It is the covert side that needs shoring up, in my opinion, or HUMINT, as B Poster cited. On the technical side, I think they are doing an outstanding job, but you can’t do all that must be done using remote sensing, much as many want to believe. So, I agree with B Poster that some major reform steps, perhaps simply a lot more recruiting and longer-range efforts, must take place on the covert side, and that takes time.

However, the Congress and the Administration must support these reforms and not use a chopping block to emasculate CIA efforts on pretty-please grounds as was done by Clinton and Co. Good luck with that today!

I am also concerned that the Agency has become far more politicized than earlier, and more proactive in making their opinions felt through back channels. I have no idea what can be done about it, except to clamp down hard on the guys that get caught–and their superiors.

I’m not suggesting intellegence was not “cherry picked.” Decision makers were likely VERY CINCERNED and may have over reacted. Also, some in the US government did not and do not like the former Iraqi government. As such, they were likely predisposed to believe the very worst about that government and those people. By the same token there were and are many elements of Iraq’s former government who did not and do not like America very much either. As such, they would have been predisposed to believe the very worst abut us as well.

Bottom line is we had faulty intellegence. If we accept the premise that Bush and the so called neo cons knew Iraq did not have WMD and lied about it, then this means the CIA and other US intellegence agencies allowed themselves to be polticized for personal gain. Perhaps their is a dose of incompetence here for not detecting the manipulation of intellegence by said people.

The other possibility is that US Intellegence and members of the Bush Administration as well as the so called necons acted in good faith and really did believe Iraq had WMD. I think this is by far the most likely possibility.

Regardless which premise is correct the CIA and other US Intellegence Services desparately need to be reformed. Perhaps they need to be dismantled and we need to start over from scratch. A good place to start would be to try and get good HUMMIT in place. While US Intellegence is rebuilt, we would need to rely on the Intellegence of other countries. Our best bet would be Israel’s.

“I agree with you about good Israeli intel but they are not going to share them with you.” Generally you would be correc, however, if they feel they can trust someone they will be more likely to share. Due to the often duplicitous nature of the American government toward them they seem to becoming more reluctant to share intel with our government. Had we have utilized Israeli intellegence more in the run up to the Iraq war we could have avoided many of the challenges we have had there. In fact, we probably would not have invaded.

Until a serious effort is made to reform US Intellegence I would not put much trust in what they report. They made a mistake on Iraq’s WMD and they seem to be making the exact opposite mistake with regards to Iran!! There underestimating the threat!! Perhaps most troubling of all is in the wake of the errors made regarding Iraq WMD no one has been publically held to account and no effort, at least publically, has been made to reform US Intellegence Services.

If for whatever reason they can’t get Iraq right, I don’t see how they can be trusted with an analysis of the potential threats posed by Russia and China. Supposing they allowed their work to be polticized on Iraq, they would likely allow themselves to be politicized on Russian and Chinese analysis as well.

If Russia and China are 10+ years away from being competitive with America, as Manning suspects, then BIG changes will need to be made today to ensure we have the capability to meet the challenge in 2019 or so. If I’m correct, and we have much less time, these big changes will have to be made but they will have to be made much sooner. The current leadership in both Democrat and Republican circles have little interest in the kind of change that would be needed nor does the media. As such, if US Intellegence Services allowed themselves to be politicized once, in the case of Iraq, they may do so again. In other words, they may be “lying” about Russia, China, and Iran. As stated before, I don’t think there was a deliberate attempt to mislead, but either way I don’t trust trust them until they are radically reformed.

The type of reform that will be needed will require strong leadership. I pray and hope we can get the kind of leadership that is needed before it is to late.

I agree that defectors can and do have their own agendas which may or may not be compatible with ours. The reason I find these credible is past reliability.

As for Chalabi, I think it was highly unlikely that he was the only source. I have come accross many things that he did not seem to be associated with. Again, our intellegece gathering and analysis was flawed. Also, I don’t think our Coalition partners would have put themselves at risk based upon only one source. Bottom line, Chalabi should not have been trusted.

As for Israeli sources, these are generally the most accurate. The very survival of Israel depends on superb intel.

I may be a bit paranoid, however, I think I’m a realist. I would percieve you as being a bit of a Pollyanna. I think being a Pollyanna is a much more dangerous than being overly cautious. I’m not suggesting we invade anyone. What I am suggesting is that major enemies need to be taken more seriously and we need to be more vigilant than we currently are.

Secret services can gather valuable information on an enemy or potential enemy. This can help direct the military where the targets are in the event of a war and good intellegence can clue leaders in on what needs to be done to counter the actions of enemies or potential enemies.

I did not say Iran would be the odds on favorite in a war with the United States but they could win. Part of how this might be done is to use elements of their special forces that are probably already here. Iran has a very capable Navy. It is very active in the Persian Gulf. Also, thanks to significant help from the Russians, Iran has a very capable Air Force.

The goal would not be to “annihilate the earth.” In a military conflict with America the key would be to strike decisively before the US can respond. Actually this is a good idea no matter who the enemy is. Given the poor nature of our intellegence services, being aware of the impending attack in time to respond is somewhat problematic.

As for Gernamy and Japan, it has been said that nation states do not have permanent allies. They only have permanent interests. Right now a military attack from Germany or Japan seems unlikely, however, it could change. The nations of the EU including Germany have tended to view the United States as their major strategic competitor. It is important for military planners to plan for all contingencies and to NEBER underestimate an adversary or potential adversary.

As for Iran’s manufacturing capability, they have been working to be self sufficient in much of their military hardware. They have made impressive strides in recent years.

I don’t see either Britain or France being able to take out Iran in a conventional war. Based on the best I can tell, they simply don’t have the will or the military forces to get this done. Also, I would suspect that Iranian special forces specifically the Revolutionary Guard are probably already operating in Britain and France, as they likely are in the United States. Britain or France may be able to use their nuclear arsenals to defeat Iran but then they would probably face reprisals from Russia and China. In any event, no offense to Britons or French I just don’t think it is likely that either of them or both of them acting together can defeat Iran in a war. At least not without significant help from America or another major world power. Perhaps they could though.