Improved Intelligence?

That's the question I have after reading John Kringen's Washington Post op-ed. Frankly, I'm not certain that our intel-gathering capability is improved. Here's a little of what I mean:

CIA Director Porter Goss has encouraged innovation and creativity in how the CIA approaches its mission. In the DI, we have been diligent in integrating fresh thinking and new perspectives into our analysis. Our in-house training center, the Sherman Kent School, features lessons learned from the Iraq WMD case; they are part of tradecraft courses taken by our analysts, including every recruit entering the DI. Our newest analysts, and all first-line supervisors, also have completed classes on alternative analysis and other analytic techniques.

I don't expect them to talk about increasing the number of operatives in the field but doesn't this sound like it's all focused on the analysis end of things?

To be fair, though, it sounds like they're working at communicating with the various sections of the CIA, something that's definitely needed. One of the accusations against the entire intel community is that they didn't share intel with each other. Another fault laid at their feet is that they didn't listen to people not employed by their group. Here's a glimpse at their new efforts:

We have established analytic tradecraft units across the directorate, including the office drafting our WMD assessments, that promote the use of alternative and competitive analysis techniques. DI analysts routinely engage academics and outside experts, last year we did so about 100 times a month at conferences or informal meetings, to test hypotheses and minimize the potential for being ensnared by "groupthink." And we have a staff that routinely evaluates the quality of our assessments.

Let's just hope we'll wake up a decade from now, with America still not getting attacked since 9/11, and realize that Porter Goss instituted the right changes.

---

Posted Monday, April 3, 2006 8:04 AM

No comments.