The Human Factor by Ishmael Jones

[Juan Rico]

http://www.ishmaeljones.com/solution...elligence-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]

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/hsnews1...002933505.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]

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]

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]

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

[jmm99]

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/Article...F-599CFD1F1E7B

[bourbon]

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?

[Elevation]

http://public.cq.com/docs/hs/hsnews1...002933505.html

God help that guy with whats coming for him.

[jmm99]

in Military Art & Science Applied > Intelligence forum at

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.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/...6211#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]

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

[Elevation]

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

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]

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?

[Elevation]

in Military Art & Science Applied > Intelligence forum at

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.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/...6211#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]

see class assignment (post # 20, page 1) - in case you missed it. A little bit of cross-posting, etc.

[davidbfpo]

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/article...to_the_streets