The complacent and intellectually lazy dread controversy. Words and arguments that stir emotions and thought inevitably require further research, study, and discussion. Some senior members of the U.S. intelligence community are aware of this relationship, and so appear to avoid the resultant labor by issuing milquetoast findings crafted to avoid stirring even the most timid of souls. Charles Freeman's appointment as head of the National Intelligence Council could serve to at least begin addressing this problem.
You think I'm exaggerating? Consider the following gems. From the National Intelligence Council's (NIC) 2008 study titled Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, "By 2025 the U.S. will find itself as one of a number of important actors on the world stage, albeit still the most powerful one." Or, in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, "We...assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." And, from the 2006 NIE on Trends in Global Terrorism, "New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge."
Phrased more succinctly, what the intelligence community says above is: the world is going to change over the next 15 years, Iran may have developed a nuclear weapon during that time period, and Washington will continue to confront a terrorist threat with Islamic underpinnings. We can do better than this...and Charles Freeman is the right person for the job.
Freeman's penchant for supporting and espousing controversial ideas is well known. His decision--as director of the Middle East Policy Council--to publish John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's research on the Israel lobby has drawn repeated criticism. Freeman's statements on Israeli-Palestinian relations are frequently condemned. And his comments on China's reaction to the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising have been equally excoriated.
This tendency for creating controversy has certainly caught the attention of Freeman's Republican critics. Senator Chris Bond, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and his six Republican counterparts have gone so far as to publicly declare their "concerns about Mr. Freeman's lack of experience and uncertainly about his objectivity." These concerns, according to Bond and company could result in "even more oversight scrutiny to the activities of the NIC under his leadership."
Allow me to tackle these "concerns" in turn. As his public resume notes, Mr. Freeman's experience includes work with more than 100 foreign governments in East and South Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Europe. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d'Affaires in Bangkok and Beijing, Director of Chinese Affairs at U.S. State Department, and Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and the Institute of National Security Studies. I'll admit to being biased, but these seem like reasonable credentials for someone charged with heading the National Intelligence Council.
Now about that pesky issue of objectivity. I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but "facts" the intelligence community purports to provide decision and policy makers are often better characterized as opinions loosely assembled into authoritative-looking documents. After 20 years in the intelligence profession, I feel comfortable in arguing the data we work with is rarely anymore definitive than the sources employed by reporters working at newspapers or television stations across the United States. In some cases, it is less so.
Intelligence--be it gathered directly from humans, communications intercepts, or satellite imagery--is susceptible to manipulation and analyst interpretation. Humans lie, intercepted cell-phone conversations may be idle chatter between teenagers, and the camera can be fooled--particularly if your target knows they are being observed. Furthermore, unlike responsible reporters, intelligence analysts are not saddled with a requirement to produce at least two credible sources that corroborate the story.
What am I saying? Objectivity in the intelligence community is very subjective...it can sometimes depend on what the analyst, manager, or policy maker wants the data to say. The Bush administration certainly believed this, or Doug Feith would not have been dispatched to apparently "cherry pick" the mountains of data reportedly associated with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. As such, Mr. Freeman is not the only one whose objectivity is in question--the entire intelligence enterprise should be under this particular microscope.
Which brings us back to Senator Bond's declaration that Mr. Freeman's appointment could result in "even more oversight scrutiny to the activities of the NIC under his leadership." All I can say is, finally. If Mr. Freeman's appointment results in greater Republican--make that legislative--consumption of intelligence reporting than we all win. Better to have the reports read then skimmed, as was apparently the case with the 2002 NIE on Iraq's WMD programs. I also believe Americans are better served by a legislature that subjects intelligence sources and data to scrutiny then one that allows for cherry picking.
In short, the intelligence community needs Mr. Freeman. A controversial National Intelligence Council leader could ultimately cause intelligence reports to land back where they belong--in the middle of a decision and/or policy maker's desk. We may not all agree with Mr. Freeman's decisions or opinions over the last 40 years, but he is now poised to do this nation a great service--and petty nitpicking from disgruntled opponents should not be allowed to derail his selection.
“Paul McGeough’s Kill Khalid masterfully examines the Palestine-Israel war at the micro and macro levels. His detailed analysis of Israel’s attempt to MURDER Hamas chief Khalid Mishal is unlikely to be surpassed, but more important is his evaluation of the attack’s lasting consequences on Israel-Palestine affairs.
Here is McGeough’s key contribution: he provides an irrefutable picture of the zero-sum game that is the Israel-Palestine war.
He shows Fatah’s terminal, bone deep corruption and feckless leaders: the arrogant ignorance of US and Western Diplomats and the fool’s role they play in Palestinian and Israeli hands, the growth of Mishal’s political and Hamas’s military power which is obscured by wishful western thinking and Fatah’s slow death: and Israel’s implacable intent to destroy Palestine by whatever means necessary: starvation, steadily expanding settlements (73,000 new homes just announced by the way), military force, andor assassinations.
Above all McGeough illuminates the west’s bankrupt belief that the war is about democracy, nationalism or humanitarian issues. Kill Khalid indelibly proves that the war is about religion and power, and that it will not end until one or the other is the last man standing.
The world need's more like Scheuer I would have thought.
Baer also states clearly that the US does not want the truth about the wretched place laughingly called Israel.