One can argue it either way. If we insist on complete and total disclosure for conflict A then we may cripple our capacity to deal with conflict B. We’ll have given up sources and methods. And we’ll likely have made explicit what needed to be implicit.
Then again, if we’d admitted we had no idea who or what blew up the Maine, or been explicit about the aims of the Mexican War, we might have skipped both those wars. Skipping the first would have more likely forestalled Communist influence in Cuba and even Japanese aggression in the Far East. Skipping the Mexican War would mean the US would stop at the Texas-New Mexico border.
Well, for me the US is California, Las Vegas, several Chicago restaurants, New York City and Austin, but with that last only out of sentimentality. Probably not really workable borders.
I’m fine with my representatives being briefed. I’d separate the evidence from the argument. People don’t know how to evaluate intelligence evidence, including me. But the citizens should be able to know whether the argument for war is compelling. I want our representatives to be in a position to know whether the argument arises from the evidence.
How many times have we gone to war based on secret information? How many of those have advanced our interests versus damaged them?
To be honest I question whether it is worthwhile to even bother gathering intelligence, because on the odd occasion it happens to be correct our political leaders have typically ignored it. What is certain is that the guys gathering and analyzing this data are no smarter or wiser than we are, and all too often are a bunch of weirdos.
Have we ever? I mean solely based on classified information. That Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese was not a secret. Nor was the lengthy conflict going on in Europe in the teens of the last century.
It seems to me that Syria is really quite different.
No, of course not. There is no excuse for going to war to defend a country that, when not hiding the truth from the populace, does all it can to invade its privacy.
I would say the invasion of Iraq was largely based upon classified info, and I think Vietnam counts too. How many people do you think knew how heavily we were involved in Vietnam during the 50s and early 60s?
I would say the invasion of Iraq was largely based upon classified info, and I think Vietnam counts too. How many people do you think knew how heavily we were involved in Vietnam during the 50s and early 60s?
There is a long tradition of policymakers acting as their own intelligence analysts. Most famous in the US was Doug Feith and his so-called “alternative” analysis of Iraqi WMD.
Where are the intel people here? There is Kerry as salesman and Clapper who should have resigned or been fired already. The only thing we have from the official intel community is the unclassified assessment plus all the leaked stuff. Added to that is information provided by the UK and French intel functions. But all of that is limited in that it simply discusses Syrian CW and attribution for the 21 August attack. There is nothing from the IC about the many claims made by Kerry and the administration regarding any of the other justifications for military action….
There are so many crisscrossed stories coming out of Syria, with no viable chain of command where it all started. Two detailed commentaries below demonstrate how there is good reason to question everything being asserted’
Kerry’s claims that there is parity between moderates and Islamic groups is being refuted by other intel and news being reported. In fact, many are saying that just in the last few months the composition of rebels has changed, with more Islamists beginning to make up the bulk of the Free Syrian Army and fewer moderates.
A report by French news correspondent Etienne Monin from the Turkish-Syrian border on Tuesday stated that the Free Syrian Army is cooperating closely with the jihadist rebels.
The report published by France Info Online, the website of Radio France, quoted a rebel as saying “the Islamic State is now very powerful in [Aleppo]. It is imposing order and security. No one is attempting to counterbalance its rule.â€
The group’s formal name is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, an al Qaeda offshoot controlling regions of northern and eastern Syria. The group is made up of mainly foreign jihadists and is currently at odds with al-Nusra Front, Syria’s other al Qaeda affiliate.
The report stated that the Free Syrian Army “operates with the jihadi groups on the ground.â€
Andy- I think the priors matter here. First, Syria is one of a small group of countries that has chemical weapons. Next, killing that many people with chem weapons takes some skill and resources. Do the rebels have that? Last, if the jihadists got chemical weapons, do you really think civilians in Syria would be their first target?
Fuck if I know. The leadership of both parties have been corrupted with this interventionist crap, so they’ll do what they want regardless of what “little people” like us think. Interesting to see the Tea Party caucus put their money where their mouths are in bucking the trend.
Last, if the jihadists got chemical weapons, do you really think civilians in Syria would be their first target?
It would be if their goal was to draw the US into the fight.
Generally I am wary of attempts to understand the motives of jihadists. I think they usually can play the “heads I win, tails you lose” game well.
In this case, no one else’s motive seems to make sense (well, unless you get conspiratorial and consider Israel.). Why would Assad have crossed the red line? What did he stand to gain, and what if anything did he gain, by killing those civilians, if in fact he ordered it?
“It would be if their goal was to draw the US into the fight.”
Unfortunately, this is plausible. It sure makes one wonder if all that “classified information” really needs to be that classified. I wonder if keeping it so is really all about protecting sources.
IMO the evidence the Obama administration is counting on to sway those opposed to his military intervention is by a deluge of presidential speeches and interviews, as well as playing on people’s heart strings by showing graphic video footage of the alleged victims of chemical attacks.
I agree with you. But Secretary Kerry goes far beyond that. I’ll focus on two of many assertions which are not backed by any official intelligence at all:
1. This, or any strike, will have the desired political effect of deterring Assad from further attacks (assuming that is the actual goal, which isn’t exactly clear at this point).
2. That the response to this strike will be limited or non-existent. The premise that we can attack Syria and suffer no tactical, operational or strategic downsides. The point I’ve made before is that the US is too accustomed to employing force with little regard to potential consequences. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, the Russians could not be more clear in their opposition. Syria is not merely a compliant government who buys Russian weapons – they are a client state, yet this fact is ignored.
The debate focuses on attribution and whether the regime is guilty and not on the effects of our various courses of action. In Iraq, that is really what bit us in the ass – the wishful thinking on consequences of action and dire predictions of the consequences of inaction. This military got stuck eating that shit-sandwich before which is one reason why the DoD is so obviously against the proposed military action in Syria.
One can argue it either way. If we insist on complete and total disclosure for conflict A then we may cripple our capacity to deal with conflict B. We’ll have given up sources and methods. And we’ll likely have made explicit what needed to be implicit.
Then again, if we’d admitted we had no idea who or what blew up the Maine, or been explicit about the aims of the Mexican War, we might have skipped both those wars. Skipping the first would have more likely forestalled Communist influence in Cuba and even Japanese aggression in the Far East. Skipping the Mexican War would mean the US would stop at the Texas-New Mexico border.
Wait a minute. You mean it doesn’t?
Well, for me the US is California, Las Vegas, several Chicago restaurants, New York City and Austin, but with that last only out of sentimentality. Probably not really workable borders.
I’m fine with my representatives being briefed. I’d separate the evidence from the argument. People don’t know how to evaluate intelligence evidence, including me. But the citizens should be able to know whether the argument for war is compelling. I want our representatives to be in a position to know whether the argument arises from the evidence.
How many times have we gone to war based on secret information? How many of those have advanced our interests versus damaged them?
To be honest I question whether it is worthwhile to even bother gathering intelligence, because on the odd occasion it happens to be correct our political leaders have typically ignored it. What is certain is that the guys gathering and analyzing this data are no smarter or wiser than we are, and all too often are a bunch of weirdos.
Have we ever? I mean solely based on classified information. That Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese was not a secret. Nor was the lengthy conflict going on in Europe in the teens of the last century.
It seems to me that Syria is really quite different.
No, of course not. There is no excuse for going to war to defend a country that, when not hiding the truth from the populace, does all it can to invade its privacy.
I would say the invasion of Iraq was largely based upon classified info, and I think Vietnam counts too. How many people do you think knew how heavily we were involved in Vietnam during the 50s and early 60s?
Steve
I would say the invasion of Iraq was largely based upon classified info, and I think Vietnam counts too. How many people do you think knew how heavily we were involved in Vietnam during the 50s and early 60s?
Steve
Read the following and tell me we can trust anything an intelligence officer tells us:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER
And here, another excellent example of my previous point: intelligence is ignored when our politicians don’t want to hear it:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/syria-crisis-usa-rebels-idINDEE98403F20130905
Note that Kerry references a report from neocon lunatic and warmonger Elizabeth O’Bagy for “evidence” that moderates are totally running the show.
Not exactly ringing endorsements.
Ben,
There is a long tradition of policymakers acting as their own intelligence analysts. Most famous in the US was Doug Feith and his so-called “alternative” analysis of Iraqi WMD.
Where are the intel people here? There is Kerry as salesman and Clapper who should have resigned or been fired already. The only thing we have from the official intel community is the unclassified assessment plus all the leaked stuff. Added to that is information provided by the UK and French intel functions. But all of that is limited in that it simply discusses Syrian CW and attribution for the 21 August attack. There is nothing from the IC about the many claims made by Kerry and the administration regarding any of the other justifications for military action….
Ben and Andy,
There are so many crisscrossed stories coming out of Syria, with no viable chain of command where it all started. Two detailed commentaries below demonstrate how there is good reason to question everything being asserted’
Obama’s missing link: no direct connection between Assad and gas attack.
High-level U.S. intelligence officers: Syrian Government didn’t launch chemical weapons
Then you have this piece voicing concerns about a strike possibly boosting Syria’s Islamist rebels
Kerry’s claims that there is parity between moderates and Islamic groups is being refuted by other intel and news being reported. In fact, many are saying that just in the last few months the composition of rebels has changed, with more Islamists beginning to make up the bulk of the Free Syrian Army and fewer moderates.
Andy- I think the priors matter here. First, Syria is one of a small group of countries that has chemical weapons. Next, killing that many people with chem weapons takes some skill and resources. Do the rebels have that? Last, if the jihadists got chemical weapons, do you really think civilians in Syria would be their first target?
Steve
At this point, what possible difference does it make?
@Red
Fuck if I know. The leadership of both parties have been corrupted with this interventionist crap, so they’ll do what they want regardless of what “little people” like us think. Interesting to see the Tea Party caucus put their money where their mouths are in bucking the trend.
Last, if the jihadists got chemical weapons, do you really think civilians in Syria would be their first target?
It would be if their goal was to draw the US into the fight.
Generally I am wary of attempts to understand the motives of jihadists. I think they usually can play the “heads I win, tails you lose” game well.
In this case, no one else’s motive seems to make sense (well, unless you get conspiratorial and consider Israel.). Why would Assad have crossed the red line? What did he stand to gain, and what if anything did he gain, by killing those civilians, if in fact he ordered it?
“It would be if their goal was to draw the US into the fight.”
Unfortunately, this is plausible. It sure makes one wonder if all that “classified information” really needs to be that classified. I wonder if keeping it so is really all about protecting sources.
IMO the evidence the Obama administration is counting on to sway those opposed to his military intervention is by a deluge of presidential speeches and interviews, as well as playing on people’s heart strings by showing graphic video footage of the alleged victims of chemical attacks.
Remember that article by Elizabeth O’Bagy that Kerry referred to as justification for helping the rebels? Look who she’s taking money from:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324123004579058921260476280.html
Remember that article by Elizabeth O’Bagy that Kerry referred to as justification for helping the rebels? Look who she’s taking money from:
…the Syrian Emergency Task Force who supplies aid to the Syrian opposition.
Good catch, Ben. Do you think there might be a wee bit of conflict of interest there?
steve,
I agree with you. But Secretary Kerry goes far beyond that. I’ll focus on two of many assertions which are not backed by any official intelligence at all:
1. This, or any strike, will have the desired political effect of deterring Assad from further attacks (assuming that is the actual goal, which isn’t exactly clear at this point).
2. That the response to this strike will be limited or non-existent. The premise that we can attack Syria and suffer no tactical, operational or strategic downsides. The point I’ve made before is that the US is too accustomed to employing force with little regard to potential consequences. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, the Russians could not be more clear in their opposition. Syria is not merely a compliant government who buys Russian weapons – they are a client state, yet this fact is ignored.
The debate focuses on attribution and whether the regime is guilty and not on the effects of our various courses of action. In Iraq, that is really what bit us in the ass – the wishful thinking on consequences of action and dire predictions of the consequences of inaction. This military got stuck eating that shit-sandwich before which is one reason why the DoD is so obviously against the proposed military action in Syria.