The Real Intelligence Failure
Ardalan Keykavoussi
By Philip Giraldi
November 06 "Campaign for Liberty" -11/04/09 -- -Most Americans believe that
we are in a terrible dilemma. An increasing number are uncomfortable with
the continuing carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan and fearful of the
consequences of yet another Middle East war, this time against Iran, but
most also believe that our country is threatened by dark forces that seek to
destroy us and that extreme measures are justified. Few realize that fear
alone is bringing about our transformation into a country driven by constant
warfare to the detriment of our constitutional liberties.
Those who believe that a change of course is essential if we are to survive
as a nation quite rightly demand the disengagement of the United States from
two wars and the avoidance of further conflicts. They understand that the
United States has acted unwisely and illegally in its interference in the
affairs of others and also that the presence of American military forces all
over the world has not made us safer and has in fact served as a catalyst
for escalating violence. But those who see the state of the world with such
clarity must first convince a majority of their fellow citizens that
disengagement is not another word for national suicide. In short, the
American people must come to understand that their safety is best assured
when our government does not go around the world looking for dragons to
slay. A key element in being able to reassure the American people could be
the development of a positive and proactive intelligence program that speaks
the truth and, inter alia, could actually help avoid conflicts and
demonstrate that every citizen benefits when the United States is at peace
and a friend to all nations.
America�s fundamental post 9/11 problem is that the resort to brute force is
an easy option for a nation that is powerful but that does not necessarily
seek to deal with the international subtleties. That go-it-alone
aggressiveness was the model for the Bush Administration. Unfortunately,
President Barack Obama's foreign policy continues unrestrained military
action even as it preaches the use of softer forms of power, witness the
continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increase in armed
interventions in places like Pakistan and Somalia.
Part of the reason for this disconnect is that United States intelligence
agencies, most notably the CIA, have failed to appreciate that both the Cold
War and the so-called Global War on Terror were fought in error against
enemies that were deliberately distorted and magnified to create fear. In
today�s complicated multipolar world, the CIA and its sister organizations
could well be the essential elements in the creation and management of a new
security environment, where good information and analysis can be used to
shape policies that are cooperative rather than confrontational. But the CIA
remains stuck in a post-9/11 mindset, with the Mandarins at Langley
seemingly oblivious to the fact that there even exists a new security
environment that they should be thinking about. Intelligence should stop
looking for dragons and should instead be the key to explaining the world in
a way that precludes involvement in situations that are not vital interests
and are not subject to any resolution short of war. Intelligence is
information and information is politically neutral but when properly applied
it can just as easily be a tool for avoiding confrontation as for
instigating it.
Understanding the world and "speaking truth to power" are the principal
roles of intelligence agencies when they are doing their job properly, but
there is always a potential political spin to every story. Recent government
warnings that al-Qaeda continues to be serious threat are one good example,
trotted out as they are at intervals to raise the fear level in spite of
mounting evidence that Usama bin Laden is actually dead. In true "the glass
is half full or half empty" fashion, the story based on exactly the same
evidence could as easily be that al-Qaeda is, in fact, seriously weakened
and would have difficulty in mounting a terror operation anywhere. General
Stanley McChrystal and Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair have
admitted that al-Qaeda is no factor in the current fighting in Central Asia,
but the first narrative stressing the potential threat has been embraced by
the government because it allows the status quo to continue. The latter
narrative about a dysfunctional and expiring al-Qaeda has been essentially
suppressed because it would lead to questions about why the United States
continues to be in Afghanistan and Iraq.
To cite an example of an objective and depoliticized intelligence report
producing a good result, one only has to look at the December 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, which set the record straight on
Tehran's abandonment of its nuclear weapons program. The report effectively
put on hold plans to go to war with Tehran being prepared by the Bush
Administration but because it derailed a policy the government decided never
again to make public the conclusions of an NIE. Worse still, there have been
recent calls in Congress to re-do the NIE report, with the obvious intention
of coming to a different conclusion, i.e. that Iran is a threat. There is
every indication that the intelligence community will dig in its heels and
refused to change the conclusion, but if it surrenders to the pressure, it
would be a reversion to the type of politically influenced intelligence that
enabled the war with Iraq.
Part of the problem in redirecting CIA is cultural and bureaucratic in
nature. The Agency is a business that needs to justify its excessive
manpower and bloated budget through a product that pleases both Congress and
the White House. It also works for the president and is therefore responsive
to requests that are essentially political in nature. Put the two together
and the Agency will most often dance to the tune being played by its
masters. That orientation can change, but only if the White House accepts
that it will frequently hear views that it will regard as unacceptable if
the CIA is doing what it should be doing. Intelligence circles have long
noted that there has been a stream of reporting out of Iraq and Afghanistan
indicating that the United States cannot and will not succeed in either
theater, which should lead to the conclusion that it is time to go home.
Instead, the tendency has been to shoot the messenger. In 2004-2005 several
CIA Chiefs of Station in Iraq were fired because they were not "on message"
with the Bush Administration. How much better off would the United States be
today if the Bushies had instead paid attention to the reporting, admitted
that it had been wrong, and abandoned its nation building program?
Disengagement from the status quo with its focus on bloated and ineffective
intelligence agencies trying to support bankrupt and unsustainable policies
is only possible if there is a return to objectivity and candor, but there
is no sign that President Obama desires that any more than did his
predecessor. For that to happen, policy makers must insist that US
intelligence become less reactive and politicized. CIA in particular must
rethink what it does and how it does it and not seek to demonize lists of
"axis of evil" enemies. Good intelligence can help explain the world and
both identify and neutralize the real threats. It can be used to convince
the American people that they are more secure and more free when the United
States ceases to be a hegemon engaged all over the world and feared by
everyone.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D. is the Francis Walsingham Fellow at The American
Conservative Defense Alliance (www.ACDAlliance.org) and a former CIA
counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23907.htm