and that wasn't the purpose of the war.
DEMONIZE THE IRAQI's????? Do you think it is appropriate behavior for these people to MURDER innocent non-military and drag them through the streets then hang them on bridges??? I'd say they demonized themselves.
I don't want to defeat the Iraqi's!!! I want to liberate them from this SMALL GROUP of criminals that is trying to defeat efforts for a turnover of government TO the Iraqui's.
Though goodness knows it wasn't easy for either politicians or the military. It was sort of like walking a tightrope. Both China and the USSR had nuclear capabilities. We couldn't use nukes--we had them but they were considered to be deterrents because the other key idea of the time was mutual destruction. It was a fine balancing act--none of the nuclear nations could use their weapons because if they did, retaliation in kind was guaranteed. A lot of the more hawkish types of the period didn't quite grasp that idea when they talked about nuking the North.
By the same token, had the use of conventional weapons to attack the North succeeded in any significant way, China would have seen that success as a threat to its borders, with some justification considering its proximity--and possibly contemplated using nuclear weapons. So the attacks on the North might have succeeded militarily, but had more serious consequences in the long term. It was supposed to be a limited war for that very reason.
You might consider going somewhere other than the far right for your information, Minnie. It would lend your arguments much more credibility.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Thanks for posting this, though. I thought that it was US, during the Clinton administration (not blaming President Clinton for not being psychic like some like to do) that supplied the Chinese with their nuclear information. Now I know that we only improved it, which is bad enough (again, not Clinton's fault since he can't be everywhere and do everything - after all he was very busy in the oval office with that young girl - sorry, couldn't resist.)
If you look back at the Web site I gave, you'll see that China exploded a nuclear device in October of 1964--roughly two months after the Gulf of Tonkin. I can't help but think that China read the "writing on the wall" of the Gulf of Tonkin and put their nuclear program into overdrive. Also US intelligence of the era seems spotty-- "The documents suggest considerable competence in tracking Chinese nuclear and missile tests, as well as missile training activities, but what also comes across is a very limited, as well as rather inaccurate, knowledge of Chinese missile deployments during the late 1960s." It didn't matter if the American public knew what was in the documents. The military higher ups and some of the more exalted politicians knew!
So what you've got during the point of greatest enemy activity, the Tet offensive of 1968, is one foe with known nuclear capabilities (USSR)and yet another foe with probable nuclear capabilities (China). So tell me, Minnie. If you don't actually KNOW how either will respond, do you drop a nuclear bomb?
And again because of the spotty intelligence (seems like we'd learn that intel about weapons of mass destruction can be problematic in more than one instance), we didn't know what China could or would do in response to massive destruction in North Vietnam. Did they have nuclear capabilities--yes. Could they deliver--didn't know! And they needn't have had long range missiles. There were hundreds of thousands of US troops and civilians almost within spitting distance of China--Clark AFB in the Phillipines; Kadena AFB and Ft. Buckner in Okinawa, and numerous bases, forts and camps in Japan as well.
And I could care less if you take a potshot at Clinton. I voted for him in one election (pre-Monica) but after that mess I figured a man who didn't have the self-discipline to keep his fly zipped while in the Oval Office had no damn business being in charge of one of the most powerful nations in the world.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
We didn't have to use nuclear power to win the war, either. We were light years ahead of them militarily without nukes.
Glad we agree about President Clinton.
Pages