A Different Kind of Intelligence Failure

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
A Different Kind of Intelligence Failure
83
Sat, 04-17-2004 - 8:45pm
"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..."

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/opinion/17STEV.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 10:14am
You've got it all wrong. Read Woodward's book. It's clear that this president doesn't ignore dissenting opinion - as a matter of fact isn't COLON POWELL the Secretary of State??? It looks like he values reasoned dissenting opinion. Some "dissenting opinion" IS simply noise from the left, you have to admit that! If the president is for day, then day must be wrong and they are for night! It is THAT extreme. There are those on the left who are now supporting TERRORISTS simply because Bush is against them, (ie: Israel vs. Palestenian : now all of the sudden the TERRORISTS must be right because Bush has taken the side against terrorism - IT'S THAT EXTREME).

And, if someone feels belittled after reading one of my posts I cannot control the way they feel. My intentions are not to belittle anyone.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 11:22am
That was the whole idea behind deterrence. If a nation had nuclear capabilities, it could consider those capabilities as a sort of fortress against attacks on the nation or its interests. It was generally accepted that for a nation to consider "first-strike" (in other words, use a nuke as an offensive instead of defensive weapon), it would have to be capable of knocking out every nuclear facility in every other country so no retaliation would be possible. But in order to target all those weapons you HAVE to know exactly where all the facilities are. And you have to know, beyond the shadow of doubt, that leaders in another country wouldn't be crazy enough to attempt first strike without total knockout capabilities. Apparently in China, the intelligence wasn't adequate to know either site or strike inclination. Using nuclear weapons against North Vietnam was ruled out. You might find the following site interesting:

http://www.nautilus.org/VietnamFOIA/analyses/parable.html

The China of the 1960's and early 1970's bore a much closer resemblance to today's North Korea--Mao was the Kim Jong Il of the time. It had little in common with the China we see in 2004. Do you realize that until Nixon went to China in 1972, there was a US ban on ANY Chinese goods/products? Who'd athunk it?!

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 2:01pm
<>

LOL, but far better to declare them unpatriotic and demonize them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 2:29pm
Thanks for the link. I don't have time to read it now, but I will get back to it later and offer my thoughts.

The first document you posted indicated China's military could be completely wiped out if they did a first strike. As far as the Superpowers (this is from memory) it was pretty well understood that any use from either of us toward the other could end with total wipeout of both countries. Much too risky.

And I remember communist China from back then, you are right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 2:31pm
Very well said . Thank you for posting that.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 3:17pm
His lawyers got him aquited on the basis of insanity. SO I guess you agree Bush is insane right now.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 4:13pm
<>

NO, criticism is not meant to "enlarge that crack" but to call attention to it so the fissure can be corrected. I have a difficult time thinking that any American wants us to fail in Iraq.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Sat, 04-24-2004 - 12:10am
Exactly how many times do you want us to read it. ' The left wing is "against the war" for political reasons. They want to regain the white house.' I totaly resent that. I am against the war because is it wrong. Because I question the presidents reasoning, because way to many soldiers are dyingand way to many Iraqi's are dying. How dare you make that kind of statement with no proof to back it up.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 8:02am
You're wrong. He used a self defense plea.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 8:10am
The criticism by most people is not *meant* to enlarge that crack, but it does. I believe that the leadership knows this and is purposefully enlarging the crack to cause our failure there so they can turn people against this president. They are in effect, siding with the enemy. This really makes me sick. I don't think most anti-war people (not the leaders) have this motive but are doing it just the same. I think it's terribly irresponsible with the lives of our soldiers.


Edited 4/25/2004 8:17 am ET ET by iminnie833

Pages