zenpundit.com » 2006

Archive for 2006

Tuesday, September 26th, 2006

NIE ROUNDUP

Click the links for the full posts. Followed by a brief comment from me:

Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett

“This analysis is typical intell stuff: obvious, useless, and playing into a do-nothing mind-set that here says, “Do nothing to piss off the terrorists!”

…The issue isn’t our military involvement, which has been constant for decades now, but the everything else that we suck at: our diplomatic, economic and social engagement with the region. Criticizing our military in the region is perfectly fine, but most of that criticism (from me included) revolves around how poorly we do the everything else–not the mil stuff per se.”

Colonel W. Patrick Lang

“Since the reforms of recent years, the CIA no longer runs this “show.” It is among the many functions that CIA has lost to other parts of the government. The NIC now works for John Negroponte as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). It appears that Negroponte is trying to let the NIC function as it should, in splendid isolation from the policy confirmation needs of whatever administration might currently be in power. It must be difficult. The neocons believe that they “know better” than the intelligence people, and that estimates should be written on the basis of the needs of an administration for propaganda support of policy. Negroponte evidently resisted that demand in this NIE. He has tried to publicly distance himself somewhat from the judgments of this NIE, but he let it be published. Congratulations Mr. Negroponte. Congratulations.”

GroupIntel Blog

“First, I helped put together one or two NIEs and other NIC documents in my day but even without my insights it should strike everyone as fairly obvious that this assessment likely says a whole lot more than just this heavily flogged and hyped data point. If I had to guess I’d say you’re talking at least 15 pages of material that runs across a wide spectrum of terrorism-related issues, so either that’s 15 pages of variations on the “Iraq is the source of all our woes” theme or there is a certain element at work that would like you to believe that is true by leaving out what the other 14 pages says. I’ll let you guess which is more likely.”

Dave Schuler

“I do wish that people would stop chiding us, the Administration, the President for not seizing on alternatives that we didn’t have. “

Counterterrorism Blog

” The claim in the NY report would echo judgments of some of our Contributing Experts, notably Evan Kohlmann as early in May 2005, that the Iraq war has been an “engine of international terrorism.” But it’s also true the NIEs have certainly included some major blunders. The 1997 NIE, the last one before the 9/11 attacks on global terrorism, mentioned bin Laden in only three sentences as a “terrorist financier” and didn’t reference al-Qaeda at all. And of course, it was the October 2002 NIE which was a significant factor in the decision to use force against Iraq by famously asserting, “Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.”

MountainRunner

“I was sitting in on a small conference with the intelligence community last year and a prominent member of the IC railed against the phrase ‘connecting the dots’. He was frustrated with that analogy because the child’s game the name comes from and intentionally implies has labelled dots to serialize actions. The IC, he argued, does not know what the end product will look like and isn’t given instructions on which dots to connect. Instead, it must infer and figure it out. In the case of the insurgency in Iraq and global extremism, how could one not see the next step from each prior? Action–> Reaction”

I would like to repeat and perhaps, extend, a remark I made on this topic over at The Small Wars Council yesterday.

The great, seldom reported story, here is the unrelenting bureaucratic guerilla warfare being waged by senior career management in the IC, especially at the CIA, against the policies of the Bush administration. It’s like nothing I have seen in my lifetime, including the Nixon administration.

This is not to say that the Bush administration appointees have always been right and their internal critics wrong or that the unwillingness of political appointees to entertain dissenting views didn’t help fuel the scenario in the first place. That is a foolish and blind position to take. But from where I sit as an outsider to the process it would appear that the adversarial dynamic has long since taken on a life of its own – a dangerous one for the USG.

Nor are we getting an accurate view with this story [ Austin Bay points to this rebuttal by the White House; also by Negroponte ]. The contents onf the NIE were selectively leaked and, as with any NIE, some of the most interesting data points never made it into the document; either because the confidence level was not sufficiently high to merit inclusion or they were too controversial for the “consensus” approach. What was left on the cutting room floor ? And why ?

Furthermore, who composes this determined cadre of highly positioned, apparently untouchable, IC leakers and what are their motives ? To whom are they connected in the political world, if at all ?

UPDATE:

Bush to order declassification of the NIE.

While it will be potentially amusing and enlightening to see the degree to which the IC insiders and the NYT were conducting an IO against the administration by the selective leaking and spinning of a classified document*, this is probably not the most responsible course of action that the President could take. Publication of so recent a vintage NIE gives too much meta-analytical insight into the current thinking of the IC. Not that I won’t read it myself but if I can draw the appropriate conclusions so can others. Sometimes, being in power means sucking up a few the low blows on the merits and then retaliating politically elsewhere, in a more legitimate context, at a later date.

* be interesting to know if any emails whizzed between the NYT reporters and editors working on the NIE story prior to publication and various apparatchiks in the DNC, Capitol Hill and K Street.

Sunday, September 24th, 2006

ON CHILDHOOD

In the midst of a time of family celebration, Mrs. Zenpundit and I were hosting a sleepover involving the Firstborn of Zenpundit and a couple of other girls in the same early elementary range. From my fatherly perspective, it would seem that a girl’s sleepover primarily involves two things:

a) The consumption of large quantities of processed simple sugars.

b) Squealing.

Lots and lots of squealing.

Sunday, September 24th, 2006

SIMPLE BUT PROFOUND QUESTION

Yields a highly stimulating debate.

Friday, September 22nd, 2006

THEMELESS AND ECLECTIC RECOMMENDED READING

Can’t focus today…but other people did. LOL !

Purpleslog on King Arthur

The ” Strategic Compression” Thread at The Small Wars Journal

Colonel Lang on the aesthetics of Neoclassic beauties

MCQ on the Hugo Chavez Effect.

Nick Carr pummels Clay Shirky about the face and head.

Lord Curzon on the humor of Terra Cotta

That’s it !

Thursday, September 21st, 2006

THE BIOPHYSICAL HOOK OF SOFT POWER-BASED SOCIAL NETWORKING

Critt Jarvis today had a profound post on the latest iteration of his start-up company, Conversationbase, LLC. that has, I strongly suspect, a general psychological validity:

“D’oh! It’s the network, stupid!

September 20th, 2006 by Critt Jarvis
Hmmm… Conversation Base… what am I trying to do here… content or social…

Wikipedia: Compare and contrast content network with social network.

Okay, the first clue is that the term “content network” doesn’t merit its own page on Wikipedia. But I read the entry for Content Delivery Network.

Content Delivery Network: a system of computers networked together across the Internet that cooperate transparently to deliver content (especially large media content) to end users.

Social network: A social network is a social structure made of nodes which are generally individuals or organizations.

What’s this mean to me ? A content delivery network wants the bits delivered, end to end; while a social network wants information delivered, end to end. Thus Conversation Base is in the business of enabling social networks, which organize around content.

Now I have to think about replacing “Content” with “Social” in my outline titles.”

This is a very powerful combination in terms of brain physiology to link conceptual intellectual stimulation with adaptive social behaviors ( throw in audiovisual stimulus and you have a cognitive trifecta. Turbocharged “infocrack”…Myspace for MENSA…you get the idea). As a business model, you have a network that could possibly encourage emergent communities within or across disciplines.

Given the power of synthesis to be a dialectical engine of creativity as per John Boyd, my vote is to opt for the latter.


Switch to our mobile site