Paul Hair at Big Peace drew some lessons from intelligence failures of at least three sorts.
Money quote(s):
"One sentence in that paragraph leaves open the possibility that the intelligence community (IC) did its job in the lead-up to the Russian-Georgian conflict, but the rest of the paragraph indicates that the IC failed. And while the War College paper does not reflect the official position of the Army, Department of Defense, or U.S. government, its conclusion that the IC failed in issuing an adequate warning sounds similar to other accusations of the IC failing (September 11, Iran, the Egyptian Revolution, etc.)."
Calling something an "intelligence failure" is a pretty broad-brush statement. Among the various definitions of "intelligence" is that of the intelligence process or cycle. Intelligence can be both both a thing, a product, or more generally the process and function by which such products are, er, produced.
So it's important to consider which parts of the intelligence process, or which agencies within the IC may have failed.
Was it a failure of collection? Did we just not look in the right places, talk to the right people, or notice the right trends?
Was it a failure of analysis? Did we have the raw information or reports and just not recognize their significance? Did we downplay what turned out to be predictive or "big-up" what was deceptive or irrelevent?
Was it a failure of dissemination? Did the right intelligence just not get into the right hands? Were vital intelligence products "stove-piped" or "fire-walled" from getting to the analysts, commanders, policy-makers, or elected officials who needed them?
"So let’s accept the premise that the IC has repeatedly failed in recent years. Let’s forget that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—the head of the IC—states in its “National Intelligence: A Consumer’s Guide,” that intelligence cannot predict the future (Adobe page 11; actual page 19). Let’s also forget that we here at home cannot accurately predict who will or will not run for president, even as we have firsthand, easy, non-life-threatening access on a scale that invades the personal lives of the people whose minds we are trying to predict. Instead, let’s just accept the criticism that the IC should have predicted or warned of the threats and revolutions that have occurred in recent years. And in doing so, let us also apply this same standard of responsibility to our domestic watchdogs (law enforcement agencies, politicians, news media, talk show hosts, and political pundits) that should be monitoring homeland safety and security."
Too true. Real-life intelligence analysis is not predictive. It can, carefully, do a certain amount of forecasting, such as by analysis of alternative futures or outcomes. But that's not quite the same thing.
"(W)e have a growing group of people who overtly say that they want a revolution that overthrows our government. And as more powerful and wealthy figures and organizations back them, they now have the finances, resources, and means to act on their overtly stated desires. (See also what Daniel W. Drezner writes at Foreign Policy.)
So if the IC has been wrong during the past few years for not issuing sufficient predictions or warnings of the disasters and revolutions in other countries of the world, then surely the watchdogs of our nation must be held accountable for their continuing failure to issue adequate warning of just how dangerous the left is, and for their failure to take necessary investigative actions."
There's an old saying in Liberal/Progressive circles, to the effect that "there are no enemies on the Left." And to this day, many elected officials from the Democratic Party, as well as the unelected officials of our mainstream media, continue to act as if this were true.
It's not.
"We say that those who are violent and a threat are peaceful protestors or those with legitimate grievances because we cannot bring ourselves to acknowledge them as the barbarians that they truly are. Meanwhile, we demonize and persecute those who follow the law because we know we can get away with it—we know they won’t actually act like we accuse them of acting"
If there are certain "protected classes" based upon ethnicity, politics, or lifestyle, then the converse of there being certain groups upon whom it is always "open season" is also true.
After all, it's not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that gets their followers to strap themselves into suicide vests, beheads those who disagree, or promotes honor killings of teenagers or estranged wives.
"Or we deem Islam the Religion of Peace even as we demonize those opposed to the worldwide jihad as “Islamophobic” and “dangerous extremists.” And, of course, we deem those occupying Wall Street and other cities as people who are justifiably angry and thirsting for democracy even as we continue vilifying Tea Partiers and conservatives as violent and a threat to society."
10/11
