PDA

View Full Version : The Human Factor by Ishmael Jones



Juan Rico
08-02-2008, 05:50 PM
http://www.ishmaeljones.com/solutions-for-intelligence-ref/


Solutions for reform of the clandestine service

Solutions for reform of the clandestine service within the current system:

1 Define the mission. Create a clear, one-line mission statement. Current CIA mission statements are multi-page documents, written by committees, which nobody ever reads. A clear statement, such as, “Provide foreign intelligence that will defend the United States,” would help employees measure and direct their efforts.......


.....Recent reforms demonstrate what happens when change is attempted at the CIA. Congressionally-mandated reforms, following the intelligence failures of 9/11, did the three worst things possible, by:

1 Adding extra layers of management. They created a new office of the Director of National Intelligence. No successful organizations have as many layers of management as the CIA.....

....The CIA is a failed organization that has proven resistant to reform. Therefore, the CIA should be broken up into its constituent parts, and those parts assigned to organizations that already have clear missions and defined chains of command, as follows:

1 Transfer CIA offices and personnel operating within the United States to the FBI . The CIA was never intended to be a domestic spy agency. The FBI is designed to handle domestic intelligence operations. The FBI is measured and held accountable by its ability to catch criminals, and this accountability provides the motivation for the FBI to perform.....
The blog post also includes comments on mission drift and motivation.

jmm99
08-02-2008, 08:11 PM
for the signature translation.

Seems there might be an interesting legal case brewing:


CQ HOMELAND SECURITY
Aug. 2, 2008 – 11:28 a.m.
CIA Veteran Rips Agency, Tests Limits of Right to Publish Without Permission
By Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Editor

A 25-year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine service has written a scathing — and unauthorized — account of the spy agency’s management, setting up an unprecedented legal test of former employees’ rights to pen tell-all books.

Writing under the pseudonym “Ishmael Jones,” the author says he wrote “The Human Factor: Inside the CIA’s Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture” in order to “improve the system and help it defend ourselves and our allies.”

“I’m ready to take whatever they have to do,” Jones said of his former employer in a telephone interview July 29.

http://public.cq.com/docs/hs/hsnews110-000002933505.html

Seems folks want to challenge the Snepp decision - SCOTUS for agency.


(from CQ, above)
But former CIA operative Frank Snepp says Jones is “inviting big trouble” — and he should know.

Snepp bypassed agency censors in 1978 and published a searing, unauthorized memoir of his tour in Vietnam, “Decent Interval: An Insider’s Account of Saigon’s Indecent End, Told by the CIA’s Chief Strategy Analyst in Vietnam.”

The CIA sued, eventually winning a landmark Supreme Court victory that allowed the agency to confiscate Snepp’s earnings, on the basis that he had violated his employment contract by not submitting his book to CIA censors for clearance.

Jones did something far more dangerous, Snepp thinks, by submitting his manuscript for clearance then “thumbing his nose” at CIA censors because he didn’t like their censorship decisions. “God knows what the hell could happen to him,” Snepp said.

Guess the General Counsel's office will have to chew on this tidbit, etc.

Tom Odom
08-02-2008, 09:10 PM
From I quick read I agree with most of it.

especially


8 Create a one-line cultural statement: Do not lie, cheat, or steal unless required to do so in an intelligence operation. Spies need to lie, but only when necessary for operational success. The organization’s efficiency and reliability will improve when employees can trust one another to speak the truth.

Tom

John T. Fishel
08-02-2008, 11:15 PM
not all. But I think he misses the bigger picture. CIA, since it was created, has been built around 3 major directorates - Intelligence (DI), Operations (DO), and Scientific & Technical (S&T). While the names may have changed since I left any Intel or Intel related assignments, the functions are still there and have been there since Wild Bill Donovan created the OSS. Unlike his British mentors who had 2 separate and distinct operational components - SIS (MI6) and SOE - Donovan had both clandestine collection and paramilitary ops under the DO function. When CIA came along, it adopted the same organization.

In my understanding of intelligence, the questions that policy makers need answered should drive the intel agency to frame requirements. this framing of requirements is inherently an analytical function and, therefore, belongs in DI. The analysts should be tasking the collectors with specific requirements while the collectors should be sharing even the seredipitous collections with the analysts which, in turn, should generate both new requirements and new questions from the policy makers. As far as the covert ops and paramilitary ops go, these are NOT inherently intel functions. Those who conduct them are intel consumers just as divisions, brigades, and battalions are.

But, you might ask, what about the cav squadron in a division? Is it not an asset of the G2? Although the 2 has tasking authority, the squadron commander is primarily responsible to the G3. Historically, rewards in cIA have gone to the covert operators who were involved in both clandestine collection and covert ops. The latter held the bigger rewards so th former got short shrift. (Jones may be making a reference to this phenomenon.) From my perspective, it appears that the CIA was run as if the Cav squadron were driving the train - deciding on its own authortiy whether to meet the G2 requirements or not because combat was more fun.

I was told by a DI guy seconded to DO that he was not allowed to share a critical report with his fellow DI analysts. I was told by a DO guy that my perception of many of the case officers in Latin America as "cowboys" was shared by case officers from other areas of operations (this was in the late 80s and early 90s).

So, does creating DNI just add an unnecessary layer of management? I don't think so because the DCI was too closely identified with the CIA to effectively manage the entire intel community. I was encouraged that the first DNI, John Negroponte, came from the intel consumer community and not from the producers (or even the analysts). As an aside, the only CIA director ever to come out of DI was SECDEF Bob Gates. All the rest have been case officers or intel managers (often from NSA like Gen Hayden and DNI Adm McConnell).

Bottom line: The solution is not in reforming one agency but rather reforming the entire community as well as the agencies that make it up. If I were King (it's good to be the King ;)) I would always have a consumer as DNI and an analyst as Dir CIA. I would split off covert ops and paramilitary from CIA - where to put them is an open question but they should be neither primary collectors nor their own analysts.

Cheers

JohnT

slapout9
08-02-2008, 11:24 PM
From I quick read I agree with most of it.

especially



Tom

Ditto Tom plus this
I like the one about a one line mission statement: Collect information that will defend the US from attack:wry:

jmm99
08-03-2008, 01:19 AM
from FrontPage. Selected the part relevant to the legal issues, but there is more on the nuts & bolts:


Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, August 01, 2008
.....
FP: What is unique about your book?

Jones: Many CIA books are written by retired Headquarters managers who are accustomed to pontificating in front of their underlings, trapped within a windowless room at Headquarters, and their books can be a bit windy. I hope mine is not.

My book has also been disapproved in its entirety by CIA censors. I actively sought the approval of the censors, and repeatedly asked them during the course of a year what parts of the book they would like removed or rewritten. But they simply replied: all of it. In the end, CIA censors returned the manuscript to me as a stack of blank pages. There is no classified information in my book. It is simply highly critical of the organization.

My book is also the first CIA book for which all author profits will be given away. The recent George Tenet and Valerie Plame books, for example, were written for the profit of the authors.

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8D285E6E-3433-4E20-B6CF-599CFD1F1E7B

bourbon
08-03-2008, 05:47 AM
The publisher, Encounter Books, is the publishing arm of a center-right not profit foundation. Founded by Peter Collier and associated with his pal David Horowitz, who is another red-diaper baby turned jacobin, Encounter churns out highbrow neoconservative literature by the likes of Bill Kristol, John Fund, and Victor Davis Hanson among others.

The cover jacket praise also is a redflag with blurbs from uber-neocon wonk and McCain adviser Max Boot, and Lindsay Moran a DO veteran of all of one tour in Macedonia, and author of possibly one of the worst spy memoir ever published. Lindsay Moran was the best person formerly of the agency that they could get to vouch for it? Really? What about even the critics like Gerecht, McGovern or Robert Steele?

I don't know what a "deep cover officer" is. And I am certain hat whatever they are, CIA does not have them. They do however have officers under Non Official Cover. Jones and Encounter bemoan recent intelligence memoirs that “were written for the profit of the authors”, specifically former NOC officer Valerie Plame and tarnished DCI Tenet's books. Such bullying is typical neoconservative behavior, picking on the weak so they can pump their chests, only to avoid taking such a posture towards Gary Bernsten or Bob Baer who undoubtedly profited from their books and are harder and cooler than they.

Jones' reform to “transfer overseas human intelligence collection efforts to the US military” is misguided and would be fulfillment of the Rumsfeld era's naked assault on CIA. The neoconservatives have had it out for CIA going back at least to Richard Pipe's Team B, just like Iraq, wanting it to be destroyed and “be broken into its constituent parts”. This maybe just another neocon hatchet job on the agency.

The Jones interview in David Horowitz's Frontpage cements my skepticism with this little diddy:

FP: Your thoughts on Israel and the dangers it faces? What must Israel do? What must the U.S. do to help Israel ?

Jones: The best thing a supporter of Israel can do is contact his Senator and Representative and encourage them to improve American intelligence capabilities.

Israel faces the risk of apocalyptic attack from nuclear weapons. It takes 1930’s technology to build these weapons, and they are increasingly available. Terrorist groups who obtain these weapons will use them.

Israel’s intelligence services don’t have the worldwide scope and the money of American intelligence services. The CIA’s clandestine service should be employed to protect free people and allies everywhere, and this includes Israel. A functioning American intelligence service can target nuclear proliferators and prevent nuclear attacks. The dysfunctional CIA we currently have cannot do this.

Supporters of Israel are reputed to be politically adept. Members of the Senate and House intelligence committees are remarkably accessible, and if they’re not, they each have a person on their staffs who handles intelligence issues. Just recently I called the offices of the intelligence committee members to get the names of their intelligence staffers, so that I could send them copies of my book. A supporter of Israel who calls or writes one of these people and encourages them to clean up the CIA’s clandestine service may actually be taking action which will prevent the obliteration of Israel.

I want to see the dismantling of the CIA and its replacement by a functioning intelligence system. But even small, incremental improvements in the CIA will increase Israel’s security. Accountability for money, an end to nepotism, an end to favoritism and fraud in the assignment of contracts, stopping the CIA’s massive expansion within the United States and moving its activities to foreign countries - things that the CIA has already been commanded to do, and is not - would be important improvements.

Michael Ross, a former Mossad spy, and author of The Volunteer, has said that the Mossad recognizes the evil of bureaucracy and fights it effectively. Also, he’s mentioned the restrictions the Mossad has on operating in its own country.
Have they no shame?

Tom Odom
08-03-2008, 01:12 PM
The publisher, Encounter Books, is the publishing arm of a center-right not profit foundation. Founded by Peter Collier and associated with his pal David Horowitz, who is another red-diaper baby turned jacobin, Encounter churns out highbrow neoconservative literature by the likes of Bill Kristol, John Fund, and Victor Davis Hanson among others.

The cover jacket praise also is a redflag with blurbs from uber-neocon wonk and McCain adviser Max Boot, and Lindsay Moran a DO veteran of all of one tour in Macedonia, and author of possibly one of the worst spy memoir ever published. Lindsay Moran was the best person formerly of the agency that they could get to vouch for it? Really? What about even the critics like Gerecht, McGovern or Robert Steele?

I don't know what a "deep cover officer" is. And I am certain hat whatever they are, CIA does not have them. They do however have officers under Non Official Cover. Jones and Encounter bemoan recent intelligence memoirs that “were written for the profit of the authors”, specifically former NOC officer Valerie Plame and tarnished DCI Tenet's books. Such bullying is typical neoconservative behavior, picking on the weak so they can pump their chests, only to avoid taking such a posture towards Gary Bernsten or Bob Baer who undoubtedly profited from their books and are harder and cooler than they.

Jones' reform to “transfer overseas human intelligence collection efforts to the US military” is misguided and would be fulfillment of the Rumsfeld era's naked assault on CIA. The neoconservatives have had it out for CIA going back at least to Richard Pipe's Team B, just like Iraq, wanting it to be destroyed and “be broken into its constituent parts”. This maybe just another neocon hatchet job on the agency.

The Jones interview in David Horowitz's Frontpage cements my skepticism with this little diddy:

Have they no shame?

Interesting post. Hat tip for connecting some dots I am favor of a rework of the agency, pehaps the entire community as John T siggests. The above smacks of pure sell out.

Best

Tom

Ken White
08-03-2008, 05:14 PM
From both sides of the political spectrum, too...


The publisher, Encounter Books, is the publishing arm of a center-right not profit foundation. Founded by Peter Collier and associated with his pal David Horowitz...While affiliation with Horowitz is always suspect, the content rather than the association should be the determinant. This is an issue that should never be approached in a partisan manner. Unfortunately, too many cannot rise to the level required to do that.

I'd also point out that partisanship cuts both ways; legitimate criticism can be negated by claiming partisanship and illegitimate criticism can be elevated by the same thing. What's required is to simply filter the information provided and apply logic instead of bias to the issue.
The cover jacket praise also is a redflag with blurbs from uber-neocon wonk and McCain adviser Max Boot, and Lindsay Moran a DO veteran of all of one tour in Macedonia, and author of possibly one of the worst spy memoir ever published. Lindsay Moran was the best person formerly of the agency that they could get to vouch for it? Really? What about even the critics like Gerecht, McGovern or Robert Steele?Critics from within have to walk a tight rope; Langley is mildly accepting of some things, reacts with some fury at others. Consider that Jones is essentially saying the same things Gerecht has said, just doing it more fully and with more force. The majority of former Officers will support the Agency even when they know its ills.
I don't know what a "deep cover officer" is. And I am certain hat whatever they are, CIA does not have them.Are you really? Interesting. It may or may not but what it does have is a jargon -- and that jargon is (1) Directorate dependent; (2) Time of most service dependent, the old and new differ; (3) Geographical area of service dependent.
They do however have officers under Non Official Cover.An official term given recent popularity but little used by many...
...only to avoid taking such a posture towards Gary Bernsten or Bob Baer who undoubtedly profited from their books and are harder and cooler than they.Do you know that for certain or are those your presumptions?
Jones' reform to “transfer overseas human intelligence collection efforts to the US military” is misguided and would be fulfillment of the Rumsfeld era's naked assault on CIA.Not really. Not really misguided that is. The history goes back a whole lot further than Pipes, Neocons and even Rumsfeld. The fact is that that US Army MI and US Navy ONI worked pretty well on the humint effort worldwide prior to, during and immediately after WW II (while the OSS contribution was spotty, some areas poor, some were fair, none were stellar, regardless of Dulles myths). The issue of who should do that humint surfaced with the creation of the CIA in 1947, literally before Pipes was born. It has waxed and waned as a topic ever since; generally when an Agency failure makes the news, DoD makes a play. That predates neocons and Rumsfeld by many years. Korea in 1950 comes to mind. So does the ascent of Castro in Cuba -- and the debacle with the Shah in 1979...

The real problems with national level Humint did not arise until Nixon had Schlesinger start the dismantling of the DO in 1973, the Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee did their thing and James Earl Carter and Stansfield Turner completed the massacre. The Agency has never fully recovered. Efforts to ramp up DIA to cover the shortfall were probably necessary.

In short, Jones has some good points. He has some bad points. Accept the good and discard the bad -- and as the disagreement between you and I over the humint mission show, what's good and what's bad can be in the eye of the viewer.

The problem is that the IC is in disarray right now and this is not a good time for that to be the case. Congress means well but reform efforts will become a partisan political football and little will be done. While I strongly disagreed with the establishment of the DNI, his existence is a fact so we can only hope that the incumbent and his successors fix the problem.

As Tom and John said, a fix is needed -- that's one thing we can probably all agree upon.

jmm99
08-03-2008, 06:58 PM
Mr. White.

I be a-wishin I been a-writin that - rather than thinking it.


from White
The real problems with national level Humint did not arise until Nixon had Schlesinger start the dismantling of the DO in 1973, the Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee did their thing and James Earl Carter and Stansfield Turner completed the massacre. The Agency has never fully recovered. Efforts to ramp up DIA to cover the shortfall were probably necessary.

And,


Bull is always with us... From both sides of the political spectrum, too...
......
While affiliation with Horowitz is always suspect, the content rather than the association should be the determinant. This is an issue that should never be approached in a partisan manner. Unfortunately, too many cannot rise to the level required to do that.
.....
I'd also point out that partisanship cuts both ways; legitimate criticism can be negated by claiming partisanship and illegitimate criticism can be elevated by the same thing. What's required is to simply filter the information provided and apply logic instead of bias to the issue.

------------------------------------
Now, trying to apply Mr. White's mode of analysis in my fumbling McCarthy manner.

Since Lindsay Moran has been mentioned, here is her review of Jones' book


Ishmael Jones is the real deal, a CIA case officer who worked under deep cover – without the traditional safety net of diplomatic immunity – targeting this country’s most hostile threats and winning over critical informants. He represents an altogether uncommon breed of CIA officer, one willing to risk life and career in the pursuit of gathering better intelligence. Undeterred by the Agency’s baffling bureaucratic barriers, Jones bucked the system when he had to, and served in a series of successful overseas assignments. If the CIA as a whole shared this one officer’s relentless pursuit of WMD sources, terrorists and the rogue nations that support them, we might find ourselves in a much safer world today. With his book The Human Factor – as entertaining as it is informative – Jones relates the details of his extraordinary career. Better yet, he tells his story with a notable lack of bravado and a tremendous amount of dry wit. I laughed out loud at descriptions of CIA characters and culture that were all too familiar. Jones represents the kind of CIA officer that I – and many other neophyte spies – had always hoped to encounter as a supervisor. But he wisely sidestepped managerial positions within the Agency in order to remain exactly where he should have been: active in the field.

Lindsay Moran
Author of Blowing My Cover: My Life as a CIA Spy

http://www.ishmaeljones.com/reviews/

Here is a review of Ms. Moran by a longer-serving agency gal:


She Gives Spies a Bad Name
By MARTHA SUTHERLAND, Special to the Sun December 16, 2004
....
For nearly 20 years, I was a case officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations. I ran foreign agents in China. I had many alias passports and held clandestine meetings in strange hotel rooms all over the world. I was there when Tiananmen Square erupted in 1989; I still possess spent bullets that vengeful Chinese soldiers shot through my apartment walls that day. I was also in Cairo and in a lot of other places I don't talk about, even though I've been officially ex-Agency for five years.

Lindsay Moran, valedictorian of her Harvard class, joined the CIA in 1998,and after three years of training at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., she spent only two years of service in Macedonia before leaving to get married. Thus her new book, "Blowing my Cover: My Life as a CIA Spy," (G. P. Putnam's Sons, 304 pages, $22.95) is a wonderfully bold and naive misnomer. It's akin to a first-year medical intern writing a book called, "My Life as a Surgeon."

http://www.nysun.com/arts/she-gives-spies-a-bad-name/6360/

Which does not necessarily mean that everything Ms. Moran says is bull. The part of Ms. Sutherland's article that bears more attention is the apparent liberality of the Publications Review Board to allow disclosure of training methods.

Another of the three reviewers in Jones' webpage (cited above) is Michael Ross (the other is Max Boot), who says:


Ishmael Jones takes on many sacred cows in this blistering, yet often humorous divulgence of how the CIA has summarily opted-out of the spy game replacing the real work of human source intelligence collection with a humorless and anemic bureaucracy scared of its own shadow. This page-turner chronicles the journey of a gifted and patriotic CIA officer of the elite Clandestine Service and his Herculean attempts to get the job done while fending off the risk-averse mandarins back at Langley determined to thwart his every effort. Sometimes he succeeds and to the CIA’s great shame, sometimes he doesn’t.

-Michael Ross

Author of The Volunteer: My Secret Life in the Mossad

A review of Mr. Ross' book by Hayden Peake is in the Spring 2008 Intelligencer, which is not online; see

http://www.afio.com/22_intelligencer.htm

The bottom line of Peake's review (p.127) is


from Peake
Both editions [US and Canadian] lack documentation. We are left with a well written story book that asks the reader to "trust me", but provides little reason to do so.

Which does not necessarily mean that everything Mr. Ross says is bull.

The next piece of "evidence".


LINKS

Encounterbooks.com
Encounter is the publisher of THE HUMAN FACTOR

BLOWING MY COVER
Lindsay Moran, auther of BLOWING MY COVER, is the most talented writer to have written about the CIA.

WAR MADE NEW
by Max Boot, Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations

THE VOLUNTEER
by Michael Ross. This is the best book written about the Israeli Mossad.

Amazon
Buy the book at Amazon.com

http://www.ishmaeljones.com/links/

From which, I infer that a publisher and four folks got together to sell their books.

Conspiracy ? - anything is possible and can be conceived - see quote below signature.

So, back to Mr. White: "What's required is to simply filter the information provided and apply logic instead of bias to the issue."

PS1 (Ken) Do you happen to live near US 41 ?

PS2 Now some other folks can launch into a discussion of "deep cover, mesne cover, and thin cover officers" - to say nothing of "agents" and "spies".

Ken White
08-03-2008, 09:00 PM
...
PS1 (Ken) Do you happen to live near US 41 ?on the Redneck Riviera...

About five hours out of the way... :wry:

jmm99
08-03-2008, 11:23 PM
right on it.

On the Redneck Snowbelt....

Thought great minds might run along the same highway. Now, I'll have to come up with a more "complicated and implausible" explanation.

PS: The url for Ms. Sutherland's article is now giving me problems - Sun website down ? Worked fine this afternoon. Maybe my wife's computer - since she hates "I spy stuff", maybe it too. Have to go before she throws me out of her wigwam.

Ken White
08-04-2008, 01:02 AM
On the Redneck Snowbelt....Snowbelt or ice cube belt? Benton Harbor is as far north as I've been in a Michigan winter and that was quite enough, thank you... :wry:
Thought great minds might run along the same highway. Now, I'll have to come up with a more "complicated and implausible" explanation.They do, check the map. You and I are on a direct N-S Axis as modified by a 3.175 deviation of magnetic north from this end to which the curvature of the earth and the transient effects of this years flood water have added a slight westward cant. ;)

My Mother told my wife before we married that what I said would be "generally believable..." My own mother!... No idea what she meant by that. :D

jmm99
08-04-2008, 03:08 AM
from White
Snowbelt or ice cube belt?

Snowbelt; Lake Superior adds a Med effect, even when it freezes over (which it does). Snow fall (as opposed to snow cover) in inches runs to mid-200's usually. High is just shy of 400" (78-79, when my dad cashed in his chips). See here for totals (Keweenaw runs a little higher than here - maybe a coiuple of feet).

http://www.johndee.com/history.htm

Ideal winter temp is about 20-25F. Anything at 32F or higher is a problem because snow melts, creates a mess and then freezes - leading to an ice cube belt in driveway. Plus, it makes igloo living wet; and bear can more easily breach the walls. See Pierre of the North comic strip.

I expect this site will tell you more about this region than you want to know.


The City's proximity to majestic Lake Superior gives it beautiful mild summers and wonderful snowy winters.

http://www.cityofhancock.com/


from White
You and I are on a direct N-S Axis as modified by a 3.175 deviation of magnetic north from this end to which the curvature of the earth and the transient effects of this years flood water have added a slight westward cant.

...as further modified by a almost 0.00 deviation of magnetic north from this end (making bearings and departures easy); plus the effect of snow load - and the glacier that is coming over the hill (no, no, Mike, that was the 70's Global Cooling Model).


from White
My Mother told my wife before we married ...

My mother in law told me (before my wife and I married) that I shouldn't believe everything my wife would tell me. My wife claims that my father misrepresented to her everything about me - thus, she (my wife) should be able to sue me (why me; sue the old man) for fraud. So, married life goes on.

:D:D:D:D

Ken White
08-04-2008, 05:12 AM
the snow load... :D

jmm99
08-04-2008, 06:25 PM
and back to the topic.

For those interested in the possible legal issues here - and, keep in mind, that no one has brought any kind of legal action for or against Mr. Jones - some background on the Frank Snepp case.

Very brief Wiki bio of Mr. Snepp is here (updated 14 Jul 2008):


Frank Warren Snepp (born 3 May 1943, Kinston, North Carolina) is a journalist and former chief analyst of North Vietnamese strategy for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Saigon during the Vietnam War. Five out of eight years in the CIA, he worked as interrogator, agent debriefer, and chief CIA strategy analyst in the Saigon embassy. He is currently a producer for KNBC-TV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Snepp

Webpage and links by Mr. Snepp (updated ?; last copyright 2006):


Inside the Site
Biography
Services
Irreparable Harm
Decent Interval
Supreme Court
CIA on Snepp
Contact Frank

http://www.franksnepp.com/

Of the links, "Supreme Court" and "CIA on Snepp" are worth reading - simply to understand Mr. Snepp's perspective.

The SCOTUS decision was mercifully brief (in comparison to most) - and unanimous. The holding was


Held:

A former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, who had agreed not to divulge classified information without authorization and not to publish any information relating to the Agency without prepublication clearance, breached a fiduciary obligation when he published a book about certain Agency activities without submitting his manuscript for prepublication review. The proceeds of his breach are impressed with a constructive trust for the benefit of the Government.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=444&invol=507

Note 1 (re: Jones): Mr. Jones has stated that "My book is also the first CIA book for which all author profits will be given away." (see FrontPage cited above) While that would not technically affect the Government's case if one were brought (under Snepp case logic of a constructive trust, the Government could still go after the funds in the hands of the charitable recipients), it would certainly affect the PR aspect - and perhaps, affect the decision to pursue civil litigation or not.

Note 2 (re: Jones): Mr. Jones has also stated that "There is no classified information in my book." (FrontPage). That remains the sole evidence on that unless and until contrary evidence is presented and accepted under relevant proof standards.

The agency's Publications Review Board's decisions can be appealed internally within the agency and externally in the Federal court system. See, for legal references, current through dates stated:


SOURCE: Studies in Intelligence (Spring 1998)
Reviewing the Work of CIA Authors
Secrets, Free Speech, and Fig Leaves
John Hollister Hedley
CIA's Publications Review Board (PRB) and its small staff perform a balancing act more than 300 times a year, navigating a process sanctioned by the US Supreme Court to clear the writings of Agency authors for nonofficial publication. The challenge: to balance CIA's secrecy agreement with the Bill of Rights. Business is brisk, as a growing number of former CIA employees seek to become published authors--especially former operations officers reflecting on their clandestine careers abroad.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/hedley.html

The second cite is to an internal memo, agency approved for external release 2003/11/06, which has one particularly relevant recommendation (p.19):


We recommend that:

V.A. The General Counsel examine the merits of DO argumentation for disallowing certain manuscripts in toto whose text largely concerns DO methodology and operations.

http://fas.org/sgp//eprint/prb1981.pdf

Note 3 (re: Jones): Mr. Jones has also stated (FrontPage) that


"My book has also been disapproved in its entirety by CIA censors. I actively sought the approval of the censors, and repeatedly asked them during the course of a year what parts of the book they would like removed or rewritten. But they simply replied: all of it. In the end, CIA censors returned the manuscript to me as a stack of blank pages."

The obvious legal issue here is whether Mr. Jones waived a number of legal rights by not going through with internal and external review of the "blank pages" return - or, whether the courts can address the "in toto" rejection despite lack of that review - an issue not to be answered here by me.

Googling - "publications review board" cia - will get you about 500 hits on PRB reviews.

jmm99
08-05-2008, 01:38 AM
My statement in above post was "The SCOTUS decision was mercifully brief (in comparison to most) - and unanimous."

Wrong on "unanimous". Though the decision was Per Curium (by the Court), there was a dissent by JJ. Stevens, Brennan and Marshall as to several substantive and procedural points.

The holding quoted is correct; and is the ruling presently in effect, unless and until overruled.

Elevation
09-11-2008, 12:34 AM
http://public.cq.com/docs/hs/hsnews110-000002933505.html

God help that guy with whats coming for him.

jmm99
09-11-2008, 01:14 AM
in Military Art & Science Applied > Intelligence forum at

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5832

with quite a bit of relevant discussion (except for my off-topic back and forth with Ken White, which I should have done by PM).

A moderator will probably move your post (& this one) there.

No big sin & keep posting.

The Intelligence forum should have some topics of interest to you, in light of


from Elevation
My name is John, I'm a 19 year old college student at UMBC in Baltimore.
....
After school I hope to be able to join up with either the DIA, CIA, or one of the individual intel branches that support the military services. Probably in an analytical position, but we'll see.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=56211#post56211

If you are looking at analysis or other "home office stuff", plan on a PhD or law degree; keep up the language and area studies; and keep clean.

Same first name here, but I go by Mike (2nd name).

jmm99
09-11-2008, 01:34 AM
into the right pew, we can address this:


from Elevation
God help that guy with whats coming for him.

After reading all prior posts, please tell me:

1. What's coming for him ?

2. But, far more important, your reasoned analysis of why.

First class assignment Intel Law 101 :D

Elevation
09-11-2008, 01:35 AM
in Military Art & Science Applied > Intelligence forum at

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5832

with quite a bit of relevant discussion (except for my off-topic back and forth with Ken White, which I should have done by PM).

A moderator will probably move your post (& this one) there.

No big sin & keep posting.

The Intelligence forum should have some topics of interest to you, in light of



http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=56211#post56211

If you are looking at analysis or other "home office stuff", plan on a PhD or law degree; keep up the language and area studies; and keep clean.

Same first name here, but I go by Mike (2nd name).

Thanks Mike. All of the different sources of information on this website is amazing.

jmm99
09-11-2008, 01:53 AM
see class assignment (post # 20, page 1) - in case you missed it. A little bit of cross-posting, etc.

Elevation
09-11-2008, 02:01 AM
into the right pew, we can address this:



After reading all prior posts, please tell me:

1. What's coming for him ?

2. But, far more important, your reasoned analysis of why.

First class assignment Intel Law 101 :D

Thats a tough question

My professor in my history of Intel class had to have his lecture notes vetted before he could teach the course and I know all current members have to do the same thing whenever they want to write a book or speak in public about the Agency, due to agreements they sign. I imagine that applies to former Agency members as well, but I'm not completely sure. However, I would imagine they definitely have to go through vetting if they want to talk or publish any information regarding classified information or procedures.

I know that the case against Frank Snepp is a landmark case in terms of establishing legal precedent for the government to go after those who publish secrets without agency permission. However, it will probably be worse for Ishmael because he was even told beforehand by the Agency that he couldn't publish about 98% of the things inside the book

At the very least all profits Ishmael makes from the book will be seized and he'll potentially be facing jail time as well.

Am I on the right track at least?

Elevation
09-11-2008, 02:22 AM
What I'm also not sure about Mike, are the penalties the same for writing about classified things in a book as they are for stealing a classified document and distributing it?

jmm99
09-11-2008, 02:41 AM
Perhaps ;)

Hint: Break down subject into two categories:

1. PRB (some refs in links on page 1) and agency's civil remedies per Snepp case. Google - lots of open source stuff.

2. Fed Criminal Statutes re: classified data - case of alleged Israeli spies in DC is recent. You will find that area something of a quagmire - where outright espionage is not involved. Same Google idea.


I imagine that applies to former Agency members as well, but I'm not completely sure.

Answer is in links - along with known exceptions. Sources and methods can be deadly to some of our own people or their agents, even if the data is 30-40 years old. X > Y > Z.


At the very least all profits Ishmael makes from the book will be seized and he'll potentially be facing jail time as well.

Not necessarily; agency GC may elect not to go civil - DoJ may decide not to prosecute. What's the criteria ?


What I'm also not sure about Mike, are the penalties the same for writing about classified things in a book as they are for stealing a classified document and distributing it?

You tell me.

Elevation
09-11-2008, 02:48 AM
Perhaps ;)

Hint: Break down subject into two categories:

1. PRB (some refs in links on page 1) and agency's civil remedies per Snepp case. Google - lots of open source stuff.

2. Fed Criminal Statutes re: classified data - case of alleged Israeli spies in DC is recent. You will find that area something of a quagmire - where outright espionage is not involved. Same Google idea.



Answer is in links - along with known exceptions. Sources and methods can be deadly to some of our own people or their agents, even if the data is 30-40 years old. X > Y > Z.



Not necessarily; agency GC may elect not to go civil - DoJ may decide not to prosecute. What's the criteria ?



You tell me.

JMM,

I'll do a little research and get back to you in a day or two, I got a few other things on my plate at this second. In the meantime I'll be sure not to expose any state secrets.

Elevation
09-11-2008, 04:09 AM
JMM,

Here are some things I've learned about the vetting process and penalties from the following sources that have answered some questions I had and have led me a little closer to giving you a complete response. The link you provided on the first page is outstanding by the way.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/hedley.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-29-spy-books_N.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/images/TheLaw/Kadish_Complaint.pdf#http://abcnews.go.com/images/TheLaw/Kadish_Complaint.pdf#http://abcnews.go.com/images/TheLaw/Kadish_Complaint.pdf#http://abcnews.go.com/images/TheLaw/Kadish_Complaint.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7361446.stm

1- All former CIA employees are indeed required to go through the PRB before publishing. The process is mandatory because sources and methods are to be protected as established by the National Security Act of '47 and CIA Act of '49.

2- The PRB only serves to vet that material to eliminate classified things from being published, but isn't supposed to stop publishing on the basis of the material being critical.

3- I believe this paragrapgh answers the question about whether the CIA and DoJ should go forward with the case. It explains how court action isn't necessary mandatory:

"If an author seeks to publish without having obtained PRB approval, the Agency can go to court to block publication or can seize the profits if publication already has occurred, even if there is no classified information involved.(5) In deciding to recommend litigation to the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), the Board must be convinced that the Agency can articulate harm to national security flowing directly from the disclosure. And the Board must weigh the risk of going to court, which not only may result in an adverse ruling but which also means identifying and calling attention to damaging information and providing publicity for the book that contains it. Each review thus requires a policy judgment that weighs damage and the prospect of litigation, with judicial precedent in mind. "

4- Its a crime to publicize identities and information about CIA sources, operatives, agents and assests due to the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act". If succesfully convicted, the guility party will serve about 5 years in prison. The only person to be succesfuly found guilty was Sharon Scaranage. She served 5 years and 8 months in jail.

5- The Espionage Act of 1917 makes it illegal for people to publish information with "intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years" It seems like some of the sensative material in Jones' book fall in line with this law.

5- Stealing classified information will land you in jail for life, as in the case of Jonathan Pollard, the guy spying for Israel. The above copy of the warrant for Ben Ami Kadish lay out all the laws that people who get caught stealing classified info are breaking. The BBC link is where I learned what Pollard was actually sentenced to.

Thats all I got for now.

jmm99
09-11-2008, 06:00 AM
it gets you an A - with a bonus for answer #3


from Elevation
It seems like some of the sensative material in Jones' book fall in line with this law.

Perhaps true as to some data (Jones denies anything he wrote was classified); but the devil is in proving what you quote:


"intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies"

So, a specific intent crime - and if Jones' bio is even half true that intent seems skinny to me. We need more facts.

Some comments - which illustrate why there are agency contracts, the PRB and other bothersome "stuff".

--------------------------------
Sharon Scranage (Operations Support Assistant) - Wiki Bio


.... Soussoudis [her Ghanian intel officer boyfriend] was later exchanged for a number of Ghanaian CIA agents who had been arrested following their exposure by Scranage. ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Scranage

One wonders if she wasn't "honey-trapped". In any event, one network down the tubes from pillow talk.

She was prosecuted under the "Agee Act" - brief ref. to Agee here - elsewhere, there is lots of stuff on that saatana.


What Can You Say About A Spy?
Monday, Jul. 25, 2005
....
What was the original impetus behind creation of the act?
In two words, Philip Agee. ... CIA officer who spent most of his 11-year career in Latin America ... resigned in 1969... Agee wrote a 1975 memoir, Inside the Company: CIA Diary, featuring a 24-page appendix made up of agents' names and operations. Later that year Richard Welch, a CIA station officer in Athens, was assassinated....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083872,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

Welch's death was not caused by Agee's book; but his death illustrated one of the dangers of disclosing the identity of officers and agents - Welch's identity was well known to terrorists in Greece.

----------------------------------------
And, leave it to the Telegraph to give us a catchy headline:


The spies who loved. . . and lost their jobs
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 07/06/2007
James Bond may always get his girl, but when the women who spy for the CIA get their man they get sacked. Now they are suing the Agency for discrimination, they tell Toby Harnden ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/06/07/nosplit/ftcia107.xml

And a long article (7 pp.) in US News on the "pillow talk" class action filed with EEOC by attorney Janine Brookner representing the plaintiffs. Draw your own conclusions.


Foreign Affairs
Does the CIA have a double standard when its spies cozy up to foreigners? Veteran female officers speak out.
By David E. Kaplan
Posted 4/22/07

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070422/30cia.htm

Didn't find a url to the EEOC case file - it is getting too late.

Sex, Sin - and I Spy - an unbeatable combo.

--------------------------------------------------
And, since you nailed Pollard and Kadish, I can't dock you points for not reading my mind - I was thinking of the "AIPAC Case" - US v. Rosen, which can be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/index.html

Many pleadings - showing you what happens step by weary step in a Federal espionage case - starting at bottom with Larry Franklin's plea bargain.

If you have some time, they all would be worth reading - original docs beat what people say original docs say.

Elevation
09-11-2008, 01:30 PM
it gets you an A - with a bonus for answer #3



Perhaps true as to some data (Jones denies anything he wrote was classified); but the devil is in proving what you quote:



So, a specific intent crime - and if Jones' bio is even half true that intent seems skinny to me. We need more facts.

Some comments - which illustrate why there are agency contracts, the PRB and other bothersome "stuff".

--------------------------------
Sharon Scranage (Operations Support Assistant) - Wiki Bio


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Scranage

One wonders if she wasn't "honey-trapped". In any event, one network down the tubes from pillow talk.

She was prosecuted under the "Agee Act" - brief ref. to Agee here - elsewhere, there is lots of stuff on that saatana.



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083872,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

Welch's death was not caused by Agee's book; but his death illustrated one of the dangers of disclosing the identity of officers and agents - Welch's identity was well known to terrorists in Greece.

----------------------------------------
And, leave it to the Telegraph to give us a catchy headline:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/06/07/nosplit/ftcia107.xml

And a long article (7 pp.) in US News on the "pillow talk" class action filed with EEOC by attorney Janine Brookner representing the plaintiffs. Draw your own conclusions.



http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070422/30cia.htm

Didn't find a url to the EEOC case file - it is getting too late.

Sex, Sin - and I Spy - an unbeatable combo.

--------------------------------------------------
And, since you nailed Pollard and Kadish, I can't dock you points for not reading my mind - I was thinking of the "AIPAC Case" - US v. Rosen, which can be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/index.html

Many pleadings - showing you what happens step by weary step in a Federal espionage case - starting at bottom with Larry Franklin's plea bargain.

If you have some time, they all would be worth reading - original docs beat what people say original docs say.

I'll check them out JMM.

I suppose actually reading Jones' book will help answer alot of the questions as well. I'll see if I can steal a copy somewhere.

A few weeks ago I got done reading Charlie Wilson's War and that had a section devoted to the CIA and alot of the negative things that happened to it back then, for example: original cutbacks under Carter, the Welch killing, and other exposures.

jmm99
09-11-2008, 04:25 PM
as Ken White succinctly pointed out on page 1 of this thread:


The real problems with national level Humint did not arise until Nixon had Schlesinger start the dismantling of the DO in 1973, the Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee did their thing and James Earl Carter and Stansfield Turner completed the massacre. The Agency has never fully recovered.

IMO: the agency had a consensual adult relationship with the Oval Office during Eisenhower (Dulles bros) and Reagan (Casey), but at other times was either a presidential plaything or ignored. So, there have been lots of things to bitch about - and, thus, the Jones book and many others.

The Nixon-Schlesinger thing was particularly disruptive to the then-called Directorate of Plans, which became the Directorate of Operations - less about a 1000 officers. You will find differences of opinion as to whether that shift in emphasis was good or bad - and in terms of whether some deadwood should have been removed.

I suppose that names do not necessarily mean anything; but the picture after that seemed to reflect a shift from HUMINT to more of a paramilitary concept. The latter was necessary to the effort in Afghanistan ("Mr. Wilson's War"); but query, to what extent paramilitary efforts should be a function of the DO.

Anyway, a read of Jones' book would be worthwhile - and a compare to those written by Bob Baer. Guess I'll order it from Amazon. Three reviews of the book by retired folks at the end of the Amazon page, which is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Factor-Dysfunctional-Intelligence-Culture/dp/1594032238/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211875405&sr=8-1

The first one calls for the final completion of the Nixon-Schlesinger massacre, which seems rather drastic IMO.

jmm99
10-04-2008, 11:53 PM
This is not quite the book I expected. I did not expect a Phillip Agee exposé; nor a legal brief; nor a dry treatise written by an analyst. I guess I expected a Bob Baer-type book, with more explicit assertion of policy (national strategy) considerations mixed in with the war stories.

The policy arguments are expressed in the Appendix (pp.355-361) in summary form; and some have been discussed here. They are here (http://www.ishmaeljones.com/solutions-for-intelligence-ref/).

Keeping those points in mind as you read the book, you will see where he develops the evidence - but not point by point. It's not a legal brief, but a special kind of autobiography.

You can also glean some of the author's background, military career and CIA postings (all but OIF very generalized) from the book. IJ is very protective of his true name identity for good reasons (emphasized at various points in the book).

------------------------------------------
Author's Note (p. vii)


"All individuals, unless they are public figures, are obscured in order to make it impossible to identify any CIA employee or agent. Dates and places of non-public events have been obscured or changed. No classified information, sources, or methods are revealed."

"Ishmael" supposedly was the nickname with which he was tagged during training. Taking him at his word above, his true nickname could be "Clint". Similarly, with all of the tags for sources and colleagues, the outsider would be hard-pressed to draw any firm conclusions. Was "Suspenders" really a wearer of suspenders, or was he really "Elephant Hide Belt" ? Was Jonah a red-haried male ? Dates and places should be treated in the same way - a café overlooking the Danube, or was it really the Vistula ? In short, this book may be inhabited by any number of legends - or maybe, only some of them are legends.

Here are some colleagues:


Loman (later, William Loman - i.e., "Willie Loman"), Roger, Max, Harry, Jonah, Moe, Godfather, Two Dog Dave, Worst Spy in the World, Andy, Sylvia, Charleton, Martin, Horace, Randy, Stefan, Bettie, Valerie;

and agents: The Twins (access agents), Dr. B (rogue state scientist).

That's through chap. 7. Now, I suppose it would be possible for an outsider to come up with something of a bio for many of these; but would it be a true bio or a legend ? Of course, to an insider of IJ's vintage, these characters (as described) might match real people.

The following did jump out at me and will to everyone else (p.137) [the context is 1996-1997, following the Ames-Nicholson flap]:


"A pretty blond woman named Valerie came into the office and sat down at our table. She said she had received a message to return to HQs and wondered what it was all about. Moments later, a group of managers beckoned her to join them in the conference room. "She's about to be purged," said the older man. Twenty minutes later, the woman returned, weeping softly."

And indeed (pp.253-255 & fns 43-46), IJ briefly addresses the Plame case from open-sources.

Disclosure is even less as to "information" derived by IJ from agents, who generally are unnamed and unlocated (the geography provided may be as legendary as some of the people).

Where the book may hit the reefs is not on its limited disclosure of "sources" and "information", but on disclosure of methods. The book is about 99% "methods" - broadly construed. In short, it's a "how to do" and "how not to do" book.

----------------------------------
Except for the open-source vignettes (supported by 66 footnotes) and a number of geographical and historical vignettes, the vast bulk of the book is devoted to how IJ recruited agents and obtained information; and how the CIA managers wanted him to recruit agents and obtain information. You also will get a lot on CIA personnel, approval, reporting and accounting policies, management levels, etc. - generalized at times, specific at other times.

What is classified or not is not my call.

How to set up the Ismael Jones Intel Service (as I glean it - so, in my words, not IJ's):


1. Get your domestic house and personal finances in absolute order.

2. Have 300-500K of your own money available to finance your operations.

3. Keep accurate financial records for reimbursement - eventually.

4. Build up a target list from all sources.

5. Seek approval of contacts by presenting risk-averse scenarios (even if not the expected reality); or present the contact as a "walk-in" (even if you contacted him first).

6. Contact directly in the normal course of business - make the cold call.

7. Fudge reports (as to contact details, not the information) to fit the picture wanted by agency management for "how to do".

There is a lot more - about which, opinions will differ. All in all, an interesting book - not sorry I bought the book - which I two-ferred with Bob Baer's new book on Iran. Since the book is now #20,921 in Books, neither the CIA nor the author is about to get rich. :(

Juan Rico
10-15-2008, 07:21 PM
Guess I'll order it from Amazon. Three reviews of the book by retired folks at the end of the Amazon page, which is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Factor-Dysfunctional-Intelligence-Culture/dp/1594032238/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211875405&sr=8-1



thanks for keeping this thread alive, sir...

the first review (the most outstanding) when you follow that amazon link is by a fella named robert steele (i guess he's a former Marine/former case officer, same as jones). along with his name is a link to his site (www.oss.net/PIG , this wasn't here before). he has a pdf book available FREE for the november election festivities.

on the right hand side of the site are his 2 other books advertised with free chapters available for download (chapter 13 of 'on intelligence' and chapter 15 of 'the new craft of intelligence'). from a layman's perspective, both chapters were pretty good reads. both steele and jones definitely share the same passion for reform of this community.

just wondering what everyone's take of these 2 chapters would be (and also the pdf PIG book since intel is also addressed, partly)

davidbfpo
10-15-2008, 07:38 PM
The works of Robert Steele on the value of open source information are well known; I've read one of his books in total and he is a zealot for his cause. The latest offer is no different, although timely for the US election. I say contrast as the thread started with a SF author revealing information to the public and so into the open.

Yes, open source information can help and can play a greater role in most spheres of intelligence - for the context (situational awareness) and details (of individual targets). I thought Steele went overboard in his advocacy.

davidbfpo

jmm99
10-16-2008, 04:34 AM
Don't know either of these guys (obviously in IJ's case - suppose he could be my neighbor - been wondering about him :confused:).

Anyway, based on their writings - about the only commonality seems to be as former Marines and employment by the same agency. IJ is committed to HUMINT ("secret" kind), but wants it done better, etc., etc.

Mr. Steele seems committed to many things - put it that way - and no further comment by me on Mr. Steele.

Juan Rico
10-18-2008, 02:00 AM
jmm99, you're right this guy's absolutely all over the place! i'm becoming a fan of this guy's works, intel and strategy.

"it would cost CIA too much to try and shut me down..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6dW4U1xVr0

jmm99
10-18-2008, 07:38 PM
with Mr. Steele's many works. So, it may be a case of some gold among the mud; or some mud among the gold (to paraphrase St. Jerome).

Use of open-source data has been promoted by many analysts in the agency, long before Mr. Steele reared his head. The shaggy dog story that goes along with that is that consumers have tended to want some "secret stuff" - otherwise, the analytics couldn't really be "intelligence".

Example of how to do it (not a CIA story). Three highly intelligent guys (had to be since I was one of them :D) are loaded for bear to brief Boss on a matter. Boss walks in (not having that much background on the matter), sits down, and says: "Mr. McCarthy, do me a favor and get the Brittanica volume that discusses X." OK, get volume. Boss reads; then get volume Y; then Z, etc. Boss ends up with a stack of references which he reads (quick reader was he), while everyone is chomping at the bit. Boss then says: "Now, we can tackle the real issues, since I'll understand what you're telling me."

The points are that (1) there is a lot of open-source out there; and (2) the consumer has to be amenable to recognition of its value (like Boss).

bourbon
10-18-2008, 07:39 PM
JMM,
I talked to a guy I know, a former operations officer who worked in the noc program. I asked him if IJ was legit, he said he thought so. That is probably the closest thing to a firm answer I am likely to get from him. So I will eat some crow here, and say my skepticism was misplaced.

He agreed with IJ's criticism of the "Platforms" concept. Credited the creation to "just do something" pressure from Congress, whereby poor ideas are executed in the short-term over good ideas that have long-term implantation.

JR,
The same guy worked with Steele years ago, his take on him is similar to what has been posted on this thread, though he agrees with alot of and see's alot of value in Steele's ideas and advocacy.

jmm99
10-18-2008, 08:04 PM
your friend confirmed my impression from the book as to IJ's character - very much a straight-arrow who is not "on a mission", but who has some very strong views on the agency's shortcomings - as he perceives them. I also thought (my perception) that he was a bit naive - not in his intelligence tradecraft, but in his political tradecraft.

A lot of this is consumer-driven. The Executive and/or Legislative want X (and usually far more X than is needed - and in a hurry). So, a Potemkin Village is built for a lot of $ - and nothing in substance changes. Having 90% of NOCs based in the US doing make-work (if true, as IJ claims) is obviously nuts.

Things looked better during Eisenhower, where DoS and CIA (via Dulles brothers) were part of the Breakfast Club. However, brickbats (some valid, some not) were thrown then, as well. Implementation of long-term solutions has been difficult, since some of the solutions have had blowback worse than the problems supposedly solved.

jmm99
10-22-2008, 08:41 PM
A number of points from Faddis and Berntsen in the following article are similar to the criticisms leveled by IJ in his book. Those points are not uncontested.


CQ HOMELAND SECURITY
Oct. 17, 2008 – 9:27 p.m.
CIA’s Loss of Top Spies ‘Catastrophic,’ Says Agency Veteran
By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff

Only a few months ago, Sam Faddis was running a CIA unit charged with preventing terrorists from getting nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Today, only 50, the equivalent of a full colonel at the top of his game, he has quit.

Scores more like him, Faddis says, spies with years of working the back alleys of the world, have walked away from the CIA’s Operations Directorate at the top of their careers, at a time when the agency needs their skills the most.

The directorate is losing “25 or 30 chiefs of station” — the top CIA representative in a country or major city — “or their equivalent” at headquarters, every six months, Faddis estimates.

That’s out of an estimated thousand or fewer case officers — the men and women who recruit and manage spies — worldwide.
.....
The CIA has said that money is luring away its best old hands. And it’s true that a large number come back as private contractors, doing virtually the same jobs at twice the pay. Some say there are more contractors filling desk in the directorate now than career officers.

But many don’t return, Faddis maintains. And, theoretically, he and other operations veterans say, contractors can’t take leadership positions that have been emptied.

The CIA flatly denies there’s a hemorrhage of senior personnel.

“Last year, for example, it was in the neighborhood of 7 percent of GS-15s in the National Clandestine Service,” spokesman Paul Gimigliano said.

“And that’s somewhat below what it had been in previous years,” he continued. “It’s all quite modest. The notion of dramatic losses at that grade, or any other, is simply incorrect.”
....
Virtually none of the team chiefs and case officers who led the first CIA units into Afghanistan and Iraq remain with the agency, said Faddis, who recently authored a memoir, “Operation Hotel California: The Clandestine War Inside Iraq.”
....
Gary Berntsen, a former station chief who led one of the first CIA teams into Afghanistan after 9/11, agrees. He left in disgust over management.

In a new book, “Human Intelligence, Counterterrorism & National Leadership,” Berntsen writes that the agency’s personnel problems predated the Bush administration, but the president waited too long to double the size of the Operations Directorate.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000002976430&parm1=5&cpage=1

The Faddis book is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Hotel-California-Clandestine-Inside/dp/1599213664

The Berntsen book is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Intelligence-Counterterrorism-National-Leadership/dp/1597972541/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224278836&sr=1-2

Juan Rico
10-28-2008, 08:47 AM
thought bernsten was more constructive than jones, here's a good audio speaking about his new book (good stuff):

http://www.mideasti.org/podcast/human-intelligence-counterterrorism-and-national-leadership-a-practical-guide

jmm99
10-29-2008, 07:29 PM
Berntsen (3 x chief of station, OC CIA paramilitary at TB) speaks from a different perspective than IJ. His emphasis is on the DO - which, in his opinion, is the only thing "that distinguishes the agency from the Dept of Agriculture" (sure to raise some hackles among the analytic community) - and collection of HUMINT. Like IJ, he addresses the bureaucrats who impede collection efforts; but does not throw out the baby with the dirty bath water.

Besides the espionage branch of the agency's clandestine activities, Berntsen is very familar with its paramilitary branch. There he has a couple of proposals, which could cut away paramilitary covert actions from the agency:

1. Devlopment of an "American Foreign Legion", similar to the Brits' Gurkhas and the FFL. E.g., for Afghanistan, recruit indigenous folks from there and surrounding areas; 5-year enlistments with US citizenship path; led by US officers and SNCOs; etc.

2. Development of a new OSS (under a DSS - not within the CIA - since the DSS would be at same level as JCS) for less conventional military activities (cf., Jedburgh WWII). I suppose #1 and #2 could be combined.

That would leave the agency's clandestine side with espionage and non-military covert actions (disinformation, political infiltration, etc.). Some folks would be quite happy to see that - and the Executive would still have the DSS to play with.

Berntsen also has a number of other proposals in the personnel area (e.g., language skills, less reliance on fluttering, accept gay linguists, etc.) that are shared with other constructive critics of agency and DoD policies.

Berntsen also has kind words for JIEDDO (Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization) - as an example of co-operative effort...

https://www.jieddo.dod.mil/

and for Dalton Fury, covered here at this thread.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6161

He has a different slant on Iran from Bob Baer.

He is a bit weak (technically) when he addresses legal issues such as Gitmo, etc. - not one of his areas of expertise.

Juan Rico
11-01-2008, 06:40 PM
He has a different slant on Iran from Bob Baer.

He is a bit weak (technically) when he addresses legal issues such as Gitmo, etc. - not one of his areas of expertise.

maybe his views of iran are somehow connected to the mid east inst, since that's where that little speaking engagement was held:

http://www.cq.com/public/20060203_homeland.html

Actually, it would be big news if a senior U.S. diplomat in the Middle East did not accept the warm embrace of the Saudis or other despots upon leaving the region.

They are sprinkled all over Washington, particularly in such well-known Saudi-supported think tanks as the Middle East Institute (MEI).

Two former top American diplomats in Saudi Arabia lead the MEI — Wyche Fowler Jr. (chairman), ambassador to Riyadh from 1996 to 2001, and Edward “Ned” Walker (president), a former deputy chief of the U.S. embassy there and at one time the State Department's deputy assistant secretary for the Near East. MEI’s vice president, David Mack, was an ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and, like Walker, a top Near East official at the State Department. Also at MEI is Richard Parker, former ambassador to Algeria, Lebanon, and Morocco, and Michael Sterner, former ambassador to UAE and deputy assistant secretary of Near Eastern Affairs.

Chas. W. Freeman Jr., another former U.S. ambassador to the kingdom, is president of the Saudi-backed Middle East Policy Council. Another ambassador, Walter Cutler, leads the Saudi-backed Meridian International Center.

From the Saudi point of view, all this is a good thing.

baer's take is realistic and probably more thought out:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95285396

Iran's star is rising. And now with a friendly Shia government in Baghdad, it will rise a lot faster. On the other hand, the old Sunni order-the foundation of American interests in the Middle East-is edging toward collapse. How long can Pakistan and Saudi Arabia hold on? For the first time in the history of Islam, Shia domination of Mecca is not unthinkable. Nor is an Iranian empire in the Middle East. Was Khomeini right after all, that Iran would ultimately defeat America, the Great Satan?

Defining Iran's imperial drive is the subject of this book. The viewpoint is from the periphery, where empires are historically best observed, their character best understood. We better understand Rome's imperial character by looking at Roman Gaul or Spain rather than at the metropolitan center. In the same way, we'll better understand Iran's imperial blueprint by looking at Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan rather than Tehran.


as for gitmo and interrogations, this is the best discussion on the matter:

http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_events/task,view/id,1703/

Rex Brynen
11-02-2008, 12:26 AM
maybe his views of iran are somehow connected to the mid east inst, since that's where that little speaking engagement was held:

http://www.cq.com/public/20060203_homeland.html

They are sprinkled all over Washington, particularly in such well-known Saudi-supported think tanks as the Middle East Institute (MEI).


Two former top American diplomats in Saudi Arabia lead the MEI — Wyche Fowler Jr. (chairman), ambassador to Riyadh from 1996 to 2001, and Edward “Ned” Walker (president), a former deputy chief of the U.S. embassy there and at one time the State Department's deputy assistant secretary for the Near East. MEI’s vice president, David Mack, was an ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and, like Walker, a top Near East official at the State Department. Also at MEI is Richard Parker, former ambassador to Algeria, Lebanon, and Morocco, and Michael Sterner, former ambassador to UAE and deputy assistant secretary of Near Eastern Affairs.

Funny how that quote fails to mention that Ned Walker was also US ambassador to Israel. I guess that particular fact doesn't fit so well with the "Saudi conspiracy" argument that's being made.

As a quick look through the Middle East Journal (http://www.mideasti.org/middle-east-journal/issue/62/4) (MEI's flagship journal, and, along with the International Journal of Middle East Studies, one of the two main academic publications on the Middle East) makes clear, MEI hardly hews a pro-Saudi, or pro-anything, line. (Indeed, the most recent issue of MEJ has articles on accidental Saudi destabilization of the Shah, and the segregation of Saudi women--hardly favorite topics for Riyadh!)

One could start an entire thread on how the hyperpartisanship around ME issues (and the demonization of outstanding regional experts like Rashid Khalidi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Khalidi) and Rob Malley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Malley) in the current presidential campaign) inhibits the ability of the USG to effectively pursue its national interests in the region...

davidbfpo
11-02-2008, 02:32 PM
Just about fits the thread's theme; an obituary from The (UK) Daily Telegraph, on a deep undercover agent in the Communist Party and later directed at the Provisional IRA: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/3275532/Julia-Pirie.html

Yes, some "spin" is present. Incidentally this newspaper has by far the best military obituary section; currently WW2 and Korea veterans appear regularly.

davidbfpo

Tom Odom
11-02-2008, 02:51 PM
Funny how that quote fails to mention that Ned Walker was also US ambassador to Israel. I guess that particular fact doesn't fit so well with the "Saudi conspiracy" argument that's being made.

As a quick look through the Middle East Journal (http://www.mideasti.org/middle-east-journal/issue/62/4) (MEI's flagship journal, and, along with the International Journal of Middle East Studies, one of the two main academic publications on the Middle East) makes clear, MEI hardly hews a pro-Saudi, or pro-anything, line. (Indeed, the most recent issue of MEJ has articles on accidental Saudi destabilization of the Shah, and the segregation of Saudi women--hardly favorite topics for Riyadh!)

One could start an entire thread on how the hyperpartisanship around ME issues (and the demonization of outstanding regional experts like Rashid Khalidi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Khalidi) and Rob Malley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Malley) in the current presidential campaign) inhibits the ability of the USG to effectively pursue its national interests in the region...


Agreed. The boogie man complex is working overtime right now. The Khalidi vilification is especially over the top.

Tom

jmm99
11-02-2008, 07:41 PM
Hat tip to Ms. Pirie - and to the preservation of her cover right up to the end.


(from Julia Pirie's obit)
Until her death on September 2 Julia Pirie continued to receive her pension from the Communist Party, paid monthly into her account from a bank in Italy. ....

One hopes that MI5 was as or more generous to her retirement account.

Her bio does illustrate one facet of the Middle East (broadly construed geographically):


.... Julia Pirie once travelled to Barcelona, renting a flat immediately below one occupied by IRA officials. The flat, rented by members of the Catalan terrorist group Terra Lliure, was being used by the IRA as a safe house and a temporary store for shipments of gold bullion supplied by the Libyan President Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

What a diverse collection of groups. "The enemies of my enemies are my friends."

Having no Sunni, Shia & Israeli links, I tend to look at the attempts to link up this or that group, think tank, research institute, etc., as being something of a gigantic carnival hall of mirrors. Entering that hall of mirrors is more likely to generate bad analysis than anything else.

No doubt that the Middle East generates a good deal of flaming between proponents of the Sunni, Shia & Israeli positions (none of which is monolithic in itself) - and, the emotional intensity leads to nasty ad hominem attacks that may or may not be justified - and, which are immaterial (in most cases) to the arguments that are being made.

All that illustrates another facet of the Middle East:: "You steal my cow. I will burn down your barn - with all of your extended family within it."

Getting embroiled in the back and forth attacks will not be helpful in developing the future of the US intelligence community (communities, to be more accurate). As I read Ishmael Jones, Gary Berntsen and Bob Baer, all are genuinely committed to US interests. Each of them has a different slant on what should be done to further those interests.

My own reading on Islam covers the spectrum from Karen Armstrong to Robert Spencer, with people like John Esposito, Bernard Lewis and A.J. Arberry in the middle - and with the Qur'an as the ultimate source (since I am not an Arabist, I have to make do with M.H. Shakir's translation).

I guess my final point is that it helps to be a bit eclectic - and open-minded - in considering the different poiints of view before reaching a black & white conclusion.

PS: For those not acquainted with Arberry (expertise in both Arabic and Persian studies; dead since 1969), his Wiki bio is here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Arberry

Juan Rico
11-03-2008, 02:30 AM
Getting embroiled in the back and forth attacks will not be helpful in developing the future of the US intelligence community (communities, to be more accurate). As I read Ishmael Jones, Gary Berntsen and Bob Baer, all are genuinely committed to US interests. Each of them has a different slant on what should be done to further those interests.

My own reading on Islam covers the spectrum from Karen Armstrong to Robert Spencer, with people like John Esposito, Bernard Lewis and A.J. Arberry in the middle - and with the Qur'an as the ultimate source (since I am not an Arabist, I have to make do with M.H. Shakir's translation).

I guess my final point is that it helps to be a bit eclectic - and open-minded - in considering the different points of view before reaching a black & white conclusion.


thanks for all the feedback, gents... and i agree whole heartedly with this post, jmm99 (thanks for the hint).

not as widely read as most in this forum, i'm not really contributing much as far as analysis goes, but definitely learning a great deal from everyone here (i appreciate the slight nudge away from mediocre thinking or conclusions).

as far as black/white, us/them, i do have my bias against the stuff coming out of arabia. thanks for the book/author recommendations.

---
just finished reading 'operation hotel california' by faddis. it's pretty much on the same line as jones, baer, berntsen--HQ sucks ass and is run by a bunch of pansies. but then half way through the book, faddis sets his sites on one individual--col. waltemeyer, 10th SF group.

faddis paints him as the biggest Ahole ever to walk the earth (a complete opposite from linda robinson's portrait of the guy, in her book 'masters of chaos', but then again she wrote everyone up like heroes in romance novels).

according to faddis, waltemeyer, by simply being an Ahole lost the surrender of saddam's northern command, the 5th corps. the surrender of the 5th corps would've led to other such official surrenders throughout iraq, thus preserving the security apparatus needed to maintain peace and order, after the invasion.

is this possible? can one man actually screw up an armistice or formal surrender by just simply being an Ahole? i thought the checks and balances within the chain of command was designed to prevent such occurences (if it did happened as faddis described)-- this is the reason there are XOs, adjutants, officers w/ law degrees and even senior NCOs.

---

thought this was a good documentary: www.torturingdemocracy.org (http://www.torturingdemocracy.org/)

jmm99
11-03-2008, 04:57 AM
This is how the Guardian reported it - where COL Meyer is mentioned, but not a central figure.


Mosul descends into chaos as even museum is looted
Luke Harding in Mosul
The Guardian,
Saturday April 12 2003
.....
By the time Asif Mohammed turned up for work yesterday morning, the ancient contents of Mosul's museum had vanished. The looters knew what they were looking for, and in less than 10 minutes had walked off with several million dollars worth of Parthian sculpture.
.....
"It's just been wrecked. I'm extremely angry. We used to have American and British tourists who visited this museum. I want to know whether the Americans accept this."

It was a good question. Unfortunately, as Mosul descended yesterday into a hellish self-feeding chaos, there were no American troops to ask.

The Pentagon had earlier promised that thousands of its soldiers would secure Mosul - a pleasant city of 1 million on the banks of the Tigris - and prevent the kind of mass looting seen elsewhere in Iraq. They would also keep out the Kurds
.....
Yesterday it was abundantly clear this was not true. A quick tour of central Mosul revealed there were no American troops there at all. Several thousand were stationed just down the road in Irbil, inside Kurdish-northern Iraq, but they had failed to arrive.

The Iraqi government abandoned Mosul late on Thursday night. Just as in Kirkuk, Iraqi soldiers garrisoned in the city took off their uniforms and simply drifted away. Overnight American special forces entered briefly with groups of Kurdish peshmerga. The Americans then disappeared.
....
However, last night a US special operations team met Mosul's tribal and community leaders in an attempt to put an end to the unrest. Colonel Walter Meyer told the group that US soldiers were being redeployed there from the Kurdish cities of Arbil, Dohuk and Akra.
....
Had he [Kurdish commander, Wahid Majid] seen the Americans? "They were here earlier but they were unable to control the situation so they left," he said. ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/12/iraq.arts

I recall that the US situation in Northern Iraq was pretty well screwed up since Turkey had refused passage to 4ID, etc. My recollection from the TV coverage (which I was then watching pretty much 16/7) was that initially the Iraqi Army was pretty much intact and offered some organized resistance to the Kurds. What exactly happened with the Iraqi northern command, I have no idea - but others at SWC surely will.

PS: in connection with your links to interrogation and torture, you might want to slog your way through posts ## 126-131 in "War Crimes" - which presents the relevant laws without a lot of commentary.

Joseph S.
01-06-2009, 01:56 AM
I'm about to finish the Human Factor. I'd say it was a pretty good read. The writing style was quirky and occasionally annoying. Some of the anecdotes were meaningless and some were based on hearsay which made them seem like fillers.

That said, what the hell is going on in the bureaucracy? Jeez. My youth sometimes equates to ignorance but I cannot even imagine having to deal with the nonsense that is described in the book. "Killing Time Kills Marines!" Apparently many of the bureaucrats don't understand what government service is all about. When I think about working for the Man I don't imagine sneaking out of work early, team building exercises, gossip, et cetera. Go work for an insurance company or the local auditor if you want to slack of and do nothing for the policy makers and the policy enforcers.

The information about intelligence gathering was extremely intriguing and educational. The last book I read about the CIA was the Dick Kessler book from the early 90's. That book, from my recollection, was more about the history and structure. This one was about the intelligence gathering which was a great relief.

bourbon
01-06-2009, 03:42 AM
The information about intelligence gathering was extremely intriguing and educational. The last book I read about the CIA was the Dick Kessler book from the early 90's. That book, from my recollection, was more about the history and structure. This one was about the intelligence gathering which was a great relief.
Ronald Kessler? He's written a few books about CIA. Last I read of his was The CIA at War: Inside the Secret Campaign Against Terror (2003), and found it lackluster. He went overboard in his flattering treatment of Tenet and Krongard.

There have been a handful of other books by former operations officers since 9/11. Bernsten and Schroen's are very good, but exclusively about Afghanistan. The Moran and Waters books are terrible - both of them had little experience to write about anyway, and Mahle's Denial and Deception is fair. IMO Bob Baer's See No Evil is excellent, and though less entertaining than Baer, A Spy's Journey by Floyd Paseman is very good.

That's just stuff that came out in the last eight years. Obviously a large body of work about intelligence gathering stands before it, to help navigate it, The Literature of Intelligence: A Bibliography of Materials, with Essays, Reviews, and Comments (http://intellit.muskingum.edu/) is useful.

Joseph S.
01-07-2009, 01:40 AM
Yeah, it was Ron Kessler. It was the only interesting thing I could find at my town's dinky public library and it was from the 90's. Thanks for the info in your post, I'm definitely going to be using the link.

davidbfpo
11-19-2012, 11:13 PM
I thought the name rang a bell when I read this FP Blog article 'Good intel: get out of buildings, onto the streets'; after a few years I cannot recall if he is repeating himself:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/19/good_intel_get_out_of_buildings_onto_the_streets

bourbon
02-15-2013, 02:58 AM
Taking him at his word above, his true nickname could be "Clint". Similarly, with all of the tags for sources and colleagues, the outsider would be hard-pressed to draw any firm conclusions. Was "Suspenders" really a wearer of suspenders, or was he really "Elephant Hide Belt" ? (In Post 31)
Btw, "Suspenders" is currently going through the confirmation process to be the new DCI.