DI is under DNI - wm's proposal for it.
And "DO" is another agency from what I glean from Entropy:
as to which, Entropy, does this include all four of the "blacker" functions:... should just be the HUMINT collection and covert action agency
1. Espionage
2. Disinformation
3. Special Operations
4. Counter-intelligence
See, we nearly have the re-orgnization solved - ain't we smart.
forgot to ask - Is this agency under DNI as in wm's proposal for DI ?
------------------
PS: Rex, I like "small shops" - the possibility of a meritocracy with functioning horizontal and vertical lines of communication. Can work for a few hundred people.
Last edited by jmm99; 01-06-2009 at 08:43 PM. Reason: add question
JMM,
1. Espionage - yes definitely, this falls under CIA's HUMINT mandate. (google "national clandestine service" for more).
2. Disinformation - not sure what you mean here. Psyops? If so, I thinks that's spread around a bit. Not really sure.
3. CIA still does covert action stuff. It nests nicely with clandestine HUMINT.
4. CI is still distributed among the various agencies. There isn't yet a centralized CI organization.
You may find this CRS report of value:
OK, now we have:
1. DI (directorate of intelligence - analysis) under DNI
2. DH (directorate of HUMINT - espionage) under DNI ?
And following wm's statement
that leaves three functions out to lunch:Except espionage, which is another name for HUMINT to most folks I think, this list comprises "scope creep" missions that should not be part of an intel organization anyway.
1. Disinformation - generally non-violent stuff involving subversion, infiltration, planting stories & docs, political action dirty tricks - all in foreign counties.
2. Special Operations - violent stuff, small and big - again in foreign counties[*]
3. Counter-intelligence - penetration of or screwing up foreign intel agencies & protecting own against same (James Angelton stuff) - counter espionage is J. Edgar Hoover stuff.
Where do these go ?
[*]
Not sure that this OSS action stuff "nests nicely" with espionage. Comments from others - since we have had roughly 60 years of history here.from Entropy
CIA still does covert action stuff. It nests nicely with clandestine HUMINT.
PS: have to go home now - will check in later. Good discussion.
Last edited by jmm99; 01-06-2009 at 09:41 PM.
As Entropy says, espionage is a function of HUMINT which is CIA (but also some DIA) The National Clandestine Service is still managed by CIA. Entropy (and JMM) disinformation is NOT PSYOP - as an old Psyoper. Disinformation is a subset of deception which is run as an intel op by the military (Fortitude in WWII) or by CIA. Special ops is primarily military -USSOCOM - but covert action both political and paramilitary falls under CIA from the National Security Act of 1947 where it talks about "such other activities as the President shall from time to time direct." CI is primarly an FBI function but DOD and others have a share - CIA also owns a piece overseas.
Rex, generally, I agree with you about CIA's analytical capability and INR's as well. there have been times, however, when DIA actually did better analytical work than CIA and times when sevice analytical elements were better than any of them. DI was not moved to DNI. It's still there and no analysis shop is limited to one intel discipline. they all do all source analysis an are limited only by what is not shared among the various elements of the community. When I was in the business, we got all of NSA's take, all of DIA's reports, all DOS cables and INR analysis, nothing from FBI, and supposedly everything from CIA. CIA always held back in those days and if something broke, you'd always get a flood of CIA traffic from the last several months.... My impression is that now there is far more sharing w/in the community than in my day and that it is largely elecronic. I had heard as well that the dreaded caveat, ORCON, is no longer seen - hope that is true.
Cheers
JohnT
Honestly I thought then and still do that Army intelligence in the DFI did better military and pol-mil analysis in the 1990s. I also feel that ITAC and AIA when they existed were far better than either CIA or DIA when it came to ground focused operational to tactical intelligence. Case in point for both those arguments was Army DFI's role in pushing a clear picture of the Iraqi threat and reactions to an reconquest of Kuwait versus an intent to conquer Iraq and ITAC analysis of the Iraqi ground deployments in the KTO. CIA, State (not INR), and DIA were into group think that the world would end if we took Kuwait back.
On CIA regional analysis uneven is an accurate word. All depends on who is sitting in the chair. INR had an edge because they tended to stay. CIA-DI were younger and more transient. DIA suffered from the same plus then DIA decided to analyze along "functional" lines so you had transport analysts and military analysts etc etc. none of whom understood that a tank or a train or a plane in the Sudan or Congo was not the same as a tank or a train or a plane in South Africa (in the previous regime).
Longevity, training, and rewards are the keys to building an analytical base, regardless of agency.
Tom
Does anyone else see a problem for the incoming DNI? For all his experience, Admiral Blair, the nominal and sometimes very real superior of Mr Panetta does not have the personal relationship with the new President that his nominal and sometimes very real subordinate has. Makes me think that the consequences (intended or unintended) of these appointments may well be to denigrate the role of the DNI without attempting to change the legislation. If I were Admiral Blair, I would withdraw my name unless I had written assurances that the DCIA answered to me. (And I'd be fully prepared to use those assurances publicly.)
Cheers
JohnT
All I can say is that if they choose to rollback that role and the successes that have come with it
They get to live with the result Literally)
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
That's a big question. Big parts of it have been stripped off - most notably the counter-terrorism analysis and management of NIE's which were consolidated under the DNI. Technically (if I'm reading the law right, which I might not be doing) CIA gets to retain an analysis capability as long as it relates to its HUMINT mission. Makes sense since NSA and NGA both have analysis functions as well. But CIA specialized in a lot of "all-source" analytical areas, particularly strategic-level analysis, and it's not clear to me what's going to happen there beyond the NIE change. I do remember reading somewhere that CIA has increased the number of analysts it employs, so that should tell us something.
Bookmarks