Musharraf Resigns...

[eraser_tr 29]

Yes, thats what I heard of.

 

The thing is, the CIA and NIE were right in saying iraq didn't have wmds....its just anything that disagreed with the notion that they did was discarded.

[+Typhoid 231]

Yes, thats what I heard of.

 

The thing is, the CIA and NIE were right in saying iraq didn't have wmds....its just anything that disagreed with the notion that they did was discarded.

 

as is the reverse now where any info that they might have actually had, such as the hundreds of loaded and the thousands of empty warheads that we did find as well as the movement of material into Syria, is also ignored.

 

No question that a lot went wrong. I hope that you are correct and we simply misread Saddam (as he intended) rather than find out the opposite.

 

Now, having read CIA and DIA reports for many years, I have never had a comfortable feeling about the CIA. They have always been politically oriented and prone to provide the spin they thought was wanted. (note that I am arguing your point here) I have no confidence that the CIA has ever had the capability to pull off any of the stunts they are widely credited with and I really don't think they have that ability now. I rather doubt they are in Pakistan in that capacity with any control or influence over that nuclear stockpile.

 

sleep well.................

[eraser_tr 29]

Read plenty about them, they can be really crafty, but screw up alot. The CIA is so intertwined with the Pakistani ISI.

 

Re: iraq, we had ourselves a mole high in the Iraqi intelligence who reported they didn't have anything, they just had to say they did have WMDs to keep iran in check.

[+Typhoid 231]

Read plenty about them, they can be really crafty, but screw up alot. The CIA is so intertwined with the Pakistani ISI.

 

Re: iraq, we had ourselves a mole high in the Iraqi intelligence who reported they didn't have anything, they just had to say they did have WMDs to keep iran in check.

 

the CIA and ISI were certainly working together during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. I rather doubt they are now.

 

the problem with moles is that when you have several with contradictatory stories, which ones do you believe? We've had several who stated the opposite and still have lots who have documented their participation in moving stuff into Syria. Not to mention (again) the hundreds of loaded chemical warheads that we did find and the thousands of unloaded chemical warheads that we also found. The bottom line is that even today, we do not have concrete information one way or another on what Iraq did or did not have - although the weight of evidence at this point does seem to tilt rather strongly that Saddam was engaged in an intentional disinformation campaign that worked too well in convincing everyone that he did actually have the stuff.

 

Not that I care to go down this rathole, yet again. Merely pointing out that intel is always unreliable and has to be taken carefully with far more than a few grains of salt. You can read whatever you want out of your sources and after the fact someone can always find a trail that we "should have known about" but didn't give enough credence to at the time. That is the essense of executive decision making whether one is in the military, government or business; making decisions on incomplete and contradictatory information.

 

out

[JediMaster 451]

I have no doubt the problem with the CIA is at the top, not the bottom. The rank and file care about doing their job, not making sure this or that political decision is supported or disproved. They collect, collate, and present to their superiors. It's the superiors who write/edit the final reports to make sure THEIR bosses are happy and don't look like fools. They'll always say "we were mislead" or "intelligence was faulty/lacking" over "we had the proof but threw it out".

[+Typhoid 231]

I have no doubt the problem with the CIA is at the top, not the bottom. The rank and file care about doing their job, not making sure this or that political decision is supported or disproved. They collect, collate, and present to their superiors. It's the superiors who write/edit the final reports to make sure THEIR bosses are happy and don't look like fools. They'll always say "we were mislead" or "intelligence was faulty/lacking" over "we had the proof but threw it out".

 

I agree with one caveat. Group think and institutional biases play into the perceptions of the analysts and color their reports. The CIA is certainly not unique in that regard, but certainly not immune to it either. I agree, the vast majority of people in every line of work are dedicated and honest. But can be misled by their own perceptions as well.

 

Multiple studies of intelligence fiascos in several countries have made the case that there was no intentional spining, skewing, or misleading analysis. But many cases of "group think" couple with institutional biases. When working in the rather esoteric field of intelligence, caution on the results is always called for.

 

I have made the case with my intel friends that a "good" intell officer/analyst can put enough qualifiers into any report that no matter what happens, he'll have been correct.......

 

I have also overridden intel reports on several occasions and been right everytime.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Typhoid

[FastCargo 412]

Not that I care to go down this rathole, yet again. Merely pointing out that intel is always unreliable and has to be taken carefully with far more than a few grains of salt. You can read whatever you want out of your sources and after the fact someone can always find a trail that we "should have known about" but didn't give enough credence to at the time. That is the essense of executive decision making whether one is in the military, government or business; making decisions on incomplete and contradictatory information.

 

Typhoid makes a good point here. In intelligence, sometimes it isn't that we don't have enough information...it's that we have too much information.

 

The problem is trying to separate the wheat from the chaff...if several pieces of information are equally valid sounding, which one is the right one? Or what's the more probable threat?

 

This isn't just endemic to intelligence gathering...almost all information collection suffers from this problem, especially if most of the information has to be interpreted through human filters.

 

The best example is taking eyeball witness statements at a chaotic event, such as an airplane crash. You would not believe how different the stories can be for the exact same instance of time.

 

FastCargo

[eraser_tr 29]

Like with TWA flight 800. Many witnesses along long island and new jersey said ther saw some sort of trail/object moving towards flight 800 like a missile, but reconstructing the plane shows an internal explosion in the fuel tank.

 

And then there's the theory that a meteor was responsible for that trail and explosion.

 

But anyway....any stories about those times typhoid?

[+Typhoid 231]

Like with TWA flight 800. Many witnesses along long island and new jersey said ther saw some sort of trail/object moving towards flight 800 like a missile, but reconstructing the plane shows an internal explosion in the fuel tank.

 

And then there's the theory that a meteor was responsible for that trail and explosion.

 

But anyway....any stories about those times typhoid?

 

???

 

about TWA 800?

[eraser_tr 29]

No, about times when you've gone counter to intelligence and been right.

[+Typhoid 231]

No, about times when you've gone counter to intelligence and been right.

 

 

hmmm

 

without going too much into detail;

 

I made a call one morning about a flight of two on an intercept vector against a couple of our fighters - intel said they had no data to support that and would not make that assessment. I, being an air intercept controller, took one look at the chart, overroad that assessment and made the calls. And the rest, as the saying goes, is history.

 

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=5797

 

I also accurately predicted both invasions by Iraq (Iran and Kuwait) days ahead of time when neither CIA or DIA did.

(my Masters thesis was on the Iran-Iraq war).

 

Another evening in Cheyenne Mountain - a hurricane in the gulf, predicted drug runner flight, NORAD AWACS positioned for flight monitoring and tracking of drug flights. The actual intelligence assessment provided to my general and me (his First Prime if you will) "the drug runner will fly either before or after the hurricane crosses the Yucatan".

 

no kidding.......

(and the taxpayers actually paid that guy to come up with garbage like that!)

 

the later was not exactly an example of overriding an intel assessment - but led to a "counseling discussion using choice terminology" by me on how to present an assessment that was of any operational utility. It was after that incident that I first used the phrase "a (not so) good intel officer/analyst can provide an assessment that no matter what happens, he was correct" much to the hilarity of some of my good friends who are intel officers.

 

there were a couple of other times when we (sometimes I on the watch/position/flight) badly needed some info and got

 

.........................

 

one time in the Mountain that I cannot go into any detail on was one of the only few times that really had the $h!t scared out of me and I badly needed some info - NOW - as to just what the heck were we seeing?

 

intel had nada. They were even more scared - which scared the cr@p even more out of us.

 

I lost a few years that night.

 

so I've always taken intel with a hefty dose of skeptism. I also, as a direct result, never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence.

[FastCargo 412]

"counseling discussion using choice terminology"

 

A new phrase! Love it!

 

I also, as a direct result, never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence.

 

Amen to that.

 

FastCargo

[serverandenforcer 33]

hmmm

 

without going too much into detail;

 

I made a call one morning about a flight of two on an intercept vector against a couple of our fighters - intel said they had no data to support that and would not make that assessment. I, being an air intercept controller, took one look at the chart, overroad that assessment and made the calls. And the rest, as the saying goes, is history.

 

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=5797

 

 

They got that on youtube btw. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSimVE5NyMw

 

Speaking of scary stuff though, I remember back in 98 or 99 when Vandenberg launched a rocket when the sun was setting. It flew over the western sky of So. Cal with the contrails being lit up like fire from the setting sun. Scared the hell out of everyone. They all thought it was some kind of meteror/asteroid/comet making a close call to Earth. I remember hearing that NASA got a bazillion phone calls over it from concerned citizens. Pretty much something like this.

[JediMaster 451]

That has even happened here with regular airplane contrails. The sun backlights it in such a way that it looked like the shuttle or something reentering but a LOT slower.