Has the US Intelligence Establishment Turned Against the Administration?

[TaiShang]

Has the US Intelligence Establishment Turned Against the Administration?

Based on my experience with it, I am not a big fan of the American intelligence establishment as I wrote here. I saw too much obsession with personalities, compartmentalization, confidence in mere techniques and a certain tendency to re-write to please superiors. (Not, by the way, that it is unique in the intel world in these respects; although the personality obsession does stand out.)

But I never said that I thought that it just made stuff up. And nor do I now.

Watching the catastrophes, incompetence and mendacity of the Obama era in which the fantasies of the neo cons have been joined to those of the humanitarian interventionists I have begun to suspect that these idiocies are being perpetrated without support of the intel establishment.

Here are a few small things I've noticed that made me suspect a small group at State Department and the White House are the authors and that the intel world is cut out of the loop.

• Shortly after the MH17 crash, a group of intel operators said “we don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 per cent sure of a nationality”. Apparently they have nothing to add to that statement. One remembers that Kerry and Psaki were quite certain that there was a “mountain of evidence”. Surely the mighty US intel effort has more to offer than tweets and Bellingcat. But we have seen none of it.
• My belief that the satellite images “proving” Russian invasions of Ukraine were amateur affairs has been strengthened by the high quality, detailed photos we have seen in Syria where the Russians actually have intervened in strength. This led me to suspect that there wasn't any real evidence in the Ukrainian case. This German general agrees.
• A report that intel people tried to interfere to stop the Libya attack: “You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They're just full of stupid, stupid facts.”
• Suggestions based on her e-mails that Clinton was listening more to private advisors and newspaper editorials than intel sources.

Small items to be sure, and none conclusive. But maybe we have moved to the next stage in which the intel people actively object in public.

• The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (an institution high up in the US intel hierarchy) has confirmed that the DIA had warned the Administration that extremist salafists were the major force driving the insurgency in Syria and that an ISIS-like organization could be created. Here he is saying that he thinks the Administration took a “wilful decision” to ignore the warning.
• 
  
• In September it was revealed that 50 intel analysts had formally complained that their conclusions were being distorted “to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria”.

Intel people are supposed to do their work in secret and then retire and keep their mouths shut. The nature of the business is that you will sometimes be wrong, often ignored but you still keep quiet. You have signed pretty formidable silence undertakings. Having worked in and around the business, I can assure you that, to to be driven to the point of formally complaining (and risking your jobs, pensions and possible freedom) only happens after years of frustration.

Stay tuned. No doubt Russia's intervention in Syria, which is blowing the whole incoherent US policy apart, will bring more revelations. After all, no one wants to take the blame for catastrophe and failure. Especially when they're not responsible for the bad advice, airy projections and falsified information that got into the mess.

 

[VCheng]

Too ashamed of the link to the source?

Has the US Intelligence Establishment Turned Against the Administration?

 

[Spectre]

Too ashamed of the link to the source?

Has the US Intelligence Establishment Turned Against the Administration?

Nonetheless some of the concerns are valid, recent mini "revolt" by intelligence analysts against the bean counters is most telling.

 

[VCheng]

Nonetheless some of the concerns are valid, recent mini "revolt" by intelligence analysts against the bean counters is most telling.

These "concerns" are simply how the system of checks and balances works in the US, there is nothing unusual about it.

 

[Spectre]

These "concerns" are simply how the system of checks and balances works in the US, there is nothing unusual about it.

If the system had been working things would not have appeared in public domain. Such matters are usually dealt in-house - quietly and firmly.

 

[VCheng]

If the system had been working things would not have appeared in public domain. Such matters are usually dealt in-house - quietly and firmly.

Unless the leaks are planted.

 

[Tiger Genie]

Has the US Intelligence Establishment Turned Against the Administration?

Based on my experience with it, I am not a big fan of the American intelligence establishment as I wrote here. I saw too much obsession with personalities, compartmentalization, confidence in mere techniques and a certain tendency to re-write to please superiors. (Not, by the way, that it is unique in the intel world in these respects; although the personality obsession does stand out.)

But I never said that I thought that it just made stuff up. And nor do I now.

Watching the catastrophes, incompetence and mendacity of the Obama era in which the fantasies of the neo cons have been joined to those of the humanitarian interventionists I have begun to suspect that these idiocies are being perpetrated without support of the intel establishment.

Here are a few small things I've noticed that made me suspect a small group at State Department and the White House are the authors and that the intel world is cut out of the loop.

• Shortly after the MH17 crash, a group of intel operators said “we don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 per cent sure of a nationality”. Apparently they have nothing to add to that statement. One remembers that Kerry and Psaki were quite certain that there was a “mountain of evidence”. Surely the mighty US intel effort has more to offer than tweets and Bellingcat. But we have seen none of it.
• My belief that the satellite images “proving” Russian invasions of Ukraine were amateur affairs has been strengthened by the high quality, detailed photos we have seen in Syria where the Russians actually have intervened in strength. This led me to suspect that there wasn't any real evidence in the Ukrainian case. This German general agrees.
• A report that intel people tried to interfere to stop the Libya attack: “You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They're just full of stupid, stupid facts.”
• Suggestions based on her e-mails that Clinton was listening more to private advisors and newspaper editorials than intel sources.

Small items to be sure, and none conclusive. But maybe we have moved to the next stage in which the intel people actively object in public.

• The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (an institution high up in the US intel hierarchy) has confirmed that the DIA had warned the Administration that extremist salafists were the major force driving the insurgency in Syria and that an ISIS-like organization could be created. Here he is saying that he thinks the Administration took a “wilful decision” to ignore the warning.
• 
  
• In September it was revealed that 50 intel analysts had formally complained that their conclusions were being distorted “to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria”.

Intel people are supposed to do their work in secret and then retire and keep their mouths shut. The nature of the business is that you will sometimes be wrong, often ignored but you still keep quiet. You have signed pretty formidable silence undertakings. Having worked in and around the business, I can assure you that, to to be driven to the point of formally complaining (and risking your jobs, pensions and possible freedom) only happens after years of frustration.

Stay tuned. No doubt Russia's intervention in Syria, which is blowing the whole incoherent US policy apart, will bring more revelations. After all, no one wants to take the blame for catastrophe and failure. Especially when they're not responsible for the bad advice, airy projections and falsified information that got into the mess.

Quoting from Russia-Insider against USA is like quoting brasstacks against India. Totally biased source

 

[Spectre]

Unless the leaks are planted.

Now Sir, you are just over-reaching - planted information serves some interests either national or political. Here it does just the opposite.

The intelligence officials going public en masse is unprecedented.

 

[VCheng]

Now Sir, you are just over-reaching - planted information serves some interests either national or political. Here it does just the opposite.

The intelligence officials going public en masse is unprecedented.

The funding game has many twists and turns, Sir.

 

[Spectre]

The funding game has many twists and turns, Sir.

Occam's Razor.

 

[VCheng]

Occam's Razor.

The run up to a US Presidential elections is not a simple game Sir, and with nary a dull moment. Every group jockeys for position to further their own agendas. This will all settle down.

 

[Spectre]

The run up to a US Presidential elections is not a simple game Sir, and with nary a dull moment. Every group jockeys for position to further their own agendas. This will all settle down.

Don't think this has partisan backing. I have been analyzing US Politics in my personal capacity for quite sometime.

Doesn't have the stink of election politics - but that is just my view.

 

[VCheng]

Don't think this has partisan backing. I have been analyzing US Politics in my personal capacity for quite sometime.

Doesn't have the stink of election politics - but that is just my view.

As an analyst of the US system, Sir, you would know that nothing is what it appears to be on initial glance. If someone wants to paint US foreign policy as a failure to build up their own offered alternative, this is how one of the ways it would start. The next step would be to tie in the present administration to this trumpeted failure, either Biden or Clinton. The step after that would portray someone as having the necessary wisdom to prevent all of this.

 

[Spectre]

As an analyst of the US system, Sir, you would know that nothing is what it appears to be on initial glance. If someone wants to paint US foreign policy as a failure to build up their own offered alternative, this is how one of the ways it would start. The next step would be to tie in the present administration to this trumpeted failure, either Biden or Clinton. The step after that would portray someone as having the necessary wisdom to prevent all of this.

Your argument's have merit but Hillary predates the inefficiencies in the system highlighted - correct me if I am wrong on that.

The other reason is that republican field is too fragmented right now hence the timing seems all wrong. Had it happened after the primaries I would have agreed without batting an eyelid.

 

[VCheng]

Your argument's have merit but Hillary predates the inefficiencies in the system highlighted - correct me if I am wrong on that.

The other reason is that republican field is too fragmented right now hence the timing seems all wrong. Had it happened after the primaries I would have agreed without batting my eyelid.

Sir, this is just the buildup, and every one is firing away to see what clicks. Of course you know that already. The situation will gel soon, and then the lead contenders from both sides will bring up stories such as these once again for primetime advantages.