Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on June 25, 2014, 01:48:55 PM
-
The Spies Who Bilked Us
Lavishing intelligence agencies with money and power has only magnified their failures.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-spies-who-bilked-us/
The U.S. annually invests over $70 billion in intelligence operations whose mission is to gather and analyze information necessary to protect the nation’s security. But intelligence failures remain common.
...
At the same time, massive public leaks of intelligence information—not to mention losses to hostile foreign hackers and spies—show that our spy agencies can’t adequately protect their own data, much less the entire Internet we all depend on. Was intentionally weakening encryption standards really the best decision for establishing long-term U.S. cyber security?
...
There are now more than 5 million government employees and contractors holding U.S. security clearances.
...
Americans didn’t know how dysfunctional our intelligence agencies had become before September 11, 2001. But the repeated failures since amply demonstrate that simply expanding their power and inflating their budgets hasn’t made them more effective.
...
We shouldn’t have to wait for another massive failure before Congress starts a thorough examination of the entire intelligence enterprise; one designed to weed out wasteful and abusive programs and establish sustainable policies that resolve and reduce threats rather than aggravate them.
...
Our Constitution gives Congress ample authority to act on matters of national security and foreign policy, and to investigate and regulate executive branch activities.
...
Intelligence officials claim the right under the program to subject anyone with a security clearance “across the government” to continuous electronic monitoring, “on the job as well as off.” Given the intelligence agencies’ open disdain for oversight, concerns that such an expansive program could chill congressional investigations of intelligence activities must be taken seriously.
We spend a lot of $$$ on the intel bureaucrats and yet we find ourselves caught with our pants down more often than not on the world stage.
-
Lack of strategic guidance, lack of political guidance, bureaucrats who care more about empire building than actual intel work, too many desk jockeys, too much insular culture, too much money in the wrong places, too little money in the right places.
Essentially, we'd need to come up with a coherent plan, find people to implement it, RIF the folks who can't implement it and keep a firm hand on the helm to ensure the plan is followed.
We need two missions.
Stopping bad folks here in the States, keeping an eye on the world at large.
Biggest counterintel threads are China, Israel, Russia and rogue individuals or non-state-sponsored groups (in order). France is an odd fifth. al Queda is not flipping many Americans, or trying to steal our stuff. They want to cut an American's throat, not flip him or her to work for them.
Intelligence wise, we need to have a "feel of the streets" level everywhere. Obviously, we need to be tactful as the two main intel threats to the US are nominal allies, and theoretically Russia isn't an enemy either. It's wise to remember that a country and its intelligence agencies are very different critters. We can be enemies with a country and friends with its intelligence agencies, or vice versa.
Honestly, the real trick would be to quickly get information in the right hands. We lack that capability and no one is interested in building one. Instead we get friggin' huge patchwork of piece meal solutions.
Example would be that the underwear bomber's dad called the US government and let us know his kid was off his rocker. A lowly Embassy desk clerk should be able to submit that info to TSA, FAA, CBP, etc. They should have access to read, but they should be able to push data. Could be true, could be BS, but it's enough to warrant an extra special screening.
-
We spend a lot of $$$ on the intel bureaucrats and yet we find ourselves caught with our pants down more often than not on the world stage.
The intelligence agencies reflect the politicians who've been meddling in foolhardy ways with agency operation, emphasizing political correctness, politically motivated funding, and an expanding bureaucracy, rather than actual competence.
-
Another example would be the Russian Intelligence agency telling the US intelligence agency that the two guys you just let in, gave EBT cards, section 8 housing, and free education to, they are bad actors and you might want to watch them. Yeah, if only there was some group or agency that was around to monitor their phone calls and activities that would be great.
-
Another example would be the Russian Intelligence agency telling the US intelligence agency that the two guys you just let in, gave EBT cards, section 8 housing, and free education to, they are bad actors and you might want to watch them. Yeah, if only there was some group or agency that was around to monitor their phone calls and activities that would be great.
Just because the Russians engage in the odious practice of profiling doesn't mean we should, we're better than that.
Or some similar excuse.
-
Just because the Russians engage in the odious practice of profiling doesn't mean we should, we're better than that.
Or some similar excuse.
Yea. Profiling doesn't always work.
.....except when it does. [tinfoil]
-
Just because the Russians engage in the odious practice of profiling doesn't mean we should, we're better than that.
Or some similar excuse.
Profiling is not a wonder tool. It's a rule of thumb, and should only be used for prioritizing. It has both a high false positive rate as well as a medium false negative rate. Its main weakness however is people overestimating its abilities.
-
Interesting read: The Human Factor.
Go check it out.
If i was ever approached by an intelligence agency regarding employment, it (and the interviewer's reaction to my questions) would DEFINITELY cause me to turn down the job offer.
-
Just because the Russians engage in the odious practice of profiling doesn't mean we should, we're better than that.
Or some similar excuse.
IIRC, the Russians didn't "profile" them. They had hard data that they had been in contact with Chechnyan rebels/freedom fighters/terrorist/whateveryouwanttocallthem. Including a guy referred to as "The Osama bin Laden of Russia".
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/04/23/russia-contacted-fbi-multiple-times-concerns-about-alleged-boston-marathon-bomber/ND0bhUdq1Tp1mRuC8xlb8N/story.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/topsecretamerica/the-boston-bombers-who-knew-what-when/