Re - Intelligence, Iraq, and Terrorism

[JOSIAH T REDFORD]

Hello everyone,

First of all, I want to thank everyone for their responses.  It has 
given me a frame of reference to explain my point.  I have decided to 
address each response within this email by taking the most potent 
observations from those that responded to build my argument.

Josiah Redford writes:
>   When thinking of the Intelligence "failures" in Iraq, a glaring fact
>   becomes obvious regarding terrorism.  Terrorism exists because of the
>   loopholes in Intelligence.

Hardly. This is not a fact, and therefore is not obvious and is far less
than glaring.  --Andy Grudko

You are correct.  It seems that I over generalized.  In the future I 
will be more forthcoming in my arguments, however, allow me to 
explain what I was getting at.  If I could write my email over I 
would have titled it, "The Relationship Between Terrorism and 
Intelligence", because this is the thrust of my position.  Therefore, 
I would have worded the above a bit differently.  For example, 
Terrorism and Intelligence are joined like the yin and the yang.  The 
call for better intelligence is a recognition of this because it 
recognizes the slipperyness of terrorism, however, it may be naive 
because Terrorism changes as intelligence does.  In order to stop 
terrorism we must be aware of this relationship.  In my opinion, the 
central tenet of this relationship is ideology (please note, I do not 
specify the goodness or badness of this tenet in my original post, 
however, I do note that change is needed).  To me, this is why there 
can be a "war on terror".  Obviously, this is not a war in the 
classic sense.  It seems that this can only be a war of ideology, 
because this is how it is being framed by both sides.  However, my 
argument is that to stop terrorism this should not be the case, 
because ideology allows justification for all types of actions even 
terrorist ones, in my view, with little regard for the relationship 
between terrorism and intelligence.  Tactics are the main point of my 
argument, because once we view terrorism as an ideology instead of a 
tactic, intelligence responds accordingly.  This is what makes the 
Bush Doctrine so dangerous and why I tied terrorism, intelligence, 
and Iraq together. Furthermore, you are able to make the below 
statement because of this assumption.

Terrorism exists because individuals feel a need to resist an
overwhelmingly strong group that they see as an oppressor.
--Andy Grudko

However, I would like to ask a question.  Are there "terrorist 
groups" that operate just for profit?  Also, terrorists may proclaim 
that they are "resisting", but I feel that their motives are a bit 
more practical.  I feel that a major motive of terrorist groups is 
coersion, not resistance.  Most terrorist groups do not have the 
firepower or expertise to overthrow "an oppressor" without support. 
This is key to understanding the tactic of terrorism.  In the end, in 
order to ensure an end to the use of terrorism we must analyze what 
makes it desirable.  Remember, Al Capone was brought in under tax 
evasion charges, and RICO has played an important role in stifling 
organized crime.  Ultimately, changes to law and custom such as these 
are the best method to prevent or minimize the use of terrorism.

I am truly confused by Mr. Redford's comments on intelligence and ideology.
Was not the Soviet (and its allies') empire, and thus intelligence, often run
thru a prism of ideology?  Was not the German invasion of the Soviet Union
enhanced by an ideological straining of intelligence by Stalin and his minions?
--Tom McNiff

I was trying to state that because of these ideological battles of 
intelligence, terrorism became a more attractive tactic, and hence 
state support is born.  However, when the Cold War ended, many 
terrorist groups were left to become self sufficient, and without a 
cause.

Is Mr. Redford suggesting that the governments of the West start selecting
intelligence officers who have a mandatory good grounding in Western ideology,
be it religious or secular? That informative date gathered by humint or
mechanical methods be filtered thru biblical or tract writings for
correctness before being sent on to policy makers?--Tom McNiff

Not at all, what I am suggesting is that we view the information 
these agents gather differently.  Not as us against them, but as an 
understanding of why the information is occurring, meaning, what are 
the motives for the terrorist movements?  How is it related to 
intelligence?  As we know, any information is crucial to fighting 
terrorism, and in someway, it is a success for the intelligence 
community to gain info, but we must understand how the intelligence 
came to be gathered.  In other words, how have we cornered 
terrorists, etc. to reveal a small part of themselves?  By examining 
the techniques that intelligence uses and understanding the 
relationship between terrorism and intelligence we can focus on what 
works.  Furthermore, aren't officers already selected as such?

Aren't intelligence agents hired to defend the US Constitution and American
interests, which is an ideology, and a culture in itself, ...and thus there is
an inherent agenda by the CIA and other American intelligence agencies? If
not...would someone then discuss why intelligence agents are 
hired?--Diana Wilson

They should be hired to examine data and study the relationship 
between law and crime, in the case of terrorism.  However, to think 
that intelligence officers are necessary for security is incorrect. 
This assumption is based in the inherent dangers of democracy and 
should be recognized as such.  I say this with no disrespect to the 
"old schoolers" or "new schoolers", it is only my vision for the 21st 
century of intelligence.

More food for thought regarding Tom McNiff's posting:

Someone once told me that liberals democrats do not work for the CIA or DIA
or NSA because they are typically anti-security clearances and "tend to
favor countries that the U.S  consider our enemies - Russia, China, etc".
See what history showed the last 50 years--Mike Yared

May I suggest that his interesting discourse on the subject fails because his
basic premise is dead wrong.  Most experts on terrorism agree that most
international terrorism has developed within the ranks of Islamic
fundamentalists who believe that western democracy, with its 
freedoms, (particularly its freedom of religion, freedom of speech, 
and equality of the sexes)
poses a critical threat to their way of life and must be defeated at any cost.
The frequently misused example of covert intelligence assistance to the
Mujahedin in Afghanistan was not assistance to terrorists but rather
was support to a people who were trying to defend their homeland from 
a foreign takeover. It was an American policy reaction to Soviet 
expansionism. It is certainly true that later, many of the weapons 
provided to help fight the Russians ended up
in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists thus fueling international 
terrorism--Mike Levin

I would argue that this is exactly why my premise is right (see 
above), however, I must apologize for my inadequate first attempt to 
point this out.

Also, I would like to appologize for the length of my posting.  I 
hope you understand.  I look forward to your responses.  Thanks, 
again.

Josiah Redford

Intelligence Forum (http://www.intelforum.org) is sponsored by Intelligence
and National Security, a Frank Cass journal (http://www.frankcass.com/jnls/ins.htm)