I think in the same way that the Congressional Budget Office is generally regarded as pretty neutral and trustworthy, and makes forecasts about legislation proposed by both parties in a way that is generally credible, perhaps we need an intelligence branch whose remit is just to gather info and do analysis on issues of geopolitical and security importance -- and _not_ to execute on any particular administration goals, support or undermine foreign governments, detain or transport prisoners, etc.
Retrospectively, it's easier to answer "Were they right in predicting X, about which more information has now come to light?" than to evaluate "Were they effective in pursuing administration goal Y with the information reasonably accessible at the time?" which involves a lot of messy counterfactuals.
I know the US Intelligence Community is more than the CIA, but it's been fascinating to read in CIA-veteran Douglas London's "The Recruiter" about how the CIA marketed its "seductive" covert action capabilities after 9/11 and became less about intelligence collection:
"[after the debacle of 9/11's intelligence failures], the CIA fundamentally changed its core mission, values, and culture: a metamorphosis designed to earn White House approval and guard itself from the encroachments of the Department of Defense and the FBI, agencies seen as threats that might steal its turf and authorities, and perhaps swallow the CIA whole.
A slippery slope of compromises, facelifts, and revised narratives justifying a unique set of capabilities and authorities undertaken to preserve the Agency would instead leave it barely recognizable for the institution it was meant to be. Established in 1947 as a small, elite, independent, civilian, and nonpartisan foreign intelligence service, the CIA's charter was intelligence collection, analysis, and covert action. Freeing the CIA from association with defense, law enforcement, and diplomacy theoretically protected it from grading its own homework as a policy maker, as was the case for the Pentagon, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State. Small, under the radar, and relatively chaste from the political pressures of its larger counterparts, the CIA was intended to speak truth to power....
That was the mindset of the CIA I joined in 1984. Today, the CIA must choose whether to be the elite spy service it was intended, or continue the Agency's post-9/11 leadership's ill-fated path of compromise." (emphasis mine)
----
> an intelligence branch whose remit is just to gather info and do analysis on issues of geopolitical and security importance -- and _not_ to execute on any particular administration goals ...
I think this is what the CIA was meant to be and started out as. But in its struggle for survival after 9/11, it reinvented itself as a far more political entity.
It is really hard to take that seriously when the CIA was instrumental in overthrowing Leftist governments in Central and South America throughout the 1970s and 1980s. A CIA that was as deep in Operation Condor or the School of the Americas as they were could not be described as a "small, elite, independent, civilian, and nonpartisan foreign intelligence service". This seemed to change long before 9/11.
The CBO has a good reputation because of transparency of methodology than an intelligence service could not have. The last thing I want is an service with covert ELINT and/or HUMINT capacity, even without notionally an active measures role, that the Congress has even less inclination to constrain abuses by than the existing executive branch ones.
HUAC and the McCarthy committee were bad enough without Congress having its own independent spying capacity.
The issue is that the DIA isn't above the rest of the alphabet soup agencies in the hierarchy, hence it cannot just report on the activities of the other agencies itself.
Is that the DIA? I'm of the understanding that because the DIA reports to the Secretary of Defense, and is a combat support agency, that it is pretty tied to administration goals. An example of serving administration goals and political appointees in a way that erodes trust would be Rumsfeld's DoD asking for novel prisoner interrogation techniques. DIA staff were involved in proposing/developing and then implementing "enhanced interrogation" at Guantanamo and Bagram.
I want a non-political intelligence agency, or as close to it as possible. I think it structurally cannot be within or reporting to the executive branch.
Like a congressional intelligence service? I don't know if that would be constitutional. I think the best you could get would be an independent executive agency.
Why would it be unconstitutional? There's a reason I made a direct comparison to the CBO above -- that reports to the legislature and has a responsibility to gather information and prepare analysis about the likely (fiscal and economic) impacts of legislation. To be able to legislate over matters of economic importance, our article 1 bodies need (and hence it's implied that they are allowed to procure) information related to the economy, trade, etc. Similarly, in order to legislate over matters with diplomatic or military significance, I think it's reasonable to say that to the legislature needs (and hence it's implied that they are allowed to procure) intelligence on those areas.
What other branch could it be in? It must ultimately be under the authority of the people of the United States, probably through the elected president.
The DIA is the military's intellgience agency, presumably reporting on military capabilities, plans, etc.
> the DIA isn't above the rest of the alphabet soup agencies in the hierarchy, hence it cannot just report on the activities of the other agencies itself.
None of the others are either, afaik. The only intelligence organization above the rest is the Director of National Intelligence, whose job is to ~ oversee and coordinate the intelligence community.
> perhaps we need an intelligence branch whose remit is just to gather info and do analysis on issues of geopolitical and security importance
The first part is, afaik, part of the intelligence community's mission. It worked to the extent that when GW Bush wasn't getting the answers he wanted on Iraq, he setup his own intelligence office to create the disinformation they wanted. (On the other hand, CIA head George Tenet, perhaps due to pressure, told Bush that Iraq WMD would be a "slam dunk".)
Also, afaik, that happens in a separate branch of the CIA than the covert operations. Is that not separate enough?
Compared to 2006, or 2015? No. Compared to 1990, probably.
Emphatically calling the Russian invasion despite widespread media, domestic and international skepticism helped gain a bit of it back. They should keep doing more of that and less fucking around with paramilitaries in South America.
George Bush Sr. was POTUS in '90. He'd served as CIA Director back in '76-'77, and (that I've heard) still knew exactly who to call, from the Oval office to 'way down the CIA's org chart, when he need correct and competent facts and analysis.
(Obviously you can argue that he still wasn't talking to the right people about Iran & Kuwait in July of '90.)
How can the the American voter trust the IC when the rubric for deciding what is secret, private, confidential or in the national interest is so far removed from them personally, removed even from their elected representatives? I think more transparency and open discussion of the actual rubric itself would go a long way to building trust.
It really depends on which side you are on. If you support Evangelical-backed business interests and are partial to Israel then you would have more trust in the intelligence community than someone who wants higher taxes or someone who has no religious preferences.
They said Russia would invade Ukraine. Many other people denied it. Russia invaded Ukraine. I feel this is pretty good evidence that people trust US intelligence. You can cherry pick some failures, but they generally do a good job.
Also general failure to even attempt prosecution of the politically well-connected and powerful, unless of course other well-connected people were harmed or allege harm
I get it now. I can see law enforcement as kissing up to the powerful in a way similar to the IC kissing up to the President, and also Trump has used LE to further his ends and promises to do more if elected.
But I wonder where to draw the line between LE and IC. All LE does some IC work, at least if it comes their way.
What is the connection between them making a correct prediction and people trusting them? A track record of making correct predictions would be a reason why people should trust them, but it wouldn't be evidence that people actually do.
It's interesting how they work to gain trust: just finance movies like Sicario so people accept they have no other option but to break the law. And of course they only want to serve the interest of the nation, not their selfish interests or private interests. Next movies will probably justify how they have to run the country. Just like the greatest ally in the Middle East does, where most presidents come from intelligence. War is peace.
I imagine the U.S. Intelligence Community played a large role in preventing 9/11 style terrorism in the last 23 years. I sometimes worry about some of their actions, or rumors of their actions. I do think their north star is in the countries' best interest.
> I imagine the U.S. Intelligence Community played a large role in preventing 9/11 style terrorism in the last 23 years.
I guess it's honest to call it 'imagination'. What evidence do you have? There haven't been those attacks anywhere for 23 years, and they didn't happen for 23 years before that.
> I do think their north star is in the countries' best interest.
Per TFA, their north star is often pleasing the current President.
Mindcontrol programs, Tuskegee experiments, dropping biological agents on us civilians, distributing metric tons of crack cocaine, arent really rumors at this point. In this day and age if anyone thinks they are doing better things than the now public mistakes of the past I would advise to hold their beer.
"I do think their north star is in the countries' best interest."
And by the way, do you also think that Nazi's north star was in the Germany's best interest? It didn't work out well, but their heart was in the right place, wasn't it?
Between the U.S. IC's long history of spectacular failures, blind eyes toward high-level enemy moles, and squanderous operating expenses...when in the (say) past 80 years would competent policymakers actually have trusted them?
What kind of question is this? Of course it has. The 3-letter-agencies are effectively a black box that command unlimited resources, all the power that can be wrung from a blank check cashed by the US economy, and no oversight except what they allow. What is there to trust?
I get the impression that policymakers are more afraid of them than trusting, thinking of the "don't cross them or they have 6 ways from sunday to get back at you" sentiment
New Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities.
“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
I want the intel community, the politicians, the journalists, the judges, etc to all be mutually antagonistic. Sorry, but that's just how I see it.
In fact, if I can get the factions inside of the different silos to be sniping at each other as well, then score one for me! The idea of checks and balances is smart. If they want to be underhanded in kneecapping each other's power, more's the better for us.
Do you really want people like DeSantis or Nikki Haley to have unchecked power over you? Of course not. These people are essentially criminals. The fact that they want to be president, is all you need to know to be confident that they shouldn't be president. If the intel community or the journalists take them down, that's nothing but good news for all of us out here in flyover country.
You want Biden and Harris off the leash and running around the neighborhood? You want Trump doing whatever he wants with the levers of power? No. That's madness. This is why we have CNN and FOX, to snipe at sheriffs, mayors, police chiefs, DA's, governors, congresspeople and Presidents. Bonus points if the intel community gets in on the action. That'll guarantee no one will ever get control of your republic.
And vice versa as well by the way. You want homeland security to be doing whatever they want? Or do you want senators and presidents to agitate against them? You want cops to be doing whatever they want? Or do you want the news media and judges to be breathing down their necks?
The adversarial nature of our system's power allotments works for us. Maybe it causes gridlock? But so what? That's preferable to the alternative.
This is an inherently naive take. I understand why you have it and where it comes from.
It is however, disconnected from reality. Basic fundamentals of human existence since the dawn of time remit one thing above all else in a large civilaztion:
Money and power dictate the actions of those wielding it and use it to continue a very closed cycle of power enticing money and vice versa. Period.
Put any government up against that, any mega-corporation, and nearly all individuals whom are not named that have more money and control over assets (including populations) than you are keen to continue to remain in this cycle.
Given how little they spend compared to the unlimited spending power you claim they have, the TLAs might be the only people who could balance the budget.
because majority of the spending and revenue generated is off the books.
they're not only getting financed by the US gvt through the budget. But they have their own ventures that generate profits to feed the monster. their ventures could be public such as the CIA venture firm or dark money as usual.
For FY 2023, the IC was appropriated $99.1b. By your suggestion, the majority of their budget is off the books, which means that more than $99.1b is off the books. That's a pretty extraordinary claim.
The CIA was caught selling weapons to Iran to illegally fund contras and death squads in Latin America.
There's also BCCI, their own international bank to fund who knows what. By going through shell companies and subsidiaries they escape congressional oversight and FOIA requests.
Well, given that these companies have unlimited profit making ability to fund their unlimited budget if they were to list these companies on the stock market the share price would be infinite.
Truly whatever they have figured out is a massive boon to humanity. And they probably should be in charge of everything as no one else has figured out how to make unlimited profit. Their workers must be exceptionally productive.
The TLAs could thus balance the budget simply by paying the taxes owed on these unlimited profit companies.
Does IranContra ring a bell ? the CIA pushing drugs in the minority community in the 80s ? Now the CIA is supposed to be handling foreign issues - but they're doing this in their homeground. Now imagine what they're doing in other foreign countries.
Then take the DOD which has failed multiple audits - you know how dysfunctional you've to be as an org to fail audits ? and the amounts are in the trillions. Even though the CIA is not part of DOD - just to throw that there.
I think the a legitimate and trusted IC is essential. Unfortunately though, the perception is the US IC:
(1) has been weaponized against non-establishment politicals
(2) is heavily involved in censorship cutouts against non-establishment politicals
(3) is evading the spirit of the law around constitutional protections via 5 eyes & outsourcing collection to BigTech
(4) is heavily involved in regime change operations "color revolutions" overseas that may trigger WW3.
(5) Hasn't been completely forthcoming around a number of different things such as JFK assassination, 9-11 hijackers, Epstein/Mossad, Spying on Congress, intentional weakening of crypto standards, plots vs Asssange.
"The most common reason for bias internal to the IC is self-censorship
IC analysts and managers have consciously changed or watered down assessments. This self-censorship was largely driven by a desire to stay relevant or an effort to avoid retaliation from policymakers.
"
Would anyone be able to offer insight into this? Are they worried about pointing out ties of lawmakers foreign investment ties? Biden's son to Ukraine and Republicans to Russia?
Due to the political nature of this please post credible links to back up your claims.
I've read about it or something similar in other reports: The administration puts pressure on them to produce certain results or to not produce others that conflict with their priorities or worldview. People hesitate to stick their finger in their boss's eye, and to produce work that will result in them being ridiculed, demoted, or simply excluded from the power structure, even though it's true.
I remember some intelligence agency or agencies assessing that Iran had much less of a nuclear weapons program than generally thought. The report was dragged through the mud.
Look up reports on past intelligence failures and you'll find similar issues.
Who says that's true? I always thought the people who got hired were just easily controlled and had enough dirt on them that they'd never act outside of their interests.
OK, but did you know that US intelligence reignited heroin use in the US after WWII?
As a way to pay off the european organised crime gangs US intelligence gave them heroin to sell.
Why did the US need to pay crime gangs?
Because they denied the europeans sovereignty and democracy, and used the mob as a tool to stop political organising.
But the mafia doesn't work for free, and maybe you've wondered why Frank Sinatra spent so much time in pre-revolutionary Havana, and how Lucky Luciano came to be a global leader.
And, why it was such a nuisance that the cubans shrugged off the informal occupation.
This is why. The US hired the mafia, the mafia accepted, then met with the usian mafia in Cuba because you need to sell the heroin somewhere that's not home, when the US felt it had lost control and jailed some of the mafia leaders it was way, way too late.
If this is new to you, read Alfred W. McCoy, plus Wikipedia.
Okay but did you know there's a man in prison in Arizona named Jose, who's in for heroin smuggling?
Heroin smuggling is bad, and I've imagined that someone paid for the OP article to have this headline. Putting the same logic together which you employed - it must have been Jose who forced rand to publish the study with such a provocative headline.
This conspiracy garbage is so tiring.
If this is new to you, read arizona court dockets. Trust me, Jose is guilty, the evidence was airtight, so he MUST have paid rand, according to your garbage conspiracy logic
"I've read about the US government doing bad things in the past, and so, I'm allowed to say that any article with a headline which I find provocative, is paid government propaganda"
That's a garbage line of reasoning and I don't care for it.
Did the "academic and scholar" you cited, write anything at all, to back up the claim that the op link is paid propaganda by the government?
It's conspiracy garbage to cite "huh did you know a highly respected academic says that Jose in Arizona smuggled heroin? Because I read this scholar's work, which means I'm now qualified to read a RAND study headline and conclude that it's worded so provocatively that it must be government propaganda"
Yes, that's exactly what you did. You cited that the us government did heroin or whatever, to back up the argument that the headline to the op post is so provocative that it must be government propaganda.
> Why did your brain default to that - to inventing and spreading a fake conspiracy theory, that you invented without evidence?
It probably defaulted to that because RAND is a government propaganda office whose reason for existence is influencing public opinion. ~60% of it's funding comes from the army and the alphabet agencies.
It's roughly in the same bucket of trustworthiness as something like Pravda. I's good to keep up with it if you want to know what the government wants you to think, and for little else.
Right now, between this and other similar statements about the intelligence community, the government seems to want you to think that the alphabet agencies need more money and/or power.
Your determination of who funds the agency has no relevance to the fake invented conspiracy theory which the post above is spreading.
It's a paper about a study which RAND did. You can click into read the paper and see if the headline fits.
Your fake conspiracy theory so far says - that the government is paying rand to only pretend to do a study. When in fact, the study is just a smokescreen to justify writing a headline to influence people's opinions? What? Why not just read the study and then come back and suggest alternative headlines. If the headline was different, would we still think is a psyop?
> the government seems to want you to think that the alphabet agencies need more money and/or power.
Yeah maybe I guess, but also maybe someone just did a sensible study and titled it appropriately. I think my theory has far more evidence than yours (which is simply: how you felt after reading the page title)
> Your fake conspiracy theory so far says - that the government is paying rand to only pretend to do a study
You don't seem to understand either me or the parent poster.
What we're saying is that the government (or parts of it, or whatever hair-splitting you want to do) is currently interested in drumming up funding/influence/power for the intelligence community, so it asks RAND to publish something that will drum up support for it.
This isn't some spontaneous born-from-Zeus' head revelation that the authors have stumbled into. They are given a target, and asked to write something to justify them. You don't need to 'fake' doing a study, to make your 'study' end up supporting whatever pre-conceived thesis you were shooting for. [1]
This is everywhere in the media and the think-tank space. You write what your funders want you to write. Denying this blatant transactionality is the wild conspiratorial thinking.
RAND is an especially egregious example of this, because it marches lock-step with the empire-building geo-political consensus in Washington. It's doing what it's paid to do, if it started drawing conclusions and advocacy its funders didn't like, they wouldn't keep writing cheques.
[1] And if you can't find any way to torture the data into your pre-planned outcome, you can just not publish it. These aren't medical trials, they don't have to be pre-registered.
I have referred to several RAND papers in varying topics over the years. They seemed highly professional, and I have the impression that RAND's work is highly non-partisan. Can you give an example of what you are talking about?
> so it asks RAND to publish something that will drum up support for it.
Please share your evidence for this conjecture, and also share your evidence for how it relates to the OP. Because you are just creating fake conspiracy theories with no evidence, just like the poster above
And do you hold anyone criticizing Pravda.ru to that same standard? Or would suggesting that it's also a mouthpiece for government propaganda also be a baseless fake conspiracy theory with no evidence behind it?
Retrospectively, it's easier to answer "Were they right in predicting X, about which more information has now come to light?" than to evaluate "Were they effective in pursuing administration goal Y with the information reasonably accessible at the time?" which involves a lot of messy counterfactuals.