Our 'Cooperative' Intelligence Environment

After September 11, 2001, we were informed that - among other failures - the various intelligence agencies wouldn't play with each other. To overcome the competitiveness and bad behavior, we saw a massive reorganization of government, the creation of the spendy new Department of Homeland Security. When that still was not enough we created the an intelligence czar, gave him a staff, and the keys to the kingdom. Surely, the United States now has the best organized, smoothest function, state of the art, intelligence system in the world. Guess again.

I couldn't stop my jaw from dropping when I read the headline Seeking Iran Intelligence, U.S. Tries Google.

Yes comrades - GOOGLE!

Why, pray tell, is the U.S. State Department using google to determine who should go in the UN draft of sanctions on Iraq by doing google searches? Well, because they requested a list of Iranians connected with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program from the CIA, but the CIA refused to give them a list. The CIA was too busy, and didn't want to share their sources with the folks at State.

Throwing up their hands, the task of coming up with a list of names was turned over to a "junior Foreign Service officer." Whether the officer was told to go search google, or whether that was his/her own creative solution, or whether such a procedure is common, is up for grabs. Regardless, searching under terms like "Iran and nuclear," he or she winnowed out a list of individuals and companies to put on the list. The consequences of the list are significant - bans on international travel and business.

Of course, the CIA scoffs at the list, and says that none of the listed are credible. You can see them thumbing their noses and making donkey ears with their hands as they issue their proclamation.

A senior administration official acknowledged that the back-and-forth with the CIA had been difficult, especially given the administration's desire to isolate Iran and avoid a repeat of flawed intelligence that preceded the Iraq war.

"In this instance, we were the requesters and the CIA was the clearer," the official said. "It's the process we go through on a lot of these things. Both sides don't know a lot of reasons for why either side is requesting or denying things. Sources and methods became their stated rationale and that is what they do. But for policymaking, it can be quite frustrating."

Well, it may be "frustrating" for them, but it burns me. We - the tax payers - are spending BILLIONS of dollars on "intelligence," purportedly aimed at ensuring the safety of the United States (us folks). We have watched the shredding of the Constitution and our protections from government abuse for the elusive claim of "safety."

On the other hand, we have those individuals who variously get identified as "threats" to national security which then subjects those so identified to a panoply of harm. Based on what? A GOOGLE search?

While State and the CIA apparently won't work cooperatively, the "diplomats" at the UN are much more agreeable: "The real scope of debate will be on the number of sanctions," one diplomat said. "Companies and individuals could go off the list or go on."

Maybe their google search was different. Or maybe they used a different search engine.

[Note: Nothing against google in any of this. I think it is an excellent search engine and use it all the time. However, I would think that our government had a more sophisticated and targeted "tool"]

Posted by rowan at December 13, 2006 6:25 AM | [eMail this article!] |