Captain Obvious testifies before Congress
Panel tells congress intelligence needs re-vamping, sky reported to be blue
Seriously though the problem is that people do not understand what intelligence is. Intelligence doesn't give answers. It gives probabilities and possibilities. Intelligence briefs are loaded with comments such as, "it is likely" or "it is plausible that" or "according to reliable sources such and such MAY..."
If you had asked the intelligence community, "Is it possible for a terrorist group to hijack planes and use them to bring down a building?" They would have said, "Yes, definetely." If you had said, "Is it probable that they will attempt to do so." They would probably have said, "Maybe." Than you have to recognize that you've got a community not a single organization you're asking. So you get 6 "Maybe yes" 2 "Maybe No" 1 "Probably" and 1 "Probably not."
How do you decide which to go with? The 6 "Maybe Yes?" votes? what if "Probably" tells you they have a "reliable source?" But "Maybe No" has what they call "technical means".
That's why ultimately the fate rests in the hands of the decision makers. All intelligence can do, is provide some reasonable guesses. Then policy makers will choose one. It doesn't mean that the intelligence is flawed. It doesn't mean that the intelligence has been manipulated. What it means is that the system works the way its supposed to. Possibilities are suggested. There are never any smoking guns. People in this country apparently claim to want an intelligence service that will keep them safe always, know everything, and always be prepared. You can have one of those if you want them. But to get it, you don't need a National Intelligence Director, you need a Reichsfuhrer.
Seriously though the problem is that people do not understand what intelligence is. Intelligence doesn't give answers. It gives probabilities and possibilities. Intelligence briefs are loaded with comments such as, "it is likely" or "it is plausible that" or "according to reliable sources such and such MAY..."
If you had asked the intelligence community, "Is it possible for a terrorist group to hijack planes and use them to bring down a building?" They would have said, "Yes, definetely." If you had said, "Is it probable that they will attempt to do so." They would probably have said, "Maybe." Than you have to recognize that you've got a community not a single organization you're asking. So you get 6 "Maybe yes" 2 "Maybe No" 1 "Probably" and 1 "Probably not."
How do you decide which to go with? The 6 "Maybe Yes?" votes? what if "Probably" tells you they have a "reliable source?" But "Maybe No" has what they call "technical means".
That's why ultimately the fate rests in the hands of the decision makers. All intelligence can do, is provide some reasonable guesses. Then policy makers will choose one. It doesn't mean that the intelligence is flawed. It doesn't mean that the intelligence has been manipulated. What it means is that the system works the way its supposed to. Possibilities are suggested. There are never any smoking guns. People in this country apparently claim to want an intelligence service that will keep them safe always, know everything, and always be prepared. You can have one of those if you want them. But to get it, you don't need a National Intelligence Director, you need a Reichsfuhrer.
<< Home