MG Flynn (on intell mainly)

[Ken White]

My experience mirrors his on the IC fascination with PROVEN threats -- and noting that they are reluctant to discuss possible threats. As one guy I knew once said, "They want to write history..."

I've gotten about an equal mix of bad and good threat info over the years and only from the rare and quite exceptional (in the good sense of the word) J/G/S2 / MI Det or unit any useful cultural or populace info.

Intel Trooper: I believe they are commonly referred to as "Half Fast Spooklets"

You're also correct in that the 'system' wants to be threat centric. I believe because that way it's hard to say that the system erred. Thank you for being one of the good guys who pushed that envelope...

Surferbeetle's right -- we have a major priority problem in funding and degree of support from on high.

[Steve the Planner]

First, we are in awe of having comments from the illustrious Ken White.

Second, the problem goes way beyond the military.

The ground military is, in fact, the only current information source available for governmental collection and interpretation of the situation in Afghanistan.

The so-called three Ds (defense, diplomacy and development) are not equally shared.

If anybody actually believes that the CIA has a complete Common Operating Picture for Afghanistan, I have bridge I'd like to sell them. They just don;t do that kind of deep background information stuff.

NGA does geo-physical and sat/mapping stuff, but is too small and under-resourced to build Big Pictures, or even penetrate small ones like cadestral mapping.

DoS has no serious or deep country-level or below analytical capabilities, and USAID only has contract managers (and is in the limbo of awaiting a determination of its future under State).

So, if the ground military does not have the COP, nobody has it. And it is a house of cards (maybe) until one emerges---fortune telling is not a COP.

I really think that there are a lot more components to this than meet the eye.

How could the White House have a clear picture of an end game, if the basic info for it doesn't exist?

How can the hodge-podge of State/UN/USAID/NGO/FAS actors synchronize any meaningful actions on the civilian side?

There were actually three shots fired last week at Afghanistan. One from the UN "assistance" mission chief (serious risks of failure from lack of synchronized efforts), one from CSIS/Cordesman (winning battles, losing the war), and one from the guy that the whole-of-US-government is looking to for answers (McChrystal/Flynn).

The two new "implicit" impositions on the military must be recognized: (1.) as the only governmental source for relevant US ground truth; and (2.) under COIN, to develop an intel framework way beyond instant threat levels.

Talk about a challenge.

Steve