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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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