GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Fewer, better spies key to intelligence reform, former official says

• 49620
  

  Thank you MJ for the comment. You must work in my office.

  I agree, we've got enough dead wood in the IC so we don't need more IO's, we need better sources.

  Roger Posted April 29, 2008 11:46 AM
• 48488
  

  The writer hits it right on the head for DOD when he points out the CIAs problem: "Recruitment is the most discussed problem at the CIA. The challenge is quality control. The first problem is finding the right people -- those with very specialized skills, especially in Middle Eastern languages, who are willing to risk their lives in the least pleasant corners of the world for a CIA salary."

  The DOD is still hiring either good ole boys who are set in their ways without critical languages. Many of them are also retired military, which is just another pension for these guys. Then the others we hire with language skills are just some pretty girls that these old guys like to tell war stories too. I see it everyday.

  MJ Posted April 14, 2008 10:06 AM
• 8893
  

  We failed to connect the dots before 9/11 - we connected too many dots re: Iraq.

  Mac Posted March 21, 2005 10:49 AM
• 8892
  

  There is much to think about in this area that is important to our Nation's success. I can understand the military wanting to have its own intelligence capability. While an infantry officer serving in Vietnam I came to learn that I could rarely rely on intelligence that did not come from my own unit's scouts, or from some other closely controlled resouces. Most of what came to us from CIA, or from Staff, was just plain junk that somebody (an informant probably) obtained a payment for providing, and thus most likely made up stories to "sell" to some "agent".

  I clearly remember taking lots of sudden helicopter rides to strike some big "enemy headquarters" that all too often turned out to be a empty rice paddy, and a waste of time and resources. What worked was when my "point man" came back and said he had observed the enemy crossing the stream up ahead. That information I could count on as being true and accurate, and it was current.

  I would urge the exercise of a little care in this "concept of specialization of intelligence collection function" however. I think some overlap and redundance can be a good thing. I understand that the politics of the thing may require that everyone be given their share of the assigned "turf", but I would be leery of trusting too much this information provided by other agencies. After all, it was the almost universal view of most of the worlds intelligence agencies that Saddam had WMD. It is possible, for many sources to be wrong. Having multiple sources of information can help to confirm the data as accurate, and in some cases expose disinformation programs. Somebody needs to do a better job of collecting relevent data and cross checking this with other facts. Consideration should also be given to questions of if this data has been deliberately allowed to leak out, and if so, why. I agree that human intelligence needs to be expanded and focused upon. This stuff is vital to our national defense and is too important to be left to "politics as usual" and to outmoded paradigms.

  Pay for agents, who should, or should not, be recruited and the other issues mentioned are all important and timely topic that need serious attention. I just hope, and pray, the professionals charged with this responsibility are up to the many challenges and transitions taking place, and can be successful.

  Kevin Myles Posted March 21, 2005 10:45 AM