Relationship between the political system and causes of war (questions)

[J Wolfsberger]

One point that hasn't been made yet, is that most of our intelligence sources (SIGINT, ELINT, etc.) tell you about capability and potential. They give no insight into intentions, which are, in any case, changeable as the wind.

With regard to the latter, the only source is human intelligence, i.e. the mistress, cabinet member, bureaucrat, etc. who's been turned and is now feeding information to the other side. (A US capability that was gutted in the late seventies and is only now being rebuilt.) Even then, the intel is only as good as what the source is told. If his own people are lying to him, the best he can do is pass on the lies. On top of which, the source may be lying to us for his own motives.

Our decision to go into Iraq provides a good example of the problems:

1. We knew Saddam would use chemical weapons. (He already had, against Iran in war and Kurdish civilians in "revolt.")
2. We knew he had the capability to produce them. (Anyone who can't convert a fertilizer, pesticide, pharmaceutical, etc. plant to manufacture chemical weapons, and hide the capability, simply isn't trying.)
3. We were getting reports from inside his cabinet that he claimed to still have them. (These apparently were true.)
4. We were told by Iraqi expats that he had them. (These apparently were false, and presented out of personal motives.)
5. We had chatter among his officer corps about the use of their own chemical weapons. ("Do you think he'll really use them?" "Are you ready if he does?")

To summarize, the intel that he had chemical weapons was good. As it turns out, the reason it was good is that Saddam was trying to make it good, running a domestic and international bluff.

Didn't work out well for him.

(WHAT!?! Tom wrote a book!?! Who knew? )

[Jedburgh]

One point that hasn't been made yet, is that most of our intelligence sources (SIGINT, ELINT, etc.) tell you about capabilityand potential. They give no insight into intentions, which are, in any case, changeable as the wind.

With regard to the latter, the only source is human intelligence, i.e. the mistress, cabinet member, bureaucrat, etc. who's been turned and is now feeding information to the other side....

As a career HUMINTer, I have to say that any claim that only HUMINT can provide insight to intentions is false. SIGINT, when collection is targeted effectively, is also a valuable direct source of information regarding intent. When HUMINT and SIGINT are effectively coordinated to collect on a target set, each feeding into the other in a structured collection effort, then the degree to which intentions can be ascertained is greatly expanded beyond the individual capabilities of either. Of course, the other INTs often have significant value in corroborating, invalidating, or simply providing additional indicators of assessed intent - IMINT immediately comes to mind.

You also must understand that capabilities are inextricably linked with intent. Neither intentions without capabilities nor capabilities without intentions pose a threat. A threat only exists when both are manifested together. The statement that "capabilities give no insight into intentions" is false. Capabilities, how they are obtained, structured and used in the context of the collection target, are often an important indicator of intent. So, it is not a question of capabilities vs intentions, but of coming to a logical judgment of intent in light of a host of indicators from the spectrum of collection assets available.

It is rare that a single collection asset, no matter how well placed, will provide stark warning of a clear and unmistable intent (decision made, action about to be initiated) for a specific course of action to be taken at the national strategic level by a potential threat. If only it was that easy.....

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

You also must understand that capabilities are inextricably linked with intent. Neither intentions without capabilities nor capabilities without intentions pose a threat.

It seems to me that it isn’t always true since the Grand Fenwick Expeditionary Force had intentions without capabilities yet still managed to bring the US to its knees.

[Jedburgh]

It seems to me that it isn’t always true since the Grand Fenwick Expeditionary Force had intentions without capabilities yet still managed to bring the US to its knees.

If you recall, the original strategic intent of Grand Fenwick was for their army to attack the US and lose, thus capitalizing on the perceived American willingness to fund rebuilding of defeated enemies - which appeared a foolproof plan, given the state of their army.

However, it was only after they stumbled into attaining a unique capability - the Q-Bomb - that their designated military leader was able to bring the US and other world powers to accept terms. But this was in contradiction to the original intent of his political leaders, who never made clear to him in the first place that he wasn't supposed to win.....

[wm]

In relation to the analysis of roaring mice and their wartime aspirations, I suggest this book.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

it was the United States’ blatant disregard for the fragility of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick’s pre-industrial economy, which was dependent almost entirely on making Pinot Grand Fenwick wine. After the US-produced the spurious "Pinot Grand Enwick" wine, the loss of revenue threatened to undermine Fenwick’s economy. Thus the Duchess Gloriana XIII was placed in a completely untenable position and, faced with total economic collapse, approved Prime Minster Count Rupert Mountjoy’s plan to send a punitive expedition to punish the US.

It is a little known fact that the Grand Fenwick Expeditionary Force is one of the few foreign powers to successfully invade the United States. Consisting of 20 long bowmen selected from the 700 in the Duchy and three men-at-arms selected from the 20 who have the right to carry spear and mace, clad only in chain mail, and nobly led by that epitome of military professionalism the stalwart Tully Bascombe, the GFEF inadvertently snatched victory from certain defeat.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

wm, where did you get your hands on that French military doctrine manual?

[wm]

As a career HUMINTer, I have to say that any claim that only HUMINT can provide insight to intentions is false. SIGINT, when collection is targeted effectively, is also a valuable direct source of information regarding intent. When HUMINT and SIGINT are effectively coordinated to collect on a target set, each feeding into the other in a structured collection effort, then the degree to which intentions can be ascertained is greatly expanded beyond the individual capabilities of either. Of course, the other INTs often have significant value in corroborating, invalidating, or simply providing additional indicators of assessed intent - IMINT immediately comes to mind.

You also must understand that capabilities are inextricably linked with intent. Neither intentions without capabilities nor capabilities without intentions pose a threat. A threat only exists when both are manifested together. The statement that "capabilities give no insight into intentions" is false. Capabilities, how they are obtained, structured and used in the context of the collection target, are often an important indicator of intent. So, it is not a question of capabilities vs intentions, but of coming to a logical judgment of intent in light of a host of indicators from the spectrum of collection assets available.

It is rare that a single collection asset, no matter how well placed, will provide stark warning of a clear and unmistable intent (decision made, action about to be initiated) for a specific course of action to be taken at the national strategic level by a potential threat. If only it was that easy.....

To piggyback on this post, I'd add that a failure to use an integrated intelligence effort is more likely to produce a false picture. I submit the August 1968 Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia as a case study in how not to do I & W intelligence. Or at least how not to use the data that assets used for I&W have collected.

[J Wolfsberger]

As a career HUMINTer, I have to say that any claim that only HUMINT can provide insight to intentions is false. SIGINT, when collection is targeted effectively, is also a valuable direct source of information regarding intent. When HUMINT and SIGINT are effectively coordinated to collect on a target set, each feeding into the other in a structured collection effort, then the degree to which intentions can be ascertained is greatly expanded beyond the individual capabilities of either. Of course, the other INTs often have significant value in corroborating, invalidating, or simply providing additional indicators of assessed intent - IMINT immediately comes to mind.

...

Hmm. I understand your points. Let me try to rephrase in way we might agree on: The other forms of intel serve to confirm (through observation of activity) our estimate of intent.

The point I was getting at (perhaps poorly) is that no amount of SIGINT (for example) will inform you whether a telephone reference to "Uncle's birthday present" is to a terrorist event ... or a new tie.

[Ron Humphrey]

Hmm. I understand your points. Let me try to rephrase in way we might agree on: The other forms of intel serve to confirm (through observation of activity) our estimate of intent.

The point I was getting at (perhaps poorly) is that no amount of SIGINT (for example) will inform you whether a telephone reference to "Uncle's birthday present" is to a terrorist event ... or a new tie.

If you happen to know that the "Uncle's birthday present" was recieved opened and being used for the last two months then one does know to further investigate what this "new" present may be

[Jedburgh]

...The point I was getting at (perhaps poorly) is that no amount of SIGINT (for example) will inform you whether a telephone reference to "Uncle's birthday present" is to a terrorist event ... or a new tie.

Here you are operating on the generalization that SIGINT is ineffective in collecting information on intent because the communication is coded in one or form or another.

First off, many collection targets do make statements that help us to assess intent in the clear, with no attempt at disguising what they are saying. It may be because they are naively assuming that we can't intercept the mode of comms that they are using - or that they assume that we can't understand the language/dialect used in the conversation. In both cases they are often dead wrong. Sometimes literally.

Secondly, as stated in my previous post, no collection asset operates in a vacuum. Each feeds into the others, in multiple continuous loops, that integrates both raw and finished intel in collection planning that is constantly updated. To follow up on your example, a HUMINT asset may learn that a specific code-phrase of the type you refer to will be used to initiate ramping up the threat attack phase, but has nothing more than a general idea of to whom - or exactly how - the code-phrase will be passed along. That will key multiple collection assets into the hunt for the phrase - which will also lock us on to some of the key players in the emerging event. If we are lucky enough to intercept that specific communication.

As an aside, today's wireless comms, linking cell phones, internet, etc. fuses many operational aspects of both HUMINT and SIGINT and absolutely requires close collaboration in order to detect, intercept and exploit these comms and the human networks involved.

All the collection disciplines must work together to be effective. Unfortunately, too often we see turf battles and conflicts over resources rather than true collaboration - especially at the national level in the IC.

[Ken White]

...
All the collection disciplines must work together to be effective. Unfortunately, too often we see turf battles and conflicts over resources rather than true collaboration - especially at the national level in the IC.

I agree with your premise -- in all senses -- but we, as nearly as I can tell, have denigrated Humint to the point where it and on the ground reports (at strategic, operational and tactical levels) are virtually discounted by many analysts unless corroborated by technical means. Technical primacy isn't an unmixed blessing.

I submit that isn't terribly smart...

(I will forego my Stansfield Turner diatribe to avoid offending young ears)

[Jedburgh]

I agree with your premise -- in all senses -- but we, as nearly as I can tell, have denigrated Humint to the point where it and on the ground reports (at strategic, operational and tactical levels) are virtually discounted by many analysts unless corroborated by technical means. Technical primacy isn't an unmixed blessing.

Ken, I don’t agree with the across-the-board categorization of analysts discounting HUMINT. There are elements within the military and the broader IC that have long understood and valued HUMINT collection. However, I have to say - excepting those areas - I agree with your point. My previous post really speaks to the ideal, and those elements I mentioned are really the only ones that tend to consistently approach the smooth workings that I tried to describe.

There are a couple of factors at work that I believe drive the problem you point out. Most importantly, you are absolutely correct in that many elements require corroborating information prior to acting on any single-source intelligence.

The following discussion includes a healthy amount of my personal opinion on the matter. Be warned.

Over the past few years, there have been a number of highly-visible unfortunate incidents as a result of targeting based on single-source intel that turned out to wrong – sometimes intentionally so from a manipulative source, sometimes just plain ol’ bad info. The numbers that have passed without mention is much larger. Also unfortunate is the fact that much of that originated with HUMINT.

The reasons are both simple and complex, and essentially boils down to inexperienced HUMINTers operating in a challenging new environment. But it has much greater implications than that.

We’re all aware of the massive cuts in military HUMINT during the draw-down period of the ‘90s – and of the recent rapid increase in HUMINT slots in the past couple of years. The former deprived the force of a huge amount of institutional knowledge – not only those who took the money and left early, or went into another field, but also those absent numbers that we did not train and put to work during the thin years. The latter was a rush to put bodies in the field, while relaxing standards and waiving or dropping some requirements (language skills, for example). So, the cherries are now both less prepared for ops than before, and have less access to operationally experienced mentors than they would have had a decade earlier (meaning the ratio of junior enlisted/NCOs to experienced SNCOs and WOs).

The effects of the rapid expansion have cascading effects beyond that of the new enlistees into the field as well. Because there weren’t enough HUMINTers to fill all the new NCO & Warrant slots created, they were filled by a combination of promoting beyond experience and recruiting from outside the field. No need to expand on promoting beyond experience or capability, but I will harp on the issue of NCOs with no HUMINT, and sometimes even with no MI experience filling HUMINT NCO and Warrant positions. They are now expected to lead, train and mentor HUMINT soldiers in the COE. So, we have a severe lack of focused HUMINT experience across the entire rank spectrum, with a lack of leadership capable of catching and correcting errors.

This ties directly into poor source handling and bad reporting. Bad reporting, when it results in mis-targeted ops, tends to eventually result in the analysts discounting the source. Even when it doesn’t drive mis-targeting, if the analyst (who is deluged with reporting) continually receives clearly poor reporting from a specific source or sources, he inevitably begins to discount that reporting, putting at the bottom of the pile to review, or simply not bothering to include it in a finished intel product unless something else comes up to corroborate the info. When the source tends to be in the majority from one ‘INT, then the analysts begin to either discount that ‘INT, or to not trust anything from that ‘INT until there is clear corroboration from another source – despite the level credibility formally given to the source.

To finally get to a point, Ken (if you’ve stuck with me this far), this ultimately breeds bias into analysts against HUMINT. Its not the fault of the analysts – it’s the fault of the system that has produced so many HUMINTers incapable of effective collection and (just as important) effective reporting.

The common excuse across the board for several of the issues I’ve mentioned is that, given the COE, the large group of rapidly accessed HUMINTers will gain invaluable experience and learn as they go along. Unfortunately, what I am seeing in reality is a lot of learning of the wrong lessons. When we don’t have a suitable proportion of operationally experienced NCOs and Warrants as mentors, to guide and correct the young’uns in this type of environment, this is what you get. Deploying entire teams with no experience – the entire team either gets it right, or gets it wrong. And when they get it wrong, they return home and, now being battle tested professionals, their wrong lessons spread like a virus. Please don’t misunderstand me – we do have some very bright lights in the field, natural HUMINTers who are doing an outstanding professional job. However, from the feedback I am seeing, there is an uncomfortable degree of mistaken learning going on in the HUMINT community. And when it comes from HUMINTers who now have operational deployments under their belts, it is too often taken as gospel by those who are not MI.

Much of my rant, with some changes for context, can also be applied to other HUMINT collection assets in the IC – which has also undergone a rapid expansion. Again – we have some outstanding people doing great things out there that go largely unsung. But I am concerned that they are being overwritten by the others I discussed here, and that the right lessons may get overwhelmed by the bad – because the ultimate decision makers are not part of the HUMINT community, and what they absorb too often comes from the wrong people. Your "technical primacy" comment hits here as well - a disturbing trend in the HUMINT field is to look for hi-tech "assists" for HUMINT collection, when what we really need is just focused selection and training of HUMINT personnel.

[Ken White]

Particularly this:

"However, I have to say - excepting those areas - I agree with your point."

Kidding but you'll have to admit that was too good to pass up...

I'll also point out that I did caveat a tad; ""...are virtually discounted by many analysts unless corroborated by technical means. "" (emphasis added /kw)

I have met a few with some smarts and the gumption to trust their instinct and the guy who's out there; just not enough of 'em.

Over the past few years, there have been a number of highly-visible unfortunate incidents as a result of targeting based on single-source intel that turned out to wrong – sometimes intentionally so from a manipulative source, sometimes just plain ol’ bad info. The numbers that have passed without mention is much larger. Also unfortunate is the fact that much of that originated with HUMINT.

Agree -- and I agree with your exposition of the various whys which leads us to this:

To finally get to a point, Ken (if you’ve stuck with me this far), this ultimately breeds bias into analysts against HUMINT. Its not the fault of the analysts – it’s the fault of the system that has produced so many HUMINTers incapable of effective collection and (just as important) effective reporting.

Yes, thus we have a systemic failure that gets swept under the table. Yet again, it all boils down to the training we pay lip service too but do not do well.

On an allied note, An old Cav Colonel recently said, with respect to tactical reconnaissance; "We don't do that very well, Americans don't have the patience for it. We just go out looking for trouble and to do that, you've got to have Armor." On the surface he's correct about the national dearth of patience and he's absolutely correct about the US Army approach to combat reconnaissance since WW II. I submit that while he's correct, he's wrong on what should be -- patience can be trained; patience on the part of the kid you want to sneak about and patience on the part of senior commanders who are unwilling to take the time to do a job right -- or pay for the training so that can be done.

I think that latter bit about commanders is a big part of why a lot of Analysts like tech means; it's rapid -- and it produces something to show the boss instead of a faceless troop, handler or agent.

In both the cases of poor tactical reconnaissance and of excessive reliance on technical means, I think we have a philosophical and practical failure at high levels...

And I know we have a training quality failure...

[William F. Owen]

@ The reasons are both simple and complex, and essentially boils down to inexperienced HUMINTers operating in a challenging new environment. But it has much greater implications than that.

@ We’re all aware of the massive cuts in military HUMINT during the draw-down period of the ‘90s – and of the recent rapid increase in HUMINT slots in the past couple of years. The former deprived the force of a huge amount of institutional knowledge – not only those who took the money and left early, or went into another field, but also those absent numbers that we did not train and put to work during the thin years. The latter was a rush to put bodies in the field, while relaxing standards and waiving or dropping some requirements (language skills, for example).

@ So, we have a severe lack of focused HUMINT experience across the entire rank spectrum, with a lack of leadership capable of catching and correcting errors.

This speaks to my experience. I was recently approached about sharing my views and ideas on HUMINT, by a consultancy group, who claimed to be under a government contract.

I declined to be involved because the level of naivety was staggering, especially as concerns some of the legal and even ethical issues that had to be addressed, and the failure to understand that it is almost this area alone that creates the "dark art" problems, - while the fundamentals of HUMINT are pretty easy to grasp, the complexity of the restrictions that have to be enforced seem to go unnoticed. Why? I'll never know!