Competition is good for everyone...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ODB
What would be the advantages to doing this and why?
None that I can discern
Quote:
What would be the disadvantages to doing this and why?
Hard to work for two masters. Army folks working for another agency would essentially become throwaways; there would be no agency loyalty to them. The agency would have different rules and playing by theirs might be a bad lick for those so seconded.
That's just off the top of my head. There's more not openly discussable.
Quote:
Lastly if you had complete control what would you do to reorganize our current system?[
I'm with John T. and Tom Odom, a civilian Humint intel organ; a new separate civilian DA organ; DNI; USoD Intel; Army, Navy, USMC, USAF, USCG Intelligence; DIA; DoE; DHS; DoS INR; Treasury; DEA; FBI; NGIA; NSA; NRO; A uniformed DA crew and SF (Not involved with any of the foregoing except on an as required, mission basis).
Competition keeps everyone honest. Consolidation is turf protection
Where and how does this fit into the overall structure ..
Quote:
from Ken
... a new separate civilian DA organ ....
Thoughts about what it would look like ? Mission ? Command and control ?
How different from the "... uniformed DA crew ..." ?
Possibly, violent agreement, Ken ...
but I have to think about this a bit - from the viewpoint of the poor SOB who has the legal advisor's role to the civilian DA and CI branches.
I assume that the military DA wants to keep its combatant immunity status, as much as possible - so a mix with civilian DA would flunk that test.
Also, civilian Disinformation and other softer forms of direct political action would have to fit in somewhere - at the national C2 level ?
Hooray, Hooah, Oorah for Ken
A couple of comments.
1. Not just DA but other covert political actions.
2. DA and other covert political actions are NOT intelligence. Intel is the direction, collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of information - intel cycle. I do see DNI overseeing the cycle for all intel agencies but not for my proposed US SOE (by whatever name). The analogous position to DNI is, IMO, the CJCS.
Cheers
JohnT
Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
doing just that.
That's why Winston noted "You can always trust the Americans to do the right thing -- after they have tried every conceivable alternative."
OTOH, whenever we try to organize things, we generally screw it up -- ad hocery is what we do best.
Not to digress but Churchill is my favor historic figure from my youth, followed by Teddy Roosevelt and Ike.
And of course Churchill himself epitomized trial and error in his repeated moves "across the floor" of Parliament from one party, back to the other, back again, it makes historians dizzy. His failed Dardinelles campaign was another example of his "under belly" attack theories which didn't work.
Churchill was originally opposed to the coast of France landings, wanted to go in from the south, as best I can recall, Vichy France.
Have a good weekend. Correct me if my history recall is flawed.
Three different functions - how to meet the twain
I'm seeing three different functions here:
1. Intel is the direction, collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of information - intel cycle. Intel consumers should not be their own analysts.
2. Political subversion, economic subversion, propaganda (I'd use "disinformation" here, since propaganda which is white on white should be totally separate from disinformation operations), and the "etc." of this softer side of covert ops.
3. Paramilitary operations (e.g., Bay of Pigs, which was neither clandestine nor covert in its execution; but very compartmentalized in its preparation); but more so in the present context, DAs which should not be handled by the military (Gary Berntsen's pitch).
In any given situation, two or more of these functions can and probably need to be linked. So, one agency fits all; or separate agencies ?
If the latter, there are at least two problems:
1. Co-ordination of efforts (joint task forces ?);
2. How to hide the appropriations for their efforts (dumping all the $ into one agency makes that easier) ?
Is this roughly where this discussion is at ?
Minor terrminology differences, John ...
Quote:
from JTF
#2 - first, we designate propaganda as white = source acknowledged, gray = source not acknowledged, and black = source disguised. For both the US military and DOS, the information in all propaganda messages is truthful (although it need not be the whole truth). Disinformation (deception) is, in the US, not psychological operations but rather an intelligence operation but one that may use PSYOP assets.
I was limiting #2 to disinformation (not from US military, DoS), which in my twisted mind is a part of a two-level (outlet and message) black to white disinformation and information construct:
1. outlet spectrum - outlet is black when outlet is 180 degrees from originating agency which remains clandestine and covert (e.g., info, regardless of its color, comes from CIA and is published by the KGB). Outlet is white when outlet is in phase with originating agency (e.g., info comes from CIA and is published by VOA). A gray outlet would be the perfect neutral (90 degrees out of phase with the main adversaries). Obviously, a broad spectrum of gray outlets is possible.
2. message spectrum - message is black when it is false in main focus part; message is white when it is true in main focus part. Again, many shades of gray can lie along the spectrum.
Can you have a white on white, covert and clandestine, disinformation operation ? Sure - Czech Intel's planted WWII German docs (which were mostly real) in the lake - discovered by TV documentary types, given to Czech government and eventually released through Czech government agencies, to some consternation in German Intel circles.
------------------------------
Quote:
from JTF
#3 - I see no reason why DA should not be carried out by military SOF (SEALS, DELTA, and SF C companies and the like).
Neither do I - and this should be the default (IMO).
I am no big proponent of civilian DAs; but there are situations where they are needed - primarily because of legal reasons. In those situations, the actions "should not be" carried out by military SOFs - which is what I meant by "DAs which should not be handled" (not all DAs, but a limited class of them).
--------------------------------
As to the "problems", I don't see them as insurmountable hurdles - just possible hurdles that can be overcome. As to co-ordination, I should have cited Ken's post:
Quote:
All could routinely meet or convene in part for emergencies as does the UK Cobra Team
LINK. Not to be copycats, we could call ours Sidewinder (for Selected Intelligence, Domestic Emergencies, Wars, Information, Disinformation, Extractions, Raids).
Love that Sidewinder :)
Not a practitioner but I have a question...
I recall and understand the doctrine -- as well as what you are saying about -- black, gray and white propaganda. However, I also recall from a few classes at Holabird long ago (howzat for dating ones self... :o) that the colors can and do also identify purpose; i.e. Black written by Black says White is ba-a-ad (though I'm actually an angel... :cool:); Gray written by Black says White is good but well, he's not really all that angelic and Blue, after all does not trust him. It plants seeds for further tilling...
White written by Black says Black is the good guy.
While I understand we are always truthful (... ;)), adhering strictly to your and the doctrinal definitions would seem to raise a couple of questions. Why have / do Black and Gray? For what reason would we not want to reveal the source? Or disguise it?
I'd submit, for example that "Bright, Shining Lie" is gray. It purports to tell some of the story of the US Army and Viet Nam but it is, in my opinion, a well written polemic that attempts to justify the less than stellar way the media covered that war by pointing out enough Army and Viet Namese (as well as the John Paul Vann speculatory denigration; 'even the good guys had issues...') warts (and I certainly know and acknowledge there were plenty...) to make the media look like the real good guys -- when in fact, they were no better at doing their job or being truthful, all things considered, than was the Army.
I remember the "bird" Ken but
didn't go there because I didn't transfer to MI or take the Advanced Course until it was at Hoochie Cooch.:D
I suspect you are right that at one time colors could refer to content but it became obvious that separating PSYOP from deception and disinformation was more useful than maintaining the color scheme for content.
Regarding your specific question: I guess telling the story again is worthwhile. My friend worked sub-Saharan Africa. They were looking for ways to discredit the Soviets in the region. Someone came across Soviet anti-Islam propaganda designed for use in Central Asia. Still, it was real Soviet stuff. The op took this stuff and ran it in the Muslim countries of sub-Saharan Africa claiming it originated from the Soviets (true) and passing it off as targeting the Muslim population of the region by the Soviet govt and embassies in the region. Hence, this was a classic case of a Black Propaganda op with great results. To use the content and source scheme you would have to call this Black source and white content. too confusing for my littel brain.
Cheers
JohnT