Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Intelligence Usually Wrong
Would you buy a used car from the so-called intelligence community? Or a used spy? What reason is there to trust a National Intelligence Estimate created by the same crowd that said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Are we now to trust those who filled poor Colin Powell's U.N. presentation with what was, if one may not use scatology, rubbish? Mr. Secretary, I knew Adlai Stevenston and you are no Adlai Stevenson.
The same combine of 15 intelligence agencies (patently, we need that many!) that provided a rationale (a slam dunk) for the Iraq war now tells us there's no reason for a war with Iran. Historically, U.S. intelligence has almost always been wrong (since the time it got it right about Pearl Harbor). Why should anyone have much faith today? Call the zoo and find out if the other leopards have changed their spots!
Consider a random list of their failures -- we did not know the Soviets had stolen secrets of the atom bombs, we were unprepared for the invasion of South Korea, we were astonished that the missile gap of the '60 election debates never existed, we were surprised by Sputnik, we were dumbstruck when the Russian rockets showed up in Cuba, we were taken aback by the collapse of the "evil empire," we were unprepared for the Iranian revolution, we didn't anticipate the Serbian invasion of Kosovo, we weren't prepared for the civil war in Iraq. We aren't very good at spying and never have been.
Nor are we all that skilled at diplomacy. Now that we have been reassured by the National Estimate, we are being told by the usual suspects to turn to diplomacy. Wood-row Wilson was taken in by Lloyd George and Clemen-ceau at Versailles and Roosevelt by Stalin every time they sat down together. All the summits during the Cold War accomplished little. Henry Kissinger did open the door to China, but he kept the Vietnam War going for four years (doubling the casualties) to maintain "credibility." Jimmy Carter couldn't negotiate the release of the hostages in Iran. North Korea seems reluctant to fulfill its recent commitments. Anyone who believes the recent meeting at Annapolis will produce peace in Palestine will believe the Bears are going to win the Super Bowl.
Those who rejoice in the NIE point out that this is the first time in the history of intelligence activity in the United States the experts haven't shaped their estimates to fit an administration's policies -- as Tim Weiner describes the CIA's history in Legacy of Ashes. One can only hope this NIE is not only a change but also a pattern for future reports. One can also hope that in the future our moles and our striped-pants brigade would be better educated, especially about religion, a little more cynical and a little less self-righteous.
Andrew Greeley is a priest in good standing of the Archdiocese of Chicago. for 52 years, a columnist for 40 years, a sociologist for 45 years, a novelist for 28 years, distinguished lecturer at the University of Arizona for 28 , research associate at National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago for 46 years.
© 2007 The Chicago Sun Times
18 Comments so far
Show AllYour ignorance on the topic is obvious in that you paint intelligence with such a broad stroke. There is a huge difference between the intelligence produced and reported by folks you will never see or hear and the intelligence that shows up on the TV, in newspapers, during White House news conferences, and during hearings on in Congress. We need to create a new lexicon with which to talk about intelligence, one that distinguishes between the quality variety corrupt variety. At some level out there in sneaky land, we know doggoned near everything we need to know, but at some other level, what those folks who know doggoned near everything gets perverted, either intentionally or because of inept interpretation or application. Your speaking on a topic about which you obviously know nothing only serves to reinforce the excuses of those who screw intelligence up and then blame their failures on bad intelligence.
Or should that be Director of National Intelligence (above)?
Having not seen a word of the recent NIE on Iran, I wonder whether our intelligence agencies have even reached a consensus on something as fundamental as whether or not the Iranian president ever vowed to wipe Israel off the map. We hear this from President Bush, of course, and Congress passed a resolution based on this wording of the alleged threat, but according to Project Censored and others, what the Iranian president really said was something else: that the present governing/occupying regime in Israel would vanish from the pages of history.
Or should that be Director of National Intelligence (above)?
Have not seen a word of the recent NIE on Iran, I wonder whether our intelligence agencies have even reached a consensus on something as fundamental as whether or not the Iranian president ever vowed to wipe Israel off the map. We hear this from President Bush, of course, and Congress passed a resolution based on this wording of the alleged threat, but according to Project Censored and others, what the Iranian president really said was something else: that the present governing/occupying regime in Israel would vanish from the pages of history.
"Jimmy Carter couldn't negotiate the release of the hostages in Iran." True, but Ronald Reagan did. And Jimmy Carter did negotiate peace between Israel and Egypt. The Reagan-Gorbachev summits were also productive.
Also, I have to wonder if it is fair or even meaningful to compare our spy agencies of today with what we had to make do with at the end of WWII. And now, of course, we have a National Director of Intelligence for the first time in our history.
GROUSEFEATHER -- Your heart is in the right place, but I have a suggestion to you for better aligning the head with all of that:
I generally agree with your stated idea that "anyone who was paid a salary by our government for protecting this country against acts of terrorism on 9/11 should be prosecuted for gross negligence or dereliction of duty"
The real issue is the difference between
those who were being paid to prevent the attacks, contrasted with
those who were being paid to cause the attacks
If they were the same people, they were just following orders, which is true also if they were different people -- so they were war criminals either way.
Was that your point?
I envision a cacophony of attempted orchestrations, amongst a near infinity of conflicted lies contrasted with plausible truths, so what is right or wrong depends on how many levels into the multidimensional maze that one has traveled.
Any cross-section attempted to cut through this mess would likely result in the immediate urge to commit suicide.
LIES: Many are called but few are chosen
International war criminal Heny Kissinger wanted Nixon to go to China for trading relations in order to open sweatshops for our 'manufacturers' and provide loans to the 'communists' from our wonderful banking establishment. Human rights had nothing to do with it.
As to the statements Father Greeley made about our plethora of mistakes in intelligence gathering, then if this is the case, our career civil servants have freeloaded off the taxpayer by incompetance at the workplace, or quite possibly have convinced the public that more 'funding' is needed to produce better results, and they did know all along what was transpiring.
Vern; Sad but true.
whatfools; Also right. Money and Power, whether for church or state. A little footnote for you.
The Vatican instructed the 'NUNCIO' in 1930's Germany to get the Catholics to support Hitler, as he hated socialists, communists, anarchists, and freethinkers, and would 'dispose' of them for the Church.
So much for spiritual and moral guidance from organized religion.
"Historically, U.S. intelligence has almost always been wrong…"
Almost always wrong? But you didn't prove that claim did you? I don't know who you are, but I can tell you something. Israel and its Ziocon/neocon supporters are spending a humongous amount of money on propaganda trying to say exactly what you're saying here, because they're warmongers, badly need a war, and are disappointed at the recent NIE. What's in it for you?
I hope we can believe things are right or wrong because they are, and not because they fit our general POV about the subject.
Intelligence is not "easy" either.
Don't forget "terrorism experts" because they're basically in the same catagory as our Intelligence Agencies. I didn't even know we had terrorism experts until after 9/11, but since then, about half the people we see on political televison programming claim to be terrorism experts. Evidently before and during 9/11, these same terrorism experts hadn't applied their expertise to detecting and evaluating the potential for acts of terrorism like the 9/11 attack. It seems to me that anyone who was paid a salary by our government for protecting this country against acts of terrorism on 9/11 should be prosecuted for gross negligence or dereliction of duty.
Former Secretary of War, Darth Cheney, manipulated the US intelligence community with threats and fear to stifle the truth and produce the 'intelligence' that he wanted to make war and plunder our treasury. How filthy rich the Fascist Merchants of Death have become with their 'forever' wars. But what I don't understand is why the Church always seems to side with the Fascist? Those that speak out for human rights like Oskar Romero are banished or killed.
Well, at least I know THE CIA is good for two things...at which they pretty much excel,,,,,running drugs and laundering money! Sorry, don't buy this STORY.
The "intelligence community" also believes catastrophic climate change is the number one national security threat. Looks like they might get one right after all...
I hope Mr. Greeley isn't trying to generate fear about the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program despite continuing lack of evidence about its existence.
It seems to me that Mr. Greeley is using the wrong yardsticks to measure success and failure. Look at the "War on Drugs." It's called a failure, but it keeps sucking up more money despite other viable alternatives for managing drug use. Could it be that the "War on Drugs" is actually fulfilling some other important (legal, social, economic) functions by which it would be considered a great success? Think about it. You decide.
Mr. Greeley's alleged intelligence failures were actually great public relations success stories, like the missile gap. Or they are debatable views of history - the "invasion" of South Korea, and the Serbian (?!?) invasion of Kosovo. Other cases are completely predictable results of unsavory activities by Western actors that (surprise!) provoked a response - the Soviet bomb, the Cuban missile crises, the Iranian revolution, and internal fighting in Iraq.
US diplomatic initiatives are often intentionally engineered to fail. Such diplomatic failures then will prompt sanctions, covert actions, low-intensity conflicts, or full scale military action in response. As Gil Scott Heron said: If they really wanted peace, we'd have peace.
Anyone who believes the recent meeting in Annapolis was meant to produce peace surely will believe the corporate media's propaganda. I'm sure that Common Dreams' readers are more rational media consumers.
"we weren't prepared for the civil war in Iraq." I think the blame for this rests with Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush instead of the Intelligence community.
The ultimate terrorists according to our "Intelligence" are environmentalists, animal rights activists, artists, socialists and dark-skinned people.
Fr. Greeley is pointing out that the spies and diplomats of the usa are about as significant as a gnat's fart during a hurricane. Mind you, if done right diplomacy will make you think that taking a dump in your mother's apple pie is a good idea. If espionage is done right, you'll never hear of it.
Just what are you trying to say, Fr. Greeley?