4 ms·
Of course, the issue is that the intelligence community often assesses things as high probability when it later turns out 100% of that assessment was based on f
by stephen_g 4y ago
Of course, the issue is that the intelligence community often assesses things as high probability when it later turns out 100% of that assessment was based on faulty intelligence planted by an adversary (counterintelligence), or informants lied because they would be paid more for better-sounding intel, or a bunch of intelligence was just completely mis-interpreted by analysts, or the intelligence agency themselves just lied because it was politically useful and they haven’t faced real consequences even for directly lying to Congress…
- JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y agoThe point of my comment is that “intelligence community” is a euphemism for cabals of spooks - professional backstabbing liars. They are completely unreliable narrators and their word is not to be trusted. The quality of their supposed sources and supposed analyses is irrelevant.
- jonhohle 4y agoI’m not sure why this isn’t more accepted. There’s a meme which sums it up pretty succinctly: Sure the CIA did shady stuff in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, & 10s but they’re good now!
- JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y agoBecause they own the mass media: https://www.cnn.com/profiles/robert-baer-profile https://www.cnn.com/profiles/robert-baer-profile See also the Frank Snepp interview linked elsewhere in this thread.
- Enginerrrd 4y agoI mean, based on their stated confidence we'd expect them to be wrong at least 1 in 4.
- wrp 4y agoI think the main point here is that while faulty intel is always a risk, the biggest problem is willful misinterpretation. For how things played out in Vietnam, Frank Snepp's book seems to be the most well known, perhaps because it came out early. A more forceful account and criticism by a CIA field analyst is Sam Adam's War of Numbers (1995). (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2471957.War_Of_Numbers https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2471957.War_Of_Numbers)