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
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 8:15am
As many times as it takes. I don't think that you personally have these motives. I think the proof is 'in the puddin'' so to speak. The left wing leadership knows what it is doing and the harm it could cause. This is why they do it. Political reasons during an election cycle.

They were all supportive of this action, and of our troops until the uninformed Howard Dean started getting votes from the uninformed majority of his party. You can't argue that, because it is a fact.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 8:29am
I read the link and it was interesting. The fact remains that we could have won Viet-Nam without the use of nuclear weapons. We were and *are* still today light years ahead of any other country militarily.

The press turned the public against that war and they are proud of that. They are trying to do it again, but this time it isn't working because we don't have to depend on them anymore for all of our news.


Edited 4/25/2004 8:33 am ET ET by iminnie833

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 11:04am
Please explain how disaggreeing with this president is siding with the enemy? If I understand you then if we disagree with Bush we are For Saddem or Bin Laden? Are we anti American if we have a thought that doesn't agree with this administration?
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 11:07am
No it is not a fact at all it is your opinion. I really do disagree with that. Maybe the American people and leaders woke up to see what this president is really doing. It amazes me that you can think your opinion is fact with nothing to even back it up. As a mother of a soldier I really resent your line of thinking.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 3:00pm
Publicly "disagreeing" about the mission emboldens the enemy to kill more Americans, also hurts morale of the soldiers. This plays right into the enemy's hands. This is how "disagreeing" NOW puts the "disagreers" and the enemy on the same side.

It is fine to diaagree with this administration about anything you wish. I think it is irresponsible while our troops are in danger to "disagree" publicly about their mission. The time for that kind of public "disagreement" is over. It should have been voiced BEFORE our soldiers were in danger over there.




Edited 4/25/2004 3:02 pm ET ET by iminnie833

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 3:14pm
Let me explain to you the difference between fact and opinion. Here is what I posted:

First Paragraph: "As many times as it takes. I don't think that you personally have these motives. I think the proof is 'in the puddin'' so to speak. The left wing leadership knows what it is doing and the harm it could cause. This is why they do it. Political reasons during an election cycle."

OPINION; This paragraph is my opinion based on the

FACT: that they are all informed, and that they have all seen the classified information for themselves.

SECOND PARAGRAPH: "They were all supportive of this action, and of our troops until the uninformed Howard Dean started getting votes from the uninformed majority of his party. You can't argue that, because it is a fact."

Fact: They were all supportive of this action - or at least VOTED in favor of it and were outwardly supportive of it.

FACT: They remained in favor of this mission until the uninformed (a man who is NOT in congress and is therefore IGNORANT of what was in the classified information due to the fact that he was not allowed to see it because it was CLASSIFIED)

Fact: Based on the FACT that Howard Dean had not read any of the classified information he was uninformed and speaking from a standpoint of IGNORANCE.

FACT; His followers were also IGNORANT as we all were, considering that nobody was allowed to see the classified informaion because it was CLASSIFIED. Only those who voted for it were allowed to see it - THOSE WERE THE ONES WHO VOTED WITH THIS PRESIDENT.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 11:25pm
It amazes me that you twist things so that you can call them facts. Talk about blind faith.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-26-2004 - 7:18am
I doubt we could have "won" in Vietnam. The whole point of the exercise was to establish a democratic regime in South Vietnam. If a majority of the people allow a foreign presence and stability can be ensured, there's a chance of achieving the democracy goal. But you cannot establish a democracy simply by winning military battles. 58,000 troops died in the process of finding that out. With that many dead, even if we had "won", it would have been a Pyrrhic victory.

Using the press as a scapegoat is a bad idea, akin to shooting the messenger. Vietnam failed not because of the press but for a number of other reasons, including terrain that favored native populations who used guerilla tactics, our continued failure to disrupt military supply lines enough to halt the flow into South Vietnam, ambivalent and changing military mission, and meddling politicians–facts that came to light because the press did its job. It's interesting that you have abandoned your left/right rhetoric long enough to fire a salvo at the press which didn't discriminate one way or the other in Vietnam. If you favor a "directed" press which prints what it's told and supports government decisions without airing opposing views, you do not belong in a democratic society.

It's certainly true that there are many more sources of information today, thanks to the Internet. It's possible to get all kinds of information and viewpoints, from those of other nations and their media all the way to the most insular of the far right. But I would recommend that you do a variety of reading or the picture won't be complete.

Gettingahandle

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Mon, 04-26-2004 - 2:27pm
I didn't twist anything. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. I'm not the one working in the blind here.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Mon, 04-26-2004 - 2:37pm
I didn't abandon my left/right observations at all. The press is left wing. They were against the war in Viet Nam. They reported at least one of our huge victories as a defeat. The coverage was agenda driven, just as it is today. If it were not for the press, and the fear of the press by our leadership we would have won that war. And the war was not lost because the people didn't want democracy, (I can't tell you what I think about that statement without getting kicked off the board ;).

And please follow your own advise: "It's certainly true that there are many more sources of information today, thanks to the Internet. It's possible to get all kinds of information and viewpoints, from those of other nations and their media all the way to the most insular of the far right. But I would recommend that you do a variety of reading or the picture won't be complete."

Pages