- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
US Intelligence Community Strengths and Weaknesses
Posted on 1/6/17 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 1/6/17 at 6:52 pm
I'd like to keep the partisan hackery and petty bitching out of this thread. There are plenty of other threads suited for that although current events will obviously be brought up we should leave political commentary out of it. This is intended to be an honest assessment of our intelligence capabilities to the extent that it can be on an open message board.
The US has never been the world's preeminent espionage player. We may not be the worst but others certainly do it better and for a long time.
HUMINT is probably our biggest weakness. I think there are several reasons for this. One obvious reason is the conscious decision to divest from human intelligence and rely more on different forms of technology(SIGINT/Imagery/ELINT/Cyber). I think the reason for this shift was two fold.
1. It's less risky. Politicians and by extension political appointees that run the intelligence community are risk averse by nature.
2. We can afford to do the high tech type of espionage allowing us to be lazy with HUMINT. We're a rich nation and can buy/develop any type of satellite or computer system or surveillance equipment our heart desires.
Another reason we're weak in HUMINT are cultural limitations. I think this one is the biggest reason for our weakness and also the most overlooked. The US is far removed from all of our enemies. We have none that border us or threaten us directly in any and never really have since the early 1800's. Very few Americans are bilingual. Very few grew up in foreign countries or frequently travel. Our ability to identify or relate to potential human sources just isn't part of our DNA as a nation. I would guess that most of the time we do run sources it's because we've just opened up the checkbook. This doesn't just affect our ability to run sources, our ability to understand other cultures just isn't where it needs to be. We often miss the forest for the trees when it comes to intel analysis of a geopolitical event because our analysts don't understand the people involved.
The US has never been the world's preeminent espionage player. We may not be the worst but others certainly do it better and for a long time.
HUMINT is probably our biggest weakness. I think there are several reasons for this. One obvious reason is the conscious decision to divest from human intelligence and rely more on different forms of technology(SIGINT/Imagery/ELINT/Cyber). I think the reason for this shift was two fold.
1. It's less risky. Politicians and by extension political appointees that run the intelligence community are risk averse by nature.
2. We can afford to do the high tech type of espionage allowing us to be lazy with HUMINT. We're a rich nation and can buy/develop any type of satellite or computer system or surveillance equipment our heart desires.
Another reason we're weak in HUMINT are cultural limitations. I think this one is the biggest reason for our weakness and also the most overlooked. The US is far removed from all of our enemies. We have none that border us or threaten us directly in any and never really have since the early 1800's. Very few Americans are bilingual. Very few grew up in foreign countries or frequently travel. Our ability to identify or relate to potential human sources just isn't part of our DNA as a nation. I would guess that most of the time we do run sources it's because we've just opened up the checkbook. This doesn't just affect our ability to run sources, our ability to understand other cultures just isn't where it needs to be. We often miss the forest for the trees when it comes to intel analysis of a geopolitical event because our analysts don't understand the people involved.
12
Posted on 1/6/17 at 6:56 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Their strength is they generally have the support of the American people.
Their weakness is they've been infiltrated by political hacks over the last 16 years.
Their weakness is they've been infiltrated by political hacks over the last 16 years.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:03 pm to bamarep
Sorry, I can't let that go,,,last 16 years????you must be kidding...politics is older than your grandma...lol
Bush ran the cia...and became president...dude, it's always been politicized since it's inception...
Bush ran the cia...and became president...dude, it's always been politicized since it's inception...
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:04 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Paying people off is probably a more fruitful approach than spending a lot of effort understanding people.
People are irrational and do things counter to their interests all of the time.
But one weakness of the intelligence community seems to be generating a conclusion first and working backwards from there to justify it.
People are irrational and do things counter to their interests all of the time.
But one weakness of the intelligence community seems to be generating a conclusion first and working backwards from there to justify it.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:05 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Read the book A Legacy Of Ashes to really understand the CIA.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:07 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
US Intelligence Community Strengths and Weaknesses
Strength: They can get dirt on just about anyone without repercussions
Weakness: You can't trust them
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:12 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Excellent Post. I'll hop in here in about 30 minutes.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:12 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
First downvote
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:13 pm to Walking the Earth
quote:
Paying people off is probably a more fruitful approach than spending a lot of effort understanding people.
Nah. "Money" as a primary motivator makes a weak source. That reality is well documented even in the US doctrine.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:13 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
I'll bookmark a place here. Would like to discuss later. I will say that HUMINT is a lot like ID witness testimony--it can be your ace in the hole, or it can be a complete piece of crap. Sources lie, obfuscate, misremember, pass on second and third-hand garbage as though it's first-hand etc. And when you get a good, vetted, well-placed source, you have to hope like hell he stays motivated to help (unless you have some degree of control over him) and doesn't get caught, transferred, die whatever. Pound for pound it can be more resource intensive than technical collections (after the initial investment in the capability) and is generally less reliable.
This post was edited on 1/6/17 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:19 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
I will say that HUMINT is a lot like ID witness testimony--it can be your ace in the hole, or it can be a complete piece of crap. Sources lie, obfuscate, misremember, pass on second and third-hand garbage as though it's first-hand etc. And when you get a good, vetted, well-placed source, you have to hope like hell he stays motivated to help (unless you have some degree of control over him) and doesn't get caught, transferred, die whatever. Pound for pound it can be more resource intensive than technical collections (after the initial investment in the capability) and is generally less reliable.
Yes but HUMINT can often give you a larger picture. And I don't want to focus solely on HUMINT in the traditional sense of running sources. Human/Cultural understanding of our friends and enemies(not really sure how to word this). Technical collections can get you a lot of tiny details but not the sentiment of a people or the mood of certain actors in interest. Hence my missing the forest for the trees remark
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:26 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:We have fairly robust analytical efforts devoted to understanding individuals, groups, nations, etc within the IC, military, and diplomatic corps (think like the intel functions within DIME/PMESII. I take your point that we don't seem all that successful at reading and understanding what motivates and how to influence certain cultures. I don't know how to better crack that nut. It's not for lack of trying. We just can quite seem to grasp certain elements of the Oriental psyche.
Yes but HUMINT can often give you a larger picture. And I don't want to focus solely on HUMINT in the traditional sense of running sources. Human/Cultural understanding of our friends and enemies(not really sure how to word this). Technical collections can get you a lot of tiny details but not the sentiment of a people or the mood of certain actors in interest. Hence my missing the forest for the trees remark
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:27 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
"Atmospheric" information is the word you're looking for.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:29 pm to Navytiger74
I mean I know we try. I try dunking al the time And I still can't do it.
I guess my question is, and really the core point of this thread, is why, despite all of our efforts, do we still suck at it.
I guess my question is, and really the core point of this thread, is why, despite all of our efforts, do we still suck at it.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:30 pm to MrCarton
some things are universal..Niche called it "The Will to Power"
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:31 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
HUMINT is definitely our biggest weakness, and that's because it relies primarily on people for data. Working sources or simply buying off informants only yields so much because people lie. In Iraq and Afghanistan, this is particularly true. When we talked to those people, we always began with the assumption that everything they said was a lie, and worked from there. It didn't matter if they had been paid, if they had been threatened, or anything else. They'll lie just to do it.
It's very difficult to build from that, and it takes time just to build a reliable framework. HUMINT is clearly useful, but in my experience is really only valuable when corroborated against other forms of intelligence collection.
Intel gained from technology is far superior. While it's true that subjective analysis is introduced, the data doesn't rely on people and isn't politically driven. The methods humans use to communicate today obviously influence this as well.
The problems we see with intelligence are introduced at a higher level than actual intelligence professionals. Politicians with an intelligence background have their masters to serve, and the world goes round...
It's very difficult to build from that, and it takes time just to build a reliable framework. HUMINT is clearly useful, but in my experience is really only valuable when corroborated against other forms of intelligence collection.
Intel gained from technology is far superior. While it's true that subjective analysis is introduced, the data doesn't rely on people and isn't politically driven. The methods humans use to communicate today obviously influence this as well.
The problems we see with intelligence are introduced at a higher level than actual intelligence professionals. Politicians with an intelligence background have their masters to serve, and the world goes round...
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:34 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:See my last sentence. We do okay with Latins in this hemisphere and folks in Western Europe. We've also had limited success with Slavs and other central and Eastern Euros and East Asians. South Asian and Middle Eastern culture and psychology just seem a bridge too far in many respects. We have plenty historians, theologians, culturalists etc with broad knowledge of these cultures (including plenty natives to those cultures) but they apparently just can't train our analysts and leaders to orient their minds that way.
I mean I know we try. I try dunking al the time And I still can't do it.
I guess my question is, and really the core point of this thread, is why, despite all of our efforts, do we still suck at it.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:40 pm to rebelrouser
Legacy of ashes is an excellent book.
We were well behind the 8 ball going into WWII with regards to intelligence. Since that time it's been a political football going back and forth.
The "bad guys" benefit from having steadier management and purpose over time.
We were well behind the 8 ball going into WWII with regards to intelligence. Since that time it's been a political football going back and forth.
The "bad guys" benefit from having steadier management and purpose over time.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:42 pm to Navytiger74
quote:Define limited success. From what I've read we whiffed on the Berlin Wall coming down. We whiffed on the Bosnian conflict. Did we foresee the Russian invasion of Georgia or the annexation of Crimea and if so was there anything we could have done to influence these events? If I had to guess our intel agencies were also probably shocked about BREXIT so I'm not so sure we've got Western Europe down either.
We've also had limited success with Slavs and other central and Eastern Euros and East Asians.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:45 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The problems we see with intelligence are introduced at a higher level than actual intelligence professionals. Politicians with an intelligence background have their masters to serve, and the world goes round...
This so many times. This is such a problem.
I have a lot of dings concerning the tactical and operational levels of the IC, but I firmly believe most of those are a matter of poor leadership and levels above them.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News