JAN. 30, 2004: READERS WRITE
Intell Failure
An extremely interesting email from a reader about the problem of intelligence failure:
“Dear Mr. Frum,
“In your NRO Diary entry for today, you wonder why the President did not -- and does not -- houseclean at the CIA in light of the intelligence failures with respect to Iraq.
“(1) I've noticed that George Bush seems to highly prize loyalty, and to reward or try to buy same with very tolerant support. I seem to recall a lot more disloyalty and movement of top people in and out of previous Administrations. Is it possible Mr. Bush has a bit of a blind spot, in the sense that he doesn't fully understand people who can work for him while, so to speak, also working against him?
“(2) Is it not also possible that the ‘failure’ of intelligence in Iraq, and even pre-9/11, is much less significant than it is commonly painted? Perhaps our general expectations of what ‘intelligence’ can do are systematically overheated.
“After all, who is motivated to be pessimistic about what national intelligence can provide? The national intelligence community itself is clearly motivated to believe in its product, if for no other reason than to defend its appropriations. Congress would like to believe in intelligence, because intelligence is far cheaper than paranoia and stand-by military might, which is what they must fund if we can't count on good intelligence.
“The American public would like to believe in intelligence, because we know what's available publicly about our enemies is deeply confusing -- does Saddam have WMD or doesn't he? You can get a different expert opinion every day! -- and we would like to believe our government has some secret handle on what's *really* going on. It's very uncomfortable for us to imagine the President is winging it just as much as any of us.
“Secondly, the intelligence community must naturally err on the side of pessimism and alarmism. The cardinal rule in military intelligence is to estimate the worst your enemy could possibly do, not what he probably is willing to do, or could economically do, or is likely to do. Worst-case analysis is the rule of the day. How could it be otherwise?
“I mean, here people are simultaneously saying 9/11 should have been anticipated, which would have required making seriously worst-case analyses about the threat posed by various low-level riff-raff, while at the same time making worst-case (instead of probable-case) analyses of the threat of Saddam Hussein was 'irresponsible.' Well, which is it? Which rule should the spooks follow?
“Additionally, the CIA was trained during the Cold War, when almost comically worst-case analyses of the Soviet threat were entirely routine. In the 80s we were told the Soviet threat necessitated enormous efforts -- MX missiles, 600-ship Navy, Los Angeles class U-boats, Star Wars, et cetera -- while in truth the Soviet state was at that time starting a spectacular economic and military power dive out of which it has still not pulled.
“Let us not even get into the late '50s missile gap, and the frantic rush to build the H-bomb, or even Einstein's letter to FDR warning of the threat of a German A-bomb, which speak for themselves in terms of spectacular mis-estimation of enemy capabilities.
“My point is not to fling contempt on the intelligence community, but to point out that when it functions as we expect -- nay demand -- it will routinely provide threat estimates which are exaggerated, and regularly provide threat estimates which do so wildly.
“To make exact threat estimates requires either a time machine, so you can take advantage of the hindsight the President's critics are all indulging in so shamelessly, or else unbelievably precise knowledge of those very activities which our enemies are willing to invest the most in hiding.
“And, at some point, although is not germane to the main issues above, you have to point out that those who claim not to be our enemies have a responsibility to make -- or at least a vested interest in making -- their pacific intentions crystal clear. When a policeman yells 'Freeze! Police!' at someone running down the road, it's not unreasonable to expect that person to understand he should avoid
suddenly reaching into his jacket pocket, even if it's just to get out his handkerchief or cell phone. We don't expect the cops to be mind-readers and know it isn't a gun. We expect innocent people to cooperate in making their innocence clear.”
The Other Side
Meanwhile, a less intelligent reader has this to say on the Amazon review page of AN END TO EVIL:
“What does the 'War on Terror' mean? Wake up America, the US has done just as much promotion of 'terrorism' as any other country. It has supplied arms and training to countless foreign guerilla groups, including Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, and helped to planned coups and the assassination of foreign leaders (eg. President in Chile in 1973). If this doesn't count as terrorism what does?
“There are real answers to curtailing fundamentalist Islamic terrorists (like economic aid and education), but overthrowing these Governments and installing American puppet-'democracies' is just going to magnify the resentment.
“You cannot stop terrorism by the Orwellian-type controls suggested in this book, the only way to stop terrorism is to nullify the reasons why the terrorists are willing to commit these acts in the first place, to remove the cause that they are fighting for.”
It’s splendid to see the two most common leftist clichés smashed together into such shattering self-contradiction. On the one hand, we are told that the Chileans etc. are victims of American terrorism. Then we are told that it’s the duty of the victims of terrorism to examine their own behavior and “remove the cause” that the terrorists are fighting for. But if the right way to stop terrorism is to palliate terrorists – and if the United States is a terrorist state – then why aren’t others obliged to placate the United States by “nullifying the reasons” that the US acts as it does? The US did not in fact assassinate Salvador Allende, or even have a hand in his overthrow – but if it did, shouldn’t the reader by his own logic blame the Chileans for failing to “remove” him? |
