Captain's Quarters Comments - Latest Comments in Confidence Games, High And Low

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

Lethologica — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:23:45 -0000

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

Lethologica — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:17:41 -0000

Except we don't need to invade North Korea, because thanks to Israel's action against Syria's reactor (most likely) North Korea capitulated.

I really think the US has a good thing going here. Act like the rational party, and play good cop/bad cop with Israel.

They should go over to Iran and say, "Well, we're just going to negotiate, and that's fine, but those Israelis, they're really loose cannons and it'd be a real shame if they suddenly decided to start attacking you over what we both know is nothing. Seriously, we don't know what they're going to do. Anyway, how's your meal?"

[/joke]

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

Lethologica — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:12:10 -0000

I suggest you read The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman if you haven't already. Nations do not simply act in their own self-interest, or we would be British today.

Let's look at your analysis. It forgets that we've been discussing Iran's program for longer than the duration of the Iraq War. But anyway...

Shall we go back to 2003, when the program was abandoned?

The Taliban have been defeated, Iraq toppled. The US is on both sides of Iran, and seems ready for a pincer should they stabilize quickly in both areas. Iran knows its weapons program is p***ing off the US, and that the two biggest local threats to its security have just been eliminated. What does it do?

Well, it suspends the nuclear weapons program, obviously, to avoid p***ing us off more. One small problem: they advertise that they're still pursuing nuclear technology. This is an option completely against Iran's self-interest based on the available information. If it's to protect itself against local opponents, who might those be? If Ahmadinejad is paranoid enough to think Israel or Pakistan will launch nukes at him because he isn't pursuing nuclear technology, he's insane to begin with. And if he halted the program to avoid making the US mad, why advertise that he was keeping it? Moreover, as has been pointed out, the central premise is incorrect - stating that Iran was pursuing (but had not attained) nukes would NOT make them safer from local threats. They'd scare the bejesus out of anybody nearby, and those people might conclude that a strike was safer than letting Iran go nuclear. Furthermore, the same applies to those farther away - Israel would be mighty p***ed, and the US would be pretty mad too. So Iran's policy seems designed to antagonize the world, not to protect itself. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "Never draw unless you mean to shoot" - trying to bluff is ridiculously risky, and it doesn't even pay off for the Iranians here. Thoroughly against self-interest...which is where Tuchman comes in to explain how this is possible.

Btw, Monkei, I think TomB meant that the Iranians were "scared", not "scarred". Because they certainly don't have any scars now, but they were most likely scared just like Libya was. And that's not mutually exclusive with your comment either - scared in 2003, benefactors in 2005.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

okonkolo — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:44:47 -0000

Thank you for your very illuminating posts.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

Neo — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:58:57 -0000

The part of all of this that many don’t seem to understand that the NIE changes nothing in regard to the sanctions, since they are based on the actions or inactions in regard to the uranium enrichment program that the Iranians have admitted to having and are now running, but whose purpose is still not completely clear.

None of the sanctions have anything to do with a nuclear weapons program that may or may not be operational.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

txslr — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:07:21 -0000

That's right. Israel sees Iran as a threat because they believe that Iran is pursing nuclear weapons.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

txslr — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:04:43 -0000

See Iran/Iraq war.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

txslr — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:03:59 -0000

What's that? Sashal's First Law of Governmental Self-Preservation? Saddam was given ample opportunity to comply or abdicate and did neither. Near the end Hitler could have attempted to reach an agreement with the West that would have saved countless German's from falling into the Soviet sphere, but believed that the German people had let him down and and needed to be punished. In Imperial Japan there was a faction that forcefully advocated fighting to the last against the Allies, even after two atomic bombs were dropped. In fact, my recollection is that there was an attempt to overthrow the Emperor in order to stop him from surrendering rather than committing national suicide.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

txslr — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:51:01 -0000

I'm having a very hard time making any sense of what you're saying. Are you suggesting that Iran suspended it's program because they are afraid of the Iraqis and we hadn't promised to stay? So you believe that Iran suspended it's program because we invaded Iraq? Hooray for Bush/Cheney! Or they want nuclear weapons to fight the Taliban?! You do know that atomic bombs make lousy counter-insurgency weapons, don't you? Or are you hypothesizing that Iran had lot's of reasons to make it's neighbors think that they had a bomb? But they weren't claiming that they had one. They insisted all along that they didn't WANT one. It looked (land still looks) as if they are PURSUING one. So is that their subterfuge? Making it look like they are pursuing a nuclear weapon while actually mothballing their program? What does that buy the rational actor? Again, a nuclear weapons PROGRAM is not a deterent. It is a reason to attack. The rational actor would make it look like they are NOT pursuing a weapon while actually pursuing one, and would then announce to the world that they had it. Not the other way around!

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

the Cannuck — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:29:08 -0000

Can't access your site to comment

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

txslr — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:26:51 -0000

Mike McConnell told Bush they had new information. At that point no one knew how the intelligence community would interpret it. There are 16 intelligence agencies involved in processing this information and reaching a joint opinion regarding what it means. In the current NIE several of those agencies dissented on the conclusion in the report. The report itself indicates only moderate confidence that Iran has not restarted its weapons program. As recently as four months ago one of the primary authors of this report testified before Congress that "We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. "

If President Bush asked Mike McConnell what the information was, McConnell's honest answer would have had to be "We don't know yet." This does not make Bush a liar nor McConnell incompetent.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

Teresa — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:19:14 -0000

What the heck are you talking about? Iran has a well trained, well equipped army.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

exhelodrvr — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:56:16 -0000

Sorry if someone else has posted this thought already, but if Iran did actually stop their nuke weapons program in 2003, then clearly a significant factor was what was going on in Iraq. This, of course, further validates the President's course of action, as "better behavior" from nations such as Iran was one of the specified hoped-for results. Combine that with North Korea's recent actions (assuming that they can be taken at face value), and you have some pretty powerful evidence that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. I don't expect that to come out of any Democratic mouths (other than Joe Lieberman) but hopefully that can be used by the Republicans in the near future.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

coldwarrior415 — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:55:41 -0000

All the creation of the ODNI was to take away nearly half of the serving ops officers from CIA to man the ODNI staff and management, added several layers of approvals and review for all intelligence operations, and made the entire IC more not less political along the way, and made the chasm between officer in the field and the national security staff at the White HOuse the ultimate customer, wider, much wider.

No, it is not a pretty picture.

After 9-11 the CIA became the sole target in the gunsights. A little scrutiny wnet to the FBI. But the rest?

The other then eleven agencies were pretty much immune from scrutiny, most never heard of them, most still have no clue as to these other intelligence entitites.

We have a National HUMINT Service (the former Directorate of Operations, my old stomping grounds) but there is still a large disconnect between gaining efficiencies and gaining territory. I am perhaps one of the few former-Agency types who is very happy with the current DCI, Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, who has begun in earnest to reinvigorate the HUMINT side and is a no nonsense leader. He is also approachable, intelligent , and willing to listen.

I came to CQ the first time a few years ago to defend a friend of mine, an Army officer, whoi was one of the best Army intellgience operators I have ever encountered. We had a long history of working across agency and DoD lines in order to accomplish some very important programs. But this relationship on the professional and personal level was the exception,. far from the norm.

Prior to Hayden's arrival at CIA there was a strong reluctance to accept ANY of the lessor operators/officers from any non-CIA entity as an equal. Under Hayden, I am informed, this sort of nonsense has stopped. It is a step forward. Hayden did a bang up job over at NSA and in a number of prior assignments. He understands intelligence collection from across all "INT's" not just HUMINT. He also needs to be able to select and draft operators from other agwencies and make them part of a singular unit of HUMINT activities. He also needs to address, tackle, take on, the large number of independent agencies in the IC.

Hopefully he can make CIA leaner and meaner and more adaptable and make more seamles the interagency working level doers, while holding the upper level appointees at bay.

But, the bottom line is a more streamlined intelligence establishment...we need it more now than ever.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

Sansoucy — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:37:48 -0000

Kill him? Certainly not. But I might kick in his door, put him on the floor, toss his house to make certain he didn't have anything more lethal than a No-Pest Strip available, and grind the barrel of my 12-gauge in his ear while saying, "Listen reeeeaaaally carefully, mofo, get froggy with me - or even *look like* you're getting froggy - and you're worm-food. I don't rely on equivocal 'intelligence' when my family is at stake. Kapeeeesch? Y'all be careful, now."

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

Sansoucy — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:32:42 -0000

Leftist peace-at-any-pricers in short:
Iran must not suffer any consequences of any kind when the NIE says they're beavering away on nukes and Iran must not suffer any consequences of any kind when they're merely supporting non-nuclear Islamist terror the world over. Iran must never be punished, at all, ever, regardless of [anything here]. One can imagine these peaceniks would say the same thing if Iran actually nuked someone, "Oh, dear, we mustn't respond. That would be ever so militaristic, jingoistic, and ism-based."

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

exhelodrvr — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:30:30 -0000

Thank you; I agree completely.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

jerry — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:26:27 -0000

Coldwarrior:

All the creation of the DNI did was to "inflate" the power of the old Community Management Staff that used to be run by the DCIA in his hat as DCI. Nothing else has changed except we separated CMS from CIA. If we really wanted a serious intelligence reform act we would have reorganized our intelligence bureaucracy into a military intelligence component, a political/economic intelligence component and a clandestine service. The “MIA” would fulfill the function of an all-source intel agency supporting DoD, the Joint Staff and the COCOMS. It would combine the analytic components of DIA, NGA and NSA into one entity. We could have beefed up State INR to do the same thing for the rest of the government and combined clandestine operations for all agencies into a new OSS. Instead we created another “Czar” to oversee an alphabet soup of agencies who continue to fight for dollars, attention and prestige. It’s not a pretty picture.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

sashal — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:22:03 -0000

No.
terrorists are suicidal.
Governments and countries are not....

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

JonPrichard — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:52:26 -0000

Uh, yes they are suicidal. In fact they have shown to be maniacally so. How many dead teenagers marching to battle armed with nothing more than a plastic key does it take for you to understand this? Martyrdom is their creed, their joy and that includes the leadership...especially their President.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

coldwarrior415 — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:51:10 -0000

Just a bit of myopia evident in your response.

"Let’s ask a different : is it the proper business of the United States government to use its military so that people in other nations can be liberated from repressive governments? Quite simply, no, it isn’t."

It may well be. It has proven so in the past. There are times when liberating a nation from a despot can lead to better overall national security in the long run. Not adressing that despot can lead to later, more involved, and more costly threats to our own national securrity. So, for that matter, I find your position to be just a bit off the mark.

Was the Iraq War a legal war? That question has been asked many many times. Congress authorized it. Congress provided funding. The United Nations had a dozen or more Resolutions calling for compliance. There was ample evidence that Saddam was not exactly a nice person. There was eveidence that the oil-for-food regime was coming apart at the seams and Saddam was gaming us. other nations in the region looked toward Saddam as another Saladin, more a symbol than an actual Saladin, but in that realm, having a Saddam, or any other major leader freely and openly sticking his finger in our eye, and the UN as well, made for an environment that just about any polayer in the region knew for a fact that we were powerless to do anything at all about Saddam...to include Saddam himself.

So...our not doing anything about Saddam for over a decade made it far more difficult for us to have any say or input in a region that was/is vital to our national security.

Given the decade prior to our moving in to Iraq, I'd say, honestly, that removing Saddam was a darn good first step.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

JonPrichard — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:48:42 -0000

You morons are only focusing on one aspect of the Iranian problem, that is the potential for them to have the Bomb. What about 30 years of worldwide Islamic revolution with Hamas and Hezbollah as Iran's spearhead? Worldwide terrorism is laid at the feet of the Mullahs. In truth the West has been at war with Islam since the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

jerry — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:43:15 -0000

Okonkolo:

So, If next year the IC reports that Iran has restarted its program you would be the first person to advocate bombing Iran?

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

JonPrichard — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:42:08 -0000

And Libya would still have an active Nuclear weapons program and Iran wouldn't have stopped (maybe temporarily) their nuclear program and the whole northern section of Iraq would be harboring all manner of terrorist camps and Lebanon would still be in total control of Syria and on and on and on.

Re: Confidence Games, High And Low

coldwarrior415 — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:40:33 -0000

exhelodrv, in a few agencies it runs deeper than that. [Bear with me, this is a long response...you touched on a hot button issue for me, an old one, one that I had to deal with for many years.]

Having a well-placed source [agent] is what all ops officers strive to obtain. But, once spotted, assessed, developed and recruited, it doesn't end there. Unfortunately, as we saw with Curveball, it did stop there. Having ops officers conversant in the language, culture and customs of a country is a good thing. It is a better thing when that ops officer also has in depth knowledge of the subject at hand, of the inner workings of the country in question, and an ability to recall or bring up esoteric points that can easily help determine from the start the veracity of a source or the lack of veracity of that source.

In many cases this is not generally what happens. So tasking/questions for the agent are routed through an ops officer who may or may not be conversant in the subject, from an analyst thousands of miles away. The clarity of the written word on both ends comes into play as well. The results are often predictable. Well placed source. Poor or lousy or misunderstood tasking. A willingness to believe everything the source provides. Enter this information into the overall rubric and you have a problem from the start. No ops officer wants his source to turn out to be bad, or stupid...or worse, a dangle, or a paper mill. But it happens. How often it is caught before damage is done is an open question.

Iranians have a history of expansive language. They also have a rich history in "selling carpets" if they know they have an interested buyer. Back during the Iran-Iraq War I had the opportunity to be a second set of eyes on a good number of cases. It took a bit of time to understand that each source was inflating his data. Some did it to engrandize themselves, thus making for a better pay out. Others did it as a matter of habit. For other it was a simple matter of mistranslation. There were a few officers who viewed me as a pain in the butt along the way, too.

But, when essential questions were asked: such as how did you obtain this information? Describe the location where you obtained this information. Who else had access? If it was a military facility how did you, a civilian gain access? If a government facility, how did you gain access? Basic questions such as these provided ample evidence that several were passing along what they thought the ops officers wanted to hear. Having to go through the entire intel community recalling the intel and trying to expunge it from a variety of finished products was a serious task one that made for a few enemies along the way.

Common sense? Yes. Is it common? Not always. Doubting your own agent/source once an agent or source is officially "vetted" is something that falls to the wayside, often. Most left it to the CI staff to look over when they get around to it.

It takes a good, a darn good, ops officer to doubt a source and a better ops officer to doubt the info with good reason and informed skepticism. I caught hell a few times for taking a few months to debrief a subject or two before the first report was sent in from the field. It is a time consuming process, one where attention to detail has to be exercised constantly. What was said on Monday might contradict what was said on Friday; or it might open another window toward more complete information, a window previously unknown, even by the source/agent until the question was asked. The ops officer has to be his/her own reports officer and analyst in the field,otherwise they are just generalists, with a glib tongue and an ability to cozy up to foreigners. Too many for too long were of this type.

Iran difficult operationally. Lots of stuff on the periphery, but getting close-to-the-chest intelligence from Ahmadenijad's staff meetings appears nearly impossible. So we end up relying on suppositions, rational actor models, looking at what is being built or funded against what is not being built or funded, how public statements match up with what we can see on the ground, and Iranians who are willing to talk to us...anything to be able to have a source from inside Iran. But once we have that source...what then?

It is a fragile and fallible exercise, but if done properly can reveal a Rosetta Stone of intelligence, and if done improperly can provide far more chaff and noise than we have the ability to sift through.

This NIE is not a real NIE. It is a summary of an NIE. It has been sanitized. It is general in its presentation. But it does contain certain elements that lend credence to its judgements.

However, it is a start point. It is a metric of what we know today...or last month, actually.

All that said, take the eleven or so intelligence organizations that are members of the Intelligence Community. Take all their reporting on the subject. Keep in mind a cultural desire to have your product be the gem, above all the rest. Let the turf battles begin...as the review process gets underway.

Frankly, right now, we have too many intelligence organizations involved in foreign intelligence. The creation of the ODNI has removed the "Central" from the Central Intelligence Agency. it is now just one of many. There is NO central in our intelligence efforts since the implementation of the 9-11 Commission recommendations and the establishment of the ODNI. Too many intel organizations. We need less, fewer, more focused, with the best of the crop and those with solid credentials and experience doing the collection and analysis...not having every Cabinet Department and every branch of service and DoD running their independent shops.

Until we realize and admit that the ODNI is an impediment, and that our rush "to do something" after 9-11, and Congessional demands on the intelligence community are far from a help, we will continue to have to deal with an overlarge bureaucracy and too many officials stumbling over themselves and each other trying to get answers from essentially the same sources. This is no way to run national intellgience.