Interesting Article on Intelligence on Iran

#2
#2
This is a very interesting article. There really is a science and art not just behind intelligence gathering - but drawing conclusions based on that intelligence, or having to produce something from that intelligence. From a standard policy prospective and systems integration perspective, it really is intriguing.
 
#3
#3
That's what I thought too - very interesting process that critical decisions rely upon.

It's also interesting how the interpretation becomes black and white. Previously, the hardline hawks thought Iran was a near immediate threat. Now, the hardline doves think Iran is hunky dory and not a nuclear threat at all. Obviously, the picture is still quite murky.
 
#4
#4
Actually the point is that our Administration is basing its decisions and our nation's actions on sketchy info. It's NOT saying Iran is not a threat. It is stating that the information W has been flailing around before the public is not accurate. If you listen to Cheney, Bolton, etc. they'd have us bombing Iran at midnight because of a very imposing threat of actual nuclear weapons against us and our interests. This estimate backs us down from an immediate threat and the need to invade based on old and outdated information. If anything it clearly makes Bush look like a fool for saying Iran is actually an impending threat when we still have time for more non-military options.
 
#6
#6
volinbham said:
That's what I thought too - very interesting process that critical decisions rely upon.

It's also interesting how the interpretation becomes black and white. Previously, the hardline hawks thought Iran was a near immediate threat. Now, the hardline doves think Iran is hunky dory and not a nuclear threat at all. Obviously, the picture is still quite murky.
Click to expand...

I agree that the situation is murky...my guess is that it probably was similarly murky when the original intelligence assessment was drawn. However, there was a known objective for that intelligence (just like in Iraq), so that objective was confirmed. In a murky situation, all sorts of information will be available. It at least seems like this new method will make the best of a murky situation by allowing all points to be investigated and sought after - AND included in the final NIE. Of course, that is only effective if a conclusion can still be drawn, despite the pieces of contradictory information.
 
#7
#7
TennTradition said:
I agree that the situation is murky...my guess is that it probably was similarly murky when the original intelligence assessment was drawn. However, there was a known objective for that intelligence (just like in Iraq), so that objective was confirmed. In a murky situation, all sorts of information will be available. It at least seems like this new method will make the best of a murky situation by allowing all points to be investigated and sought after - AND included in the final NIE. Of course, that is only effective if a conclusion can still be drawn, despite the pieces of contradictory information.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
#8
#8
CSpindizzy said:
Actually the point is that our Administration is basing its decisions and our nation's actions on sketchy info. It's NOT saying Iran is not a threat. It is stating that the information W has been flailing around before the public is not accurate. If you listen to Cheney, Bolton, etc. they'd have us bombing Iran at midnight because of a very imposing threat of actual nuclear weapons against us and our interests. This estimate backs us down from an immediate threat and the need to invade based on old and outdated information. If anything it clearly makes Bush look like a fool for saying Iran is actually an impending threat when we still have time for more non-military options.
Click to expand...

I actually wonder what impact this could have on how aggressively we continue to pursue the European Missile Defense system. While I agree that the NIE doesn't say that Iran is NOT a threat - it does conclude that they did divert their nuclear weapons program to more peaceful purposes in 2003 (with some amount of uncertainty in that conclusion). Perhaps that uncertainty will allow us to continue shoving the missile defense issue down the Russian's throat...but it seems to weaken the immediate need for the system.
 
#9
#9
volinbham said:
Not the claim of the article nor any post in this thread.
Click to expand...

Did I say it was? Thank you for your concern. Next time read the post and take it into context. I was discussing intelligence on Iran, the NIE, and the administration's response. Since all three are relevant to the topic I commented on it. But again, thanks for pointing out something not there.

If anything my comments have quite a bit of relevance to your own post about hawks and doves. But again, habits on missing the obvious...
 
#10
#10
TennTradition said:
I actually wonder what impact this could have on how aggressively we continue to pursue the European Missile Defense system. While I agree that the NIE doesn't say that Iran is NOT a threat - it does conclude that they did divert their nuclear weapons program to more peaceful purposes in 2003 (with some amount of uncertainty in that conclusion). Perhaps that uncertainty will allow us to continue shoving the missile defense issue down the Russian's throat...but it seems to weaken the immediate need for the system.
Click to expand...

We will keep developing and deploying the system no matter what. At this point there are still too many risks out there to back off from this. Regardless of nuclear program status these nations still have longer range missiles with the capability to deploy larger payloads of conventional explosives along with chemical and biological.

Plus even with a few successful tests this system is still not ready for prime time. There are still too many flaws and a higher risk of failure on mulitple launches.
 
#11
#11
The CIA has never been friendly with the Bush Administration. Despite the rosy picture painted by the WaPo, I'm taking this NIE with a large grain of salt.

The Van Diepen Demarche - December 4, 2007 - The New York Sun

One could call all this revenge of the bureaucrats. Vann Van Diepen, one of the estimate's main authors, has spent the last five years trying to get America to accept Iran's right to enrich uranium. Mr. Van Diepen no doubt reckons that in helping push the estimate through the system, he has succeeded in influencing the policy debate in Washington. The bureaucrats may even think they are stopping another war.
Click to expand...
 
#12
#12
CSpindizzy said:
Did I say it was? Thank you for your concern. Next time read the post and take it into context. I was discussing intelligence on Iran, the NIE, and the administration's response. Since all three are relevant to the topic I commented on it. But again, thanks for pointing out something not there.

If anything my comments have quite a bit of relevance to your own post about hawks and doves. But again, habits on missing the obvious...
Click to expand...


speaking of habits...:whistling:
 
#13
#13
CSpindizzy said:
We will keep developing and deploying the system no matter what. At this point there are still too many risks out there to back off from this. Regardless of nuclear program status these nations still have longer range missiles with the capability to deploy larger payloads of conventional explosives along with chemical and biological.

Plus even with a few successful tests this system is still not ready for prime time. There are still too many flaws and a higher risk of failure on mulitple launches.
Click to expand...

Good point on the chemical and biological weapons. If you view them as a threat (regardless of nuclear intentions), then you may still have an excuse to deploy the missile defense system.

As far as I can tell, the system is FAR from being ready to deploy. If no decoys were used along with the deployed warhead (nuclear, chemical, biological, whatever) ... then we could probably take it down. If multiple missiles were fired with several decoys, then I would say almost no chance.
 
#14
#14
MG1968 said:
The CIA has never been friendly with the Bush Administration. Despite the rosy picture painted by the WaPo, I'm taking this NIE with a large grain of salt.

The Van Diepen Demarche - December 4, 2007 - The New York Sun
Click to expand...

The CIA is one of 16 agencies that contribute to this. Add to that fact that there has been 5 years of restructuring that should have made the CIA Bush-friendly. I seem to recall articles a few years ago where one former head and former congressman cleaned house and brought in bureacrats rather than pure analysts. So if the current CIA is not friendly to Bush, it's because he's lost support of those he's installed in there. Show me where more than one person has some history of disagreeing with Bush on this and to be skeptical and I might agree with you.
 
#15
#15
TennTradition said:
Good point on the chemical and biological weapons. If you view them as a threat (regardless of nuclear intentions), then you may still have an excuse to deploy the missile defense system.

As far as I can tell, the system is FAR from being ready to deploy. If no decoys were used along with the deployed warhead (nuclear, chemical, biological, whatever) ... then we could probably take it down. If multiple missiles were fired with several decoys, then I would say almost no chance.
Click to expand...

Add to the fact that the Russians and Chinese have been actively working on programs to defeat a missile defense system, I'd say there is reason to keep development going.
 
#16
#16
CSpindizzy said:
Add to the fact that the Russians and Chinese have been actively working on programs to defeat a missile defense system, I'd say there is reason to keep development going.
Click to expand...

In a nuclear context, I am not actually sure I see the need to keep development going. In other contexts, I can see a reason to use defense. But mutually assured destruction has actually served us quite well through some pretty rough periods of time. I'm not sure that spending billions on a system that can continually be one-upped to be defeated and very well might drive adversaries to increase their nuclear stockpiles (if they feel it will work to knock out some fraction of their missiles).

My basic position is that I truly don't believe that we (or anyone) are capable of building a system that is proficient enough to fully protect a nation. In a nuclear context, you must have total protection - even one nuclear strike would be enough to earn a full retaliation by the US. In that context, I think that it is dangerous to deploy a system that doesn't work. As for funding, if we feel that it could one day work, then fund it (I'm not confident - but also, I'm not as knowledgeable about this as I would need to be to actually make that decision). But do not deploy it until we see better success.
 
#17
#17
CSpindizzy said:
The CIA is one of 16 agencies that contribute to this. Add to that fact that there has been 5 years of restructuring that should have made the CIA Bush-friendly. I seem to recall articles a few years ago where one former head and former congressman cleaned house and brought in bureacrats rather than pure analysts. So if the current CIA is not friendly to Bush, it's because he's lost support of those he's installed in there. Show me where more than one person has some history of disagreeing with Bush on this and to be skeptical and I might agree with you.
Click to expand...

Three Years of the Condor

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

Iran Welcomes New US Intelligence Report

I disagree with you that W has stacked the CIA with with people that are friendly to him.
 
#18
#18
CSpindizzy said:
The CIA is one of 16 agencies that contribute to this. Add to that fact that there has been 5 years of restructuring that should have made the CIA Bush-friendly. I seem to recall articles a few years ago where one former head and former congressman cleaned house and brought in bureacrats rather than pure analysts. So if the current CIA is not friendly to Bush, it's because he's lost support of those he's installed in there. Show me where more than one person has some history of disagreeing with Bush on this and to be skeptical and I might agree with you.
Click to expand...

Bush's relationship with the FBI and CIA has been quite rocky since his first few days. Full of up and downs. I wouldn't look at either as Bush friendly on the whole. I have a family member who just retired from the FBI after years with both the FBI/CIA in Counter-Intelligence and he was never a fan of Bush nor were a LOT of his co-workers. The Bush Admin has been quick to lay a LOT of blame on the Agency and rightfully so at times and very arrogantly at others.

I do have a funny story though...well, funny to me at least.

My Uncle had a meeting with several Bush Administration officials in the White House dealing with a variety of issues...believe the dates were late in '03 and several in the early parts of '04. Anyway, after several meetings with them he calls me up and one day and says, "I have never met someone so damn dimwitted as John Ashcroft. The man sits there and stares off into space for hours at a time. I ask him questions and he needs me to repeat it several times just so he can understand what I am saying." :ermm:

He loved Rice which surprised me. Said she was one of the nicest, straight-forward (I know, shocked me), and knowledgeable people in the building.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top