Friday, January 30, 2004
David Frum's Diary on Intel
David Frum's Diary on National Review Online
A very smart reader of Frum's sends him an e-mail that seems to pierce the heart of the matter regarding the state of intelligence and Bush's reaction to it.
“In your NRO Diary entry for today, you wonder why the President did not -- and does not --houseclean at the CIA in light of the intelligence failures with respect to Iraq.
“(1) I've noticed that George Bush seems to highly prize loyalty, and to reward or try to buy same with very tolerant support. I seem to recall a lot more disloyalty and movement of top people in and out of previous Administrations. Is it possible Mr. Bush has a bit of a blind spot, in the sense that he doesn't fully understand people who can work for him while, so to speak, also working against him?
“(2) Is it not also possible that the ‘failure’ of intelligence in Iraq, and even pre-9/11, is much less significant than it is commonly painted? Perhaps our general expectations of what ‘intelligence’ can do are systematically overheated.
...
“My point is not to fling contempt on the intelligence community, but to point out that when it functions as we expect -- nay demand -- it will routinely provide threat estimates which are exaggerated, and regularly provide threat estimates which do so wildly.
“To make exact threat estimates requires either a time machine, so you can take advantage of the hindsight the President's critics are all indulging in so shamelessly, or else unbelievably precise knowledge of those very activities which our enemies are willing to invest the most in hiding.
“And, at some point, although is not germane to the main issues above, you have to point out that those who claim not to be our enemies have a responsibility to make -- or at least a vested interest in making -- their pacific intentions crystal clear. When a policeman yells 'Freeze! Police!' at someone running down the road, it's not unreasonable to expect that person to understand he should avoid
suddenly reaching into his jacket pocket, even if it's just to get out his handkerchief or cell phone. We don't expect the cops to be mind-readers and know it isn't a gun. We expect innocent people to cooperate in making their innocence clear.”
What important is that we thought Saddam had weapons, not just neocons, but practically the entire world intelligence community, and he did not allow inspections to prove his innocense. The one to blaim for the Iraq War is Saddam and no one else. He murdered tens of thousands and perpetuated an image of a thug; to do so is to court danger. Blame evil for its own mistakes, don't blame justice for giving evil what it deserves.
A very smart reader of Frum's sends him an e-mail that seems to pierce the heart of the matter regarding the state of intelligence and Bush's reaction to it.
“In your NRO Diary entry for today, you wonder why the President did not -- and does not --houseclean at the CIA in light of the intelligence failures with respect to Iraq.
“(1) I've noticed that George Bush seems to highly prize loyalty, and to reward or try to buy same with very tolerant support. I seem to recall a lot more disloyalty and movement of top people in and out of previous Administrations. Is it possible Mr. Bush has a bit of a blind spot, in the sense that he doesn't fully understand people who can work for him while, so to speak, also working against him?
“(2) Is it not also possible that the ‘failure’ of intelligence in Iraq, and even pre-9/11, is much less significant than it is commonly painted? Perhaps our general expectations of what ‘intelligence’ can do are systematically overheated.
...
“My point is not to fling contempt on the intelligence community, but to point out that when it functions as we expect -- nay demand -- it will routinely provide threat estimates which are exaggerated, and regularly provide threat estimates which do so wildly.
“To make exact threat estimates requires either a time machine, so you can take advantage of the hindsight the President's critics are all indulging in so shamelessly, or else unbelievably precise knowledge of those very activities which our enemies are willing to invest the most in hiding.
“And, at some point, although is not germane to the main issues above, you have to point out that those who claim not to be our enemies have a responsibility to make -- or at least a vested interest in making -- their pacific intentions crystal clear. When a policeman yells 'Freeze! Police!' at someone running down the road, it's not unreasonable to expect that person to understand he should avoid
suddenly reaching into his jacket pocket, even if it's just to get out his handkerchief or cell phone. We don't expect the cops to be mind-readers and know it isn't a gun. We expect innocent people to cooperate in making their innocence clear.”
What important is that we thought Saddam had weapons, not just neocons, but practically the entire world intelligence community, and he did not allow inspections to prove his innocense. The one to blaim for the Iraq War is Saddam and no one else. He murdered tens of thousands and perpetuated an image of a thug; to do so is to court danger. Blame evil for its own mistakes, don't blame justice for giving evil what it deserves.
Comments:
Post a Comment
