| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Soldiers Shut Out the CIA |
| 2005-04-22 |
| April 21, 2005: The U.S. Department of Defense is no longer sharing information, regarding its foreign spies, with the CIA. Years ago, because the CIA recruited the majority of foreigners as agents and sources, it established the InterSource Registry. All other branches of the U.S. government that hired foreigners for intelligence work had to register the agent with the CIA's InterSource Registry. This was so that the CIA would not try to recruit the same source for the same work, or if the CIA did, it would be done on purpose. But the military never trusted the CIA with this information, and are now able to ignore the InterSource Registry, and instead log in the new agent with a Department of Defense database called J2X. If the CIA thinks they have a problem with a foreigner they are hiring, or have hired, they can ask the Pentagon to check their J2X list. But there's more to all this. The Department of Defense never got the kind of intelligence services they expected, or needed, from the CIA, and have been gradually increasing their own intelligence capabilities. In Afghanistan and Iraq, military intelligence operators have been hiring thousands of local agents (as informants, spies, or armed mercenaries), and have a better idea of what's going on at the ground level than the CIA does. The Pentagon does not want the CIA people to come in and screw up their agent networks. So the InterSource Registry is out, and Department of Defense control of their own foreign spies is in. The new DNI (Director of National Intelligence) is already being lobbied by the CIA to get the Pentagon to resume using the InterSource Registry. That's going to be a tough sell, as the Pentagon has been able to go straight to the top to get permission for J2X. The attitude appears to be, if the CIA won't do the job for the Pentagon, then let the Pentagon do it for themselves. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #23 I'm typing without benefit of coffee, so I'm spacing out. CID=Criminal Investigation Division, Scotland Yard. Now I'll go clear my head with a chapter of Commander Gideon. |
| Posted by: mom 2005-04-22 9:17:40 PM |
| #22 Too True: Thanks. CID is also a name for Scotland Yard. |
| Posted by: mom 2005-04-22 9:15:35 PM |
| #21 LDS = Latter Day Saints (Mormons) DIA = Defense Intelligence Agency CID = Criminal Investigtion Division (at least in the US Army that's what it means ....) |
| Posted by: too true 2005-04-22 9:12:58 PM |
| #20 I got lost in the alphabet soup. CID is Scotland Yard? or something else? And what are LDS and DIA? The comparison of the CIA to the Jesuits doesn't hold up, according to your comments above. The Jesuits got in trouble sometimes for being innovative and willing to buck tradition; and I gather from your comments that we cannot accuse the CIA of being innovative. They sound more like the Chicago Machine. |
| Posted by: mom 2005-04-22 9:04:18 PM |
| #19 Sounds right, SPoD. They always go in pairs, and wear those lovely dark suits -- or at least that's how it's shown on television. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-04-22 7:51:16 PM |
| #18 No the FBI are LDS, Thats how they earned the name "Mormon Mafia." |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-04-22 7:41:10 PM |
| #17 ROFL! This can go anywhere from here, lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-04-22 7:35:24 PM |
| #16 No, the OSS are Snake Handlers, the CID are LDS. |
| Posted by: Col Flagg 2005-04-22 7:31:11 PM |
| #15 That would make the CID Snake Handlers? |
| Posted by: Gaia 2005-04-22 7:30:02 PM |
| #14 Uh oh... Lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-04-22 7:01:33 PM |
| #13 Not ironically, US intelligence agencies can be looked at in much the same way as monastic orders in the Catholic church. The CIA are much like the Jesuits, the FBI like the Dominicans, the State Department are like the Benedictines, the DIA are like the Franciscans, and the NSA are like the Carthusians. When looked at in depth, the comparisons are almost eerie. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-04-22 6:59:02 PM |
| #12 In net warfare the CIA represents more of an impedement than a help. The CIA has a major transformation in store for it. But, until then, peoples' lives get lost while waiting for the catch up. |
| Posted by: Dennis Kucinich 2005-04-22 3:41:56 PM |
| #11 The CIA can't be reformed. Shut it down. Start over. |
| Posted by: thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-22 2:53:34 PM |
| #10 Lead, Follow, or Get the hell out of the way. |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-04-22 2:39:03 PM |
| #9 Col. Flagg, call your office! |
| Posted by: Fred 2005-04-22 1:10:19 PM |
| #8 Nah, Pappy, that's just what they'd expect you to think. I think. Well, maybe. Shit, now my head hurts... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-04-22 11:33:44 AM |
| #7 Hey Old Spook - I've always ment to tell you I'm up in Palmer Lake. Drop a line if you want to meet for lunch sometime. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2005-04-22 11:28:06 AM |
| #6 If the CIA were being successful, it would be best to establish a cover story that they were not. Somehow, their track record does not seem like a cover story, but perhaps they are much better than we think. Unless in actuality they really are incompetent. In which case a cover story about them being incompetent would make people think they're successful... My head hurts. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-04-22 11:22:21 AM |
| #5 "The Department of Defense never got the kind of intelligence services they expected, or needed, from the CIA" And this is the crux of the problem. During the Cold War, the CIA had its own mission, and would do things for the DoD when convenient, which was fairly frequent through the 1980's. It was set up to fight a monolithic opponent that branched out from a core nation-state to client states, with large conventional armies and the large number of bureaucrats needed by the communist system. Those conditions don't exist anymore. When the SU disintegrated and we won the cold war, people started scrambling for job security. The "cover your ass" way of doing things that was brewed in the 1970's in the analysis branch, spread in the 90's to become a way of life for the entire agency. Apparently nobody is willing to go counter to the bureaucracy and orthodoxy inside CIA. People that do get passed over for promotions, or get called to task for doing things that might call down a Congressional Investigation. The place became as compliant as the old Soviet Politburo. You either went along, or you were out. All the directors, starting with the ones under GHW Bush, through to Tenant resisted all the needed changes. Because they would have had to clean house, and had a decade of rot to clean up. Politcally its very messy. If you think otherwise, look at all the "leaking" of absolute bullshit info that happened against Bush by people during the campaign, leaks from "highly placed CIA officals" and other similarly unnamed sources. They knew what was coming if Bush was reelected and if Bush stands by his guns. Given Bush's lukewarm performance defending the Bolton nomination and the spineless Republican performance in the senate on the judicial nominations, a lack of courage to carry though ones political conventions may eventually doom the needed cleanup and reform of the CIA. Its not a done deal in spite of Mr Goss's initial attempts. Goss is doing what needs to be done, but even there, he is fighting a hard tide of an agency that is no longer comitted to its mission, but instead is comitted to its entrenched way of doing things and protecting its bureaucrats. Some of this is the fault of the type of people CIA moved up during the 1990's - political hacks and yea-men, people more dedicated to their career than supporting the cause of freedom and defense of the nation. As for the military setting up their own HUMINT networks... I cannot blame the military, they are doing what they are supposed to do: fight and win the wars that ensure the safety of our nation. Its a shame they have to fight the CIA as part of this. The good thing is they are able to get such an effort up and running quickly, apparently producing a decent amount of intel of sufficient quality for their analysts to be able to help the warfighters. (sarcasm) Yep - supporting the warfighters. You know, the guys at the sharp end of the stick? What a novel concept. Its so retro, so "80's" ... (/sarcasm ) Disclaimer: I am not now an employee of the CIA or its contractors. However, I have done recent contract work for a government customer assoicated with the Department of Defense, so there may be bias in that direction. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-04-22 11:16:37 AM |
| #4 If the CIA were being successful, it would be best to establish a cover story that they were not. Somehow, their track record does not seem like a cover story, but perhaps they are much better than we think. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-04-22 10:46:38 AM |
| #3 The CIA, as an institution, learned its lesson in the 1970s: Any sign of effectiveness against the enemies of the US will result in the Democrats gutting them. So we have the CIA of today, which spends more time cooking up leaks and phony scandals about the President than it does figuring out what's going on in the world. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-04-22 10:41:48 AM |
| #2 I'm curious about your (you guys) opinion of the CIA. Do they really do anything worthwhile? If so what? etc... I don't know allot about it and grew up thinking they were bad asses but the more I read now, it sounds like they are jokes. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2005-04-22 10:31:14 AM |
| #1 The attitude appears to be, if the CIA won’t do the job for the Pentagon, then let the Pentagon do it for themselves. As it should be. Unresponsiveness on the part of a government agency shouldn't have to result in an "Oh well..." moment. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-04-22 10:18:29 AM |