CIA Shakeup News

[Equineer]

Six top ranking CIA officials have resigned in recent weeks.

Should we be alarmed? No, hopefully not in the long run.

Change is overdue. Woolsey, Tenet, and Goss all estimate that it will take a minimum of five years to build a credible covert intelligence capability.

If nothing else, Iraq proved that technology cannot match native-speaking assets on the ground.

We presented the U.N. with 17 specific WMD allegations about Iraq. Why were all 17 of these specific allegations faulty?

Let's face it...

- we had practically no native-speaking intelligence assets in the Middle East,

- we sat in U.S. embassies waiting for volunteered intelligence to come knocking,

- we naively listened to Chilabi and other exiled Iraqis,

- we were transparently committed to trusting high-technology intelligence,

- we were very dependent on filtered information supplied by foreign political interests, and

- there was extreme pressure to build a case against Iraq.

Saddam had virtually no friends. How many foreign sources, including al Qaeda and so-called allies, misled the U.S. to further their own political agendas?

Doesn't excessive reliance on technology simply allow enemies to focus on hi-tech counterintelligence tactics?

How much misleading Internet and wireless chatter was planted?

Isn't it obvious that satellite images too often revealed what was in the eye of the beholder?

The five-year covert rebuilding estimate envisions painstakingly recruiting and vetting many foreign nationals for U.S. espionage activities, and also upon developing extensive language/cultural training facilities for U.S. intelligence recruits.

In this regard, Senator McCain says it is imperative for the current Congress to act this year while the 911 Commission recommendations are still on the front burner.

[Secretariat]

EQ,

I hear it's not a shakeup, but a "realignment of responsibilities". That's the way these guys talk now.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Secretariat
EQ,

I hear it's not a shakeup, but a "realignment of responsibilities". That's the way these guys talk now.

Thank you Bill Clinton..

[Equineer]

SQ764,

Your post reminds me about a myth that has come up in other threads.

At the scuttlebutt level, there is a civilian/military myth that we "inordinately" gutted our military during the 90s.

During the Cold War 80s, Reagan's military budgets certainly (and purposely) put extreme pressure on the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union finally dissolved in 1991, marking the generally recognized end of the Cold War.

Countries around the world reduced their military budgets as the Cold War ended.

However, as a percentage of worldwide military expenditures, America spent more in the 90s than in the 80s.

So our share of worldwide military expenditures increased rather than decreased in the 90s versus the 80s.

The analogy is sort of like horses in the stretch... we slowed down slower than the rest of the world.

In comparison then, "inordinate" gutting may not be appropriate spin when we compare ourselves to others.

As we confront international terrorism, it is unfortunate that most of our allies failed to keep pace with us during the 90s.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Equineer
SQ764,

Your post reminds me about a myth that has come up in other threads.

At the scuttlebutt level, there is a civilian/military myth that we "inordinately" gutted our military during the 90s.

During the Cold War 80s, Reagan's military budgets certainly (and purposely) put extreme pressure on the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union finally dissolved in 1991, marking the generally recognized end of the Cold War.

Countries around the world reduced their military budgets as the Cold War ended.

However, as a percentage of worldwide military expenditures, America spent more in the 90s than in the 80s.

So our share of worldwide military expenditures increased rather than decreased in the 90s versus the 80s.

The analogy is sort of like horses in the stretch... we slowed down slower than the rest of the world.

In comparison then, "inordinate" gutting may not be appropriate spin when we compare ourselves to others.

As we confront international terrorism, it is unfortunate that most of our allies failed to keep pace with us during the 90s.

Which is worse, doing something obviously negative or doing nothing obviously positive?

welcome to the Bill Clinton era..

[JustRalph]

you guys bitched about the CIA for a generation, now that Bush has sent someone in there to ream some asses you bitch about that too..........

[Equineer]

Originally posted by JustRalph
you guys bitched about the CIA for a generation, now that Bush has sent someone in there to ream some asses you bitch about that too.......... Assuming you meant to post in this thread... your Ohio provincialism is showing! :)

Goss is Bush's well-received appointee... and in his confirmation hearing, Goss actually estimated that it may well take longer than five years to rebuild a credible intelligence apparatus.

See: http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/relatedarticles/38962.php

If you remember, the Iran-Contra abuses provided Congress with the impetus to diminish the scope of covert CIA espionage. The point of McCain's sense of urgency in implementing the recommendations of the 911 Commission is that Goss will be impeded in rebuilding a covert capability unless Congress has confidence that proper oversight controls are in place.

[lsbets]

"At the scuttlebutt level, there is a civilian/military myth that we "inordinately" gutted our military during the 90s."

Equineer, its no myth. When there was only enough money in the budget to send active duty soldiers to the rifle range the minimum once per year, there is a serious problem. This happenned to me in 1999, I tried to take my soldiers a second time and couldn't go because we could not afford the bullets. This was not in some rear area support unit - it was the 4th Infantry Division.
Another thing that happenned in the 90s was a complete lack of upkeep on military housing due to budget constraints. Bases were closed, and when they attempted to turn barracks over to state correction agencies to use as minimum security prisons, the answer was hell no, those buildings are not up to standard to house prisoners. Go on most bases now and you see a ton of construction for new barracks and housing.
Some of this can be attributed to misplaced budget priorities. Congress routinely rams new weapons systems down the throat of the military that the military does not want because building a new submarine somewhere or new plane somewhere provides jobs and votes for that Congressmen and Senator. I would buy the argument that if you kept the same amount of money in the budget, but cut out the systems the military does not want, you would be able to increase training, maintenance, and housing budgets. However, the reality of our political systems says that will never happen. We might not have vut as much as everyone else, but where is matters, we cut way too deep.

[Equineer]

Lsbets,

I concur that with more relative dollars to spend than other countries during the 90s, Congress was guilty of a self-serving approach to appropriations... votes in home states and Washington defense industry lobbyists have an "inordinate" influence on Congress in the competition for actual military expenditures.

Voters were poor watchdogs... so while we outspent the rest of the world on a relative basis during the 90s, Congress didn't necessarily spend wisely. Moreover, I am of the opinion that part of the blame resides within the military... look at the lobby rosters of the special interests that have the most influence in Washington. Today, old soldiers don't just die or fade away... they have become politically savvy in order to make hay after they retire.

However, we did spend more in 90s than 80s relative to the rest of the world (after the Cold War ended).

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by lsbets
[B
Some of this can be attributed to misplaced budget priorities. Congress routinely rams new weapons systems down the throat of the military that the military does not want because building a new submarine somewhere or new plane somewhere provides jobs and votes for that Congressmen and Senator. I would buy the argument that if you kept the same amount of money in the budget, but cut out the systems the military does not want, you would be able to increase training, maintenance, and housing budgets. However, the reality of our political systems says that will never happen. We might not have vut as much as everyone else, but where is matters, we cut way too deep. [/B]


Bingo.

After 20 yrs in the Defense electronics industry with two diff corp's (my original employer was bought out), I'll echo this post above. One of my employers was more conscience of the customer's needs, the other just wanted to rake in whatever they could (wooing pols along the way), damn the repercussions and end result of mission capability.

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
you guys bitched about the CIA for a generation, now that Bush has sent someone in there to ream some asses you bitch about that too..........

That is all they know...they are not builders, they are whinners. This is why the dems keep losing. The WH, the house, the senate, soon the court...they are cry babies and whinners and the public is on to them. They would be better off running Anna Nicloe Smith......booze and all.

[Secretariat]

I'm still waiting for the CIA report about 911 that was suppressed until after the election. IT is ready according to CIA officials.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I'm still waiting for the CIA report about 911 that was suppressed until after the election. IT is ready according to CIA officials.
Election is not over until Kerry's lawyers get out of Ohio.

[Secretariat]

Apparently, the shake up is not over yet. Two more CIA heads roll. Hopefully, Goss knows what he is doing and is not putting our country at risk with such a large defection of CIA employees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/25/politics/25intel.html?oref=login&hp&ex=1101358800&en=e050d43a41b9a462&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Equineer]

Bush ensured that Goss and McCain started developing a relationship by arranging a conference with McCain for Goss, who had never met the senator despite serving in the House.

I took this as a very positive sign that Bush really supports the 911 Commission recommendations.

Some of the departing CIA officials will undoubtedly rush new books critical of Bush to the publishers.

I don't know what to think about one anecdote that will probably get published since it has been making the rounds for some weeks.

According to this story, when the original plan for invading, occupying, and democratizing Iraq was presented to Bush, he looked skeptically at the thick sheaf of documents, promptly brushed them aside, and ordered Rumsfeld to fetch the Grenada War Plan and some magic markers.