Provocative.
4 U.S. Intelligence Assumptions That Need to Go
Peter Mattis, The National Interest
The flaws in this intelligence-reform mentality are four-fold—and each plays a role in how proposals like Brennan’s reported reforms are generated and discussed, as well as past reforms such as creating the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. First, many intelligence-reform proponents conflate the very different disciplines of what we normally think of as intelligence and security intelligence, which includes activities like counterterrorism. Second, the problems with the CIA and the U.S. Intelligence Community are organizational. Third, security stovepipes no longer reflect modern intelligence concerns. Finally, they assume U.S. intelligence agencies are basically the same, making centralization and reducing duplication effective means of improving intelligence performance.
Phi Beta Iota: The US intelligence community lacks both intelligence and integrity. It is a pork pie — a means of moving money without accountability, without conscience, without ethics, and without purpose other than to keep the money moving. It is not alone — Congress has abdicated its Article 1 responsibilities, OMB is worthless at “management,” and the White House is a puppet on a string, not actually “leading” anything, so the secret mandarins are not alone in their high treason. They do, however, have the power to heal themselves, and if there were ever a starting point within government (as opposed to electoral reform imposed from outside), intelligence leadership — real authentic leadership rooted in principle — would be that starting point.
See Also:
2009 Intelligence for the President–AND Everyone Else
2014 Robert Steele On Defense Intelligence – Seven Strikes
2014 Steele on Intelligence in Ecuador (English)
2014 Robert Steele Applied Collective Intelligence
Robert Steele: Rebuilding National Intelligence – A 12-Step Plan
