Denouement on Iraq: First Stop the Bleeding
MEMORANDUM FOR: Speaker of the House | Senate Majority Leader
SUBJECT: Denouement on Iraq: First Stop the Bleeding
In the coming weeks a Congress that is willing to assert its prerogative as a co-equal branch of government has a unique opportunity to stop the needless deaths and maiming of U.S. troops in Iraq and bring them home in an orderly way this year. To do that, it must use its constitutionally mandated authority—the power of the purse. Although the president, vice president, and their most ardent supporters blindly insist that victory is a troop surge away, the current U.S. military commander on the ground, General David Petraeus, concedes that no military victory is possible. Victory will only be secured through a political solution. The question is not whether U.S. troops will remain permanently in Iraq. The vast majority of Americans agree that the U.S. presence in Iraq is temporary. The real question is how many more Americans will be killed and wounded in a civil war that pits Sunnis against Shias.
Background: A movement of retired intelligence officers established in January 2003 out of concern for the politicization of our profession, VIPS’ first analytic effort was a same-day critique of Colin Powell’s performance at the U.N. on February 5, 2003. (At the time, we seemed the only ones not at all impressed.) Since then we have issued eleven more briefing memoranda, most of them addressed to President George W. Bush. Our intent was to make available sane, unadulterated intelligence analysis to foster enlightened decision-making on the Middle East. We have not the slightest hint, though, that our memoranda actually reached the president. And when we released them to the media, our efforts received little ink or airtime.
This president and vice president have made a regular practice of standing the intelligence process on its head. For example, they decided on the “surge” (which is looking more and more like escalation) before the intelligence community issued its National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), “Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead” in January. To their credit, the authors resisted pressure to support the notion that a “surge” would improve the U.S. position in Iraq; the analysts refused to budge and made it abundantly clear that, surge or not, the U.S. position would continue to erode.
The only trace of unacceptable policy influence on the preparation of that NIE appeared in the unclassified Key Judgments where the straw man of “rapid withdrawal” was introduced and knocked down forcefully again and again (yesterday by Cheney, and again this morning by the editors of the Washington Post in their lead editorial). Intelligence analysts have complained that they were forced to estimate what would result from “rapid withdrawal” of U.S. troops from Iraq, but not what would result from a gradual or phased withdrawal. Although the chairman of the estimate assured Senators at a hearing on February 27 that no political pressure had been applied to the drafters, he could not explain why the most extreme option, “rapid withdrawal,” was singled out for debunking.
To be sure, in the wake of frequent visits by Cheney and I. Lewis Libby to CIA headquarters to help the analysts, and the ensuing debacle in intelligence on Iraq, U.S. intelligence was thoroughly discredited. Still, it makes no sense to make key foreign policy decisions in an intelligence vacuum. When we served in U.S. intelligence, the president (and sometimes the Congress) would ask us for our considered view on likely foreign reaction to this or that policy before final decisions were taken. Quickly prepared, time-sensitive estimates were called Special National Intelligence Estimates (SNIEs). Before President Lyndon Johnson started bombing Vietnam, for example, he asked for a SNIE addressing the question as to whether bombing would make a significant difference in helping defeat the Vietnamese Communist “insurgency.” That was a no-brainer; we said No. He went ahead anyway, but the point is that he would not have thought of making such a decision without obtaining the unvarnished views of intelligence analysts first. Thanks to the separation of powers, and the outcome of the November election, the nation now has another foreign policy “decider”—you, the leaders of the new Congress. The bottom line is you now have the power to end the most unconscionable and catastrophic foreign policy blunder in our nation’s history. It will take a lot of courage, but such courage cannot be expected, absent an true understanding of just how foolish it is to throw more and more U.S. troops into the cauldron. They deserve better. It is with this acute sense of the stakes involved that we offer our professional view on what is likely to happen should there is unnecessary delay in withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Drawing on well over a hundred years of our collective experience in intelligence, we five members of the VIPS Steering Group offer below principal conclusions of what amounts to a mini-SNIE. We offer the following Key Judgments:
- The vast majority of the violence in Iraq is sectarian in nature and involves a multifaceted civil war mostly pitting Sunnis against Shias. However, the violence also entails secular Sunnis fighting Sunni extremists linked to Al Qaeda and secular Shias battling Shia extremists. The civil war aspect includes (as the Jan. NIE put it) “the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements”—in other words, a rabid dog fight with our troops in between. The only thing the various factions share is unflinching opposition to U.S. occupation. But the notion that there is a monolithic group of “insurgents” or “enemy” falls far wide of the mark.
- U.S. strategy in Iraq is based on the false assumptions that the “people” and the “insurgents” in Iraq are two distinct and opposing groups, and that U.S. and Iraqi forces will be able to “clear” the insurgents and “hold” the people. In fact, the resistance will be suppressed in one area, only to re-emerge somewhere else (the attempt to suppress is appropriately called “Operation Whack-a-Mole”). It goes against virtually all historical precedent to suppose that an unwelcome invader with 150,000 troops—and Iraqi security forces that the NIE judged to be “persistently weak”—can occupy and subdue a large country with a population of 26 million and long porous borders.
- The United States does not have enough military forces on the ground in Iraq to provide effective control of the cities and key regions to prevent violence and destroy insurgent infrastructure. Moreover, the U.S. lacks sufficient soldiers and marines in its current globally deployed force to provide sustained reinforcements. And absent is the political will to bring back the draft to obtain the number of troops required to get better control of the situation on the ground in Iraq. Even with a draft, the United States would require two years at a minimum to train and organize the new units for any mission in Iraq. Given these facts, there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq.
- A surge in U.S. troops in specific areas, specifically Baghdad, may bring more than a momentary lessening in the violence, but it will not end the fighting. In fact, this concentrated surge will enable insurgent forces in other areas of the country to expand their operations and control. A de facto partitioning of Iraq is under way. Since the surge started we have already seen an increase in violence in the Kurdish controlled north.
- At current casualty rates, twelve more months will mean at least 1,000 additional U.S. troops killed and 18 more months will bring at least 1,500—not to mention Iraqis killed, and thousands upon thousands seriously wounded. The various Iraqi insurgent groups will probably fade into the woodwork for a while, but at a time and place of their choosing they will surely be back, in force. In the end, aside from the deaths, nothing lasting will have been achieved.
- Senior U.S. civilian and military officials still don’t get it. “They can’t beat us in a stand-up fight,” bragged our vice president just two months ago, echoing recent words of a U.S. Army colonel in Iraq. This completely misses the point, and calls to mind the sad month of April 1975, when Col. Harry Summers was sent to negotiate with a North Vietnamese colonel the terms of American withdrawal from Vietnam. Summers reported the following exchange: “‘You know, you never beat us on the battlefield,’ I said to Colonel Tu, my North Vietnamese counterpart. ‘That may be so,’ he said, ‘but it is also irrelevant.’”
- The critical parts of Iraq—Baghdad and southern Iraq—will be under the control of the Shia. Iran in turn will try to expand its aid and influence among both the Shia populace and the secular Sunnis.
- The U.S. occupation continues to be a windfall for terrorist recruiters. An NIE of April 2006 on terrorism noted that the war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists whose numbers, it said, may be increasing faster than the U.S. can reduce the threat. There is wide consensus among experienced observers that the war in Iraq makes it immensely more difficult to deal with the real threat of international terrorism.
- Violence in Iraq, at least for the mid-term, will continue regardless of the U.S. presence. Once a U.S. departure is under way there is an increased likelihood that the Sunnis and Shias will move toward a political accommodation of some sort since at that point neither can count on the United States to fight on their side. The only thing in doubt is the timing of the U.S. departure, and whether it can be accomplished without the massacres the British experienced trying to extricate themselves from earlier expeditions into Iraq. The lack of a substantial U.S. military presence in Iraq will have the counterintuitive effect of increasing the likelihood that neighboring countries will be more willing to take steps to help reduce the violence in Iraq.
No one asked either the authors of the recent NIE on Iraq, or us in VIPS, to assess the various proposals on the table for their effect on the situation in Iraq. Domestic politics appears the dominant factor guiding the Congress. Domestic politics is not part of our portfolio, but as American citizens, parents and grandparents, we will permit ourselves this observation. We note that the amendment offered by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, mandating that supplemental funding be used exclusively for the “safe and complete withdrawal “ of all U.S. troops and contractors from Iraq not later than December 31, 2007, offers the most realistic approach in terms of what the U.S. can accomplish on the ground in Iraq. The main difference boils down to the saving of thousands of American and Iraqi lives this year, with little-to-no chance for the administration to diddle Congress.
Your draft legislation makes the dubious assumption that the president believes the U.S. Constitution still applies to him—and that he should be taken at his word. Rather, his behavior has shown that he has little but contempt for Congress, which he has had little trouble manipulating—at least until now. Again, what remains indisputably in your quiver is the power of the purse. This is your chance to use it, and save an untold number of lives in the process. You may wish to let the chips, rather than our soldiers, fall where they may.
Ray Close, Princeton, NJ
Larry Johnson, Bethesda, MD
David C. MacMichael, Linden, VA
Ray McGovern, Arlington, VA
Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley, MN
Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Mr. Johnson,
I totally agree with you and from what I've observed this far, watching Cspan, the Democrats are trying to get things done. However, they can't do it alone -- and so many of the Republicans are simply blocking things so nothing, seemingly, can or will be accomplished.
I have never, in my life, been so angry with my government and the way it is kowtowing to an incompetent administration and to ideology.
BTW, I am a former military intelligence analyst and as such am analyzing things from a different perspective than perhaps a lot of people.
A question I still haven't heard a good answer to: Access to classified information is based on two primary concepts:
1. A proper security clearance commensurate with the level of information one needs access to; and,
2. A need-to-know.
Why would anyone in the Executive Branch have needed access to the names of covert agents and NOCs? It seems to me this information should have been, at the least, TS-SCI.
Why wasn't it a violation of law when Ms. Plame's name was leaked to someone (Novak) who did NOT have a need-to-know?
I also always thought that the only agency with authority to declassify information was the proponent agency. In other words, contrary to what Bush may have "thought", he did not have the legal authority to declassify anything (NIE) that his office did not generate. Therefore, how could he have declassified the info containing Ms. Plame's name?
I hope you have time to address my questions.
March 14, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
- The actual asset identity and data that would strongly point to actual identity. This is the most sensitive and may or may not be kept online.
- General information about the access and role of the asset, which is judged less likely to identify a specific person. This is still highly sensitive, but might just define a "member of the country X military."
- Reporting from that asset, sanitized at verying levels.
I've used this sort of organization in building HIPAA compliant medical bases that allows statistical research on clinical data without identifying patients, or establishing cutouts (e.g., the treating physician) who can grant access to the individual.The military uses a HUMINT Control System (HCS) compartmented control system for such data; I don't know if this is intelligence-community wide. It does appear that some tactical HUMINT reports, such as POW interviews, may not be compartmented, but are typically NOFORN.
There is very little reason to give specific source identities, although I have to allow for the possibility that if it's a US citizen asset personally known to decisionmakers, this might be shared.
As I understand, the source description gets increasingly vague as one moves down the food chain:
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 14, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress must wrest control of the Iraq situation from Bush and Cheney, the most powerful men in America. Beset with personal demons, the irrationality of their thinking makes it impossible for them to comprehend any rational decisions coming from Congress - or anyone else for that matter. If it means impeaching them as a way of getting rid of them, then do it. If that act seems unworkable, then at least pay them no heed.
The office of president, and thus vice-president, of the United States has taken on biblical proportions in the minds of the American people and their representatives in Washington. It is only when those occupying the offices are seen as ordinary human beings with flaws not dissimilar from the rest of us, that their executive policies can be judged accordingly.
March 14, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certain biblical references, such as to the jawbone of an ass, may be appropriate.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
March 14, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take a stab at your questions. The leaking of Valerie's name exposed a covert asset. Proving that it was done with malice and knowledge has been the stumbling block. One of the problems was Scooter himself who obstructed the investigation and lied. Still, at the end of the day, Valerie was still in NOC status on the day Novak's article appeared. This is ultimately a case of what is right rather than what is legal.
On the declssification issues, you are correct that info which is listed as "OADR" (which gives the original classifier the authority to declassify) calls into question the notion that the President can unilaterally decide what to declassify. Hope this helps.
March 14, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you didn't mention Larry about that first letter to the President regarding their opposition to the invasion is that it claimed one of its primary reasons for opposition was the large amounts of WMDs that Saddam would use against our soldiers. If these Intelligence experts were opposed to the war because of so many WMDs aren't they part of the so-called Bush Lied, people died campaign.
They also minimized Saddam's afronts to International law by comparing them to Israel.
The founder of your organization Ray McGovern is a spokesman for NION, a communist organization that was formed along with ANSWER which drew up their charter a few miles from the still smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center in Sept. 2001. Their goal was to head off any response whatsoever against the terrorists that murdered our innocent citizens. Ramsey Clark, of ANSWER, went so far as to offer his services as Saddam's defense attorney.
Ray McGovern, through NION, is now associated with another communist group, UFPJ, which supports Hezbollah and whose founders once supplied intelligence to Fidel Castro and the KGB (recently declassified KGB documents).
Your fearless leader, Ray McGovern, also recently perpetuated tinfoil hate conspiracy theories "... that staged terror attacks across Europe and the U.S. are "probable" in order to justify the invasion of Iran."
Ray McGovern and this group you run with are a bunch of Kooks, Larry.
You fit right in I'm sure.
March 14, 2007 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
GROAN!
March 14, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Commies are coming!! The Commies are coming!! OOOOOH!!
Tom
March 14, 2007 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
OADR, ORCON, XDR, and related caveats have their limitations. For example, it's quite difficult to declassify something if the original classifier is dead, without clearances, etc. In practice, one can find out who occupies the same job (assuming the job wasn't abolished or reorganized) and usually get them to do it, or go up the food chain at that agency until you find someone with the authority and decisiveness to do so.
Ultimately, the President is at the top of the food chain. Often, Presidents will delegate pretty much full authority to the National Security Advisor, Chief of Staff, and, in some Administrations, none more than the present, Vice President. There's fairly little the DCI, SecState, or SecDef can't declassify under their organizations.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 14, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My plan for IRAQ:
Start a phased withdrawal of the troops immediately and the only change will be our troops stop dying and getting maimed for life, we stop throwing $8 billion a month down a rat hole........and we stop the grand theft of American tax dollars.
Let them fight it out among themselves....as they're doing right now with us in the middle.
Sadly, I'm not a "MiddleEast Expert" and we all know how prescient THEY are.
or....we can listen to the "Always Wrong Gang.....the "6 more monthers" like Tom Friedman, Bill Kristol (and the gang at the Weekly Standard), any of the Kagans, Bush/Cheney, David Brooks, James Woolsey, David Broder et al.
March 14, 2007 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Joe Biden en fuego today. YouTube
March 14, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is one and only one remedy for our problems that is in the US Constitution. That remedy is there solely because the framers felt it was possible that someone like Bush might be elected by the people, who they utterly distrusted anyway. Of course, as a good Democrat I can't utter the magic word. In case anyone wants to do some research, I suggest starting with Article 2, section 4.
Hoppy in Sacramento
March 14, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ,
You do know that there are prescription drugs that can help you with your delusions and paranoid fantasies? Sorry to pop your balloon but Ray is a devoted Catholic. Frowns upon Communist political systems but does believe that people ought to treat each other decently. Try it sometime. I can't believe you are completely devoid of humanity.
March 14, 2007 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ is stuck in the 1950's and not moving.
Tom
March 14, 2007 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Did the NyT really expect that Bush would tell the truth?
"Fabius Maximus" at Defense and the National Interest, says The Insurgency Has Ended.
At first blush this might seem an Aiken Statement but it isn't. The insurgency has ended because the nation of Iraq has ceased to exist
March 14, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
Well written and right to all the relevant points.
There is no point in dragging this out more than it already is.
Turn the keys over to the Iraqis and see if they can learn to drive the wreck that Cheney, Rummy, Condi, Libby, Rove, Ruppert Murdock, FOXNEWS, Mudduck, Judith Miller, and Bush made of Iraq.
Let's hope we can stop the Iran train from leaving the station.
Demand the Truth for America
March 14, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say the magic word: IMPEACHMENT
The true irony here is that Bush/Cheney are being PROTECTED from impeachment by the behavior of the GOP and their witch-hunt/impeachment drive against Clinton!
I mean, could we IMPEACH TWO PRESIDENTS IN A ROW? That would look so...tit for tat. Fox, Glenn Beck, et al would scream payback and that threat keeps normally intelligent people from acting to do the right thing. It is absurd.
There is too much wrong when one rabid and politically motivated act actually protects future criminals from justice.
Jan Knaus
March 14, 2007 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing I have seen of Ray McGovern seems decent. He makes up lies about our government faking terrorist attacks against civilians in order to blame them on terrorists. He works for organizations that support Hezbollah, the same people that killed our troops in Beirut, tortured his colleague William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, killed troops at Khobar towers and are now smuggling into Iraq the deadliest of weapons that are killing our troops.
If he is making frowny faces at the communist political system then why does he work for their organizations side by side with the Maoist RPC (Revolutionary communist party) and the Stalinist CPUSA (communist Party USA)?
His idea of decency and political action is to yell and scream at politicians, tell lies about bizarre conspiracies and provide assistance to people he should have been fighting against while working at the CIA.
As a spokesman for "Not in our name" he is working with Ramsey Clark, Saddam Hussein's attorney.
He claims that this story by the BBC story is about British forces who tried to stage a terrorist attack to fan the flames of violence by blaming it on others.
He is a regular speaker for the Communist group, United for Justice and Peace. His colleague, founder Leslie Cagan was a leader of the venceremos brigade that supplied documents to the KGB while in Cuba.
So if his devotion to the Catholic church contradicts his association and support for this network of groups that spend their time devoted to decidedly un-catholic ideologies such as, Mao, Stalin, Ayatollah Khomeini's army of Hezbollah, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, then why would such a decent person leave mass on the sabbath and walk into a world preaching the religion of slavery and death.
How can you say I am devoid of humanity when I am asking legitimate questions about what the hell his movement stands for. If he is proud of his association with these nuts and his statements about the secret conspiracies, then why doesn't he stand on his roof and shout it.
If you don't like my pointing out facts about his work and the people that you work with, either prove me wrong, or admit it and stand up for it. ...OR you can hide behind your usual explosions of cuss words and allusions to sodomy.
You ask me to treat people decent? I am stating facts about his body of work, if it sounds indecent, I'm only the messenger. I don't like the above groups I mentioned. I think they are indecent. The systems previously mentioned are responsible for more deaths than all other wars combined.
Now tell me again about humanity.
March 14, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that opposing communism is old fashioned or that communism is a movement in the right direction?
March 14, 2007 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God for comedy. It's about the only way I can get through another Vietnam. One of the most hilarious I've seen is on this video. It is particularly funny if you are a Macintosh fan (or if you hate Macs).
Enjoy!
March 14, 2007 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right...that's what they'll say. The difference will be an impeachment investigation that deals with official lies rather than personal issues, deals with massive loss of life rather than the lost prospects of a civil case, and contains detailed and substantial evidence of a prolonged effort to undermine the U.S. Constitution. Don't they call that treason?
But, they'll have to get Agnew...I mean Cheney...first.
But, as you point out, the GOP is somewhat protected by their own past misdeeds. ironic.
March 14, 2007 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Thanks Larry to you and Ray and all the VIPS. You've stood your ground and done us proud
March 15, 2007 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, its the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column
March 15, 2007 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
DOUBLE GROAN!
March 15, 2007 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Commies are really, really coming. Duck and cover. They will bury us. Look outside. It's 1956. Nixon is VP.
Tom
March 15, 2007 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you have answered my question then. You believe opposing Communism is old fashioned. You think more communism is a movement in the right direction.
I guess that means the baathists and other splinter groups that form off of the communist movement would be to your liking too? Hugo Chavez is a pleasant addition to the international scene for you, right Tom? It's old fashioned if not right?
March 15, 2007 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson says:
I'm asking. In fact, pretty please????
This could be the greatest contribution of the VIPS...giving creditable support to the proposals put forward by Democrats in the House and Senate. We can't live rationally in a world with only one "authoritative" informed source.
aMike
March 15, 2007 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
Have the VIPS hooked up with any private-sector OSINT people, who might be able to provide Congress reasonably reviewed proposals without the burden of classification?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 15, 2007 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
SNICKER! Good one!
March 15, 2007 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Define "VIPS" and "OSINT", please. Thank you.
March 15, 2007 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for your response to my questions.
I still believe (very strongly) that what was done to Ms. Plame was a traitorous act that borders on treason. Perhaps there was nothing "illegal" but it was morally wrong.
We were taught at USAICS (Huachuca) that you just don't even acknowledge anything that could potentially be sensitive.
The fools in this administration, with as long as most of them have been around, should have known better.
If they didn't, they have no business having access to any CLASSIFIED material.
March 15, 2007 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
HC,
I disagree with your interpretation -- they can declassify ahead of schedule anything that is put out under the name of their immediate office.
They cannot, however, declassify anything that is put out by any other agency, including State or CIA. There is a formal procedure for requesting early declassification (it is a written procedure). The Office of the President and/or VP do not produce the NIE -- CIA does with input from the various other intel agencies.
It has only been recently that NIEs from the WW II Era have been declassified. It makes no sense whatsoever, that while our military is involved in ongoing operations in the ME, and while our administration is still pushing the GWOT, that they would declassify the name of a NOC who was involved with those very issues.
I respect your knowledge on security issues, but I do believe you are incorrect on this one.
March 15, 2007 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "Communists" will get you for that post, Howard!
March 15, 2007 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
HC,
I know, for a fact, that the DA uses TS/SCI "compartmentalized" intelligence as a classification. It is a designation used for "real-world" intelligence. I can only speculate that this is a "universal" classification used by all of the governmental intelligence agencies.
What are the reference documents/sites you are using for your interpretation? I'm very interested in perusing them.
Thank you for your informative comments.
March 15, 2007 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
VIPS is a group of former intelligence officials to which Larry belongs.
OSINT is Open Source Intelligence, which, in the intelligence community, is increasingly recognized as a distinct discipline. It has similarities to academic research in libraries and on the Internet, but also difference in the sources examined and the analytical techniques used. No classified sources are used, although it may eventually (in official circles) be combined with classified sources. If the analyst has access to classified sources and those affect his or her analysis, the product may be classified, because the analyst might know through "all-source intelligence" which rumors are correct.
One of the earliest OSINT functions in the intelligence community was the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), started in WWII by the Federal Communications Commission, and later in the CIA. FBIS transcribes, and translates where necessary, foreign radio and TV broadcasts. Most of its output is unclassified, and often is available in universities. Nevertheless, FBIS has been the first source to report a number of significant things.
FBIS absorbed the Joint Publication Research Service, a DoD activity that did similar things with foreign newspapers, magazines, etc. As an aside, I spent a chunk of the Vietnam war reading their translations of Nhan Dan, the North Vietnamese party journal, in numbing revolutionary jargon. Today, Nhan Dan has a very nice website in colloquial English.
Even more OSINT offices in government are now working together; it's now called something like the National Open Source Center (Service?). There are also private companies that do this sort of thing for public and commercial customers.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 15, 2007 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard never fails to educate, except when he reverts to humor. :)
Thanks, Howard.
March 15, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Other intelligence disciplines include IMINT (imagery), ELINT (electromagnetic emissions not speech or human text), COMINT (electronic voice or text), MASINT (Measurement and Signature, a catchall for lots of weird technical intelligence methods), HUMINT (human source), TELINT (telemetry), and assorted other beasts.
None is more important than RUMINT:
Rumor.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 15, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course its absurd, which brings me back to a post I offered on another thread; If the Democrats don't make the Bush gang pay dearly for their actions, then they set a precedent for future Presidents to sit on the Throne of the (newly created) Imperial Presidency and fear nothing.
I'd ask the right wing Bush flunkies; What are you going to do when President Hillary starts acting like George Bush?
March 15, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agnew just beaned people with golf balls. Cheney shoots them. At this rate, the second from the next Republican VP will call in nuclear strikes.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 15, 2007 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush supports trading with COMMUNIST China and COMMUNIST Vietnam. Its obvious Bush is a COMMUNIST!
March 15, 2007 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is Bush doesn't try to hide his interactions with China and neither did the above mentioned Richard Nixon.
March 15, 2007 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
That unfortunately may happen in Iran before the present incumbent VP leaves office.
Tom
March 15, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
:=) or in the 1490s and he's confused Ray McGovern with Tomás de Torquemada? Both Catholic...
I suppose we could hold out for Abbot Arnaud-Amaury.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 15, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
HOW LONG BEFORE PEOPLE FIGURE IT OUT!!!!!
The Democratic party is the left wing of the Republican party. They both serve the same masters. Of course the ruling class wants the right wing more than the left , but if they have to, they'll accept the left wing, until the m asses settle down and forget or are pacified. Then the right wing moves forward again, taking more each time.
March 15, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeated impeachment would bring us much closer to being a parliamentary democracy, with votes of confidence, than a republic. Still, parliamentary systems have muddled through, although there were times where you needed a fast camera to catch the French and Italian governments.
Unfortunately, we don't have the safety factors of a parliamentary system: a head of state separate from a head of government, the idea of a caretaker government, and the need to form coalitions. Oh, there certainly was enmity between individuals in such systems, but is the ideal more Britain or Taiwan (yes, I know the latter is "semi-parliamentary")?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 15, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Howard for prividing this information for those of us not connect with the intell community except through blog and on-line discusssions. It is helpful to share this.
Demand the Truth for America
March 15, 2007 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I am pleased you found it useful.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 15, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
[duplicate deleted]
March 15, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aha! I might have known. Bush is a Commie masquerading as a right-wing buffoon ( quite convincingly, I might add). It's the original Manchurian Candidate all over again.
Tom
March 15, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Grim and Grimmer for Dumb and Dumber....
Analyst paints bleak Iraq picture
Anthony Cordesman, the influential defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has a new analysis on U.S. prospects in Iraq. They are, in a word, bleak.
In fact, the situation in Iraq is so gloomy, he says, none of the “least bad options” now available to U.S. policymakers will likely allow the U.S. to achieve its goals: creating a relatively politically and economically stable Iraq with reduced levels of violence that is able to defend itself against neighboring states
.
March 16, 2007 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, thanks, now I know who's watching me :)
March 16, 2007 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink