Author Topic: Intelligence Analysis (Read 558 times)

Sandman · « **on:** September 18, 2001, 06:17:00 PM »

If you're tired of listening to the "experts" that the networks trot out on television, try www.stratfor.com

There's a good article titled No Easy Battle that is quite interesting.

leonid · « **Reply #1 on:** September 18, 2001, 07:58:00 PM »

Excellent article, Sandman. Thanks for the link. I certainly hope the USA takes a more counterintelligence approach in the long run. It's the only way we're going to effectively combat terrorist groups. Maybe the Russians will be able to help us with intelligence. They are pretty good at it.

leonid · « **Reply #2 on:** September 18, 2001, 11:33:00 PM »

Wow, Sandman, this is really a good site. I think I'm going to subscribe for it even.

Toad · « **Reply #3 on:** September 19, 2001, 12:05:00 AM »

Yes, it makes some good points. I agree with most of it.

It left out one important word, however.

"Yet."

As in : "It is a conflict that does lend itself to intelligence technology, but it ultimately turns on patience, subtlety and secrecy, none of which are America's strong suits." Yet.

or: " But as the events of the last few days have shown, this is not a strength of the American intelligence community." Yet.

The U.S. in all it's history has rarely, if ever, been truly prepared to fight the war in which it found itself involved.

However, while we historically get off to a rather slow start, we seem to gather momentum very quickly once we, as a nation, determine to win. We do have a reputation for finding a way to get the job done.

So, while I think the article is an accurate presentation of the situation, I'm not sure it will be so accurate 3 years down the road.

We'll learn how to "follow the money". We'll learn how to detect the "cells".

We have to; there's no other option, really. These guys can't be pacified and they won't quit.

leonid · « **Reply #4 on:** September 19, 2001, 12:51:00 AM »

Toad, I agree that the USA will have to step up to the occasion. But, this is an intelligence site, and speculation has to be grounded on acceptable probability, not patriotic fervor. I certainly hope that the USA can make the change in this newest of wars, I really do, but it will be quite a jump for our society. However, like you said, we've done it in the past, we could do it again. Here's two of us hoping ...

Hangtime · « **Reply #5 on:** September 19, 2001, 12:53:00 AM »

What we need is the FULL co-operation of the coalition members AND their intelligence services... which happens to be MUCH better able to give us the data on where the rats are..

.. so we can do what WE have to do. Which is smite the rat bastards right in their holes.

Gonna have to be a team effort.. and if we have to apply pressure to *ahem* 'coalition' governments that are talkin outta both side of their mouths by suspending our loans to them, callin in debts, restricting trade, slappin on tarrifs, embargoing or blocaking their trade with 'suspect' nations, then gawdammit, lets get it done.

The bad guys and the nations that harbor them need to be ISOLATED. That ain't gonna happen untill we MAKE it happen. France and Germany; to name but a few, are not gonna VOULANTARILY halt trade with those nations...

Time to show 'em all we got the the Big Stick.. The United States Navy can do this job right NOW.

Toad · « **Reply #6 on:** September 19, 2001, 01:00:00 AM »

It's merely a "snapshot" intelligence brief. It states the current situation as they see it. It really isn't all that much different than what the talking heads have been saying on the tube.

"It's going to be a long campaign. It's going to be tough to locate the terrs. It's going to be tough to fight with long supply lines. We need allies. Ground troops may not be the best method."

I didn't see any incredible insights that haven't at least been touched on in the mass media.

Did you find any "bona fides" on the folks that own the site? What makes them the ultimate reference? As I said, it looks pretty decent, but I don't see all that much difference in what the tube is spewing.

It's an assessment. Sounds logical and reasonable. It doesn't, as far as I can see, make any attempt extrapolate into the future.

It's not patriotic fervor. It's simply fact. We get better or we lose.

History is on our side. We usually start at an immense disadvantage and get up to speed relatively quickly.

leonid · « **Reply #7 on:** September 19, 2001, 12:15:00 PM »

Sorry, Toad, I never meant to imply that stratfor's assessment was in any manner above and beyond what other agencies/people are talking about. Nor did I state that their article was some sort of template for the next decade. All the article stated was where we stood right now, given our history, and given the nature of this new war. I agree, if we're going to win we will have to make the changes implied in the article. I did read some other articles at this site, and that is why I wanted to subscribe. They appear very well informed, and seem to have put a lot of time into good assessments of different global areas. I have no idea how they stack up to Jane's, but stratfor's content looks good. If the media seem to be pushing out the same material, then that's just a promising trend for the TV folks as far as I'm concerned. Good, accurate information doesn't need to be elitist, right?

Dowding · « **Reply #8 on:** September 19, 2001, 12:33:00 PM »

Quote

That ain't gonna happen untill we MAKE it happen. France and Germany; to name but a few, are not gonna VOULANTARILY halt trade with those nations...

Time to show 'em all we got the the Big Stick.. The United States Navy can do this job right NOW.

You are joking, right?

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]