Well, that clears that one up. I was baffled that someone like you, UT, might not know who he is. After all, you seem to be a pretty smart guy, even though I violent disagree with you on just about everything. I feel much better now. Thank you.;)

This CIA pro doesn't like the direction either. I hate it when these folks don't have guts enough to attach their names to their opinions.

There's a blender that's going to go though the CIA at head height over the next few months, I wouldn't put my name on it either.

It does back up my suspicions though, the intel guys thought Iraq was a bd idea, got steamrollered, complied and are not going to pick up all the flack to boot.

It's hopeful - he believes they attack us because of our policies and not simply who we are, so all we have to do is change our policies to be in line with what they want and we'll be fine.

Same for the Europeans, East Africans, Russians, Indians, etc. All they have to do is change their policies.

Just do what they say and nobody will get hurt!

Mistakes cited by some of us so far include
- arming and training them
- arming and training their opposition
- supporting their host goverment
- opposing their host government
- buying their product
- selling them our products
- treating them with respect and non-racist inclusion
- not leaving them completely the hell alone

Not following these approaches may lead to your fiery death or beheading -- but you will deserve it. Good luck

There may be one but I can't think of a terrorist movement crushed without first giving some concessions, can you think of one UT? He says it because he is better informed and has a btter understanding of terrorist groups, this terrorist phenomomen and geopolitics than you.

Lots of people don't take up arms without a reason. You think the US should be able to fuck with other countries with abandon and then acted shocked when they get pissed and get their own back

Easy enough to stop with the first four, at least.

Well lets face it, a policy of giving arms and support to any pliant government, no matter how despotic, how undemocratic, how cruel to it's people was going to backfire sooner or later. God forbid those sandniggers we push around actually get up and do something about it.

Ironically they've fucked it up to the point where they're about the only ones who can fix it.

nearly half of the intelligence community is on the dissenting side of every issue. that is the whole point of having many different backgrounds within an intel agency rather than hiring every one from one location or discipline.
there are a lot of papers that are going to float to the top in the near future as career bureaucrats see the opportunity to get a leg up. this is nothing new.

I don't think saying privately that you think this admin is wrong is going to be a good way to get anywhere fast, at least not before november.

Did you mean publically?

yes.
Furthermore I disagree with that statement, they're mostly pretty bright cookies, I doubt given access to the same information many would form opposing views.

In the Itel game there are no absolutes. Given the same set of data, they will probably come up with as many scenarios as to how it will play out, as there are spooks. ;)

But of course, the game is all about planning for every scanario, which is why the US has combat plans for infiltrating the hague or occupying Saudi Arabia but this is a situation where an assessment has to be made base don the availiable data and I get the hunch this guy represented the majority, the silent majority.

guess again. they specifically design teams to analyze the data so that they won't be cookie cutter. they want minimum 5 scenarios coming back from each set of data.
it's not much different than financial analysis, in fact, they pool many applicants from that industry.

in FA - give 1 company's (i'm talking about 1 that the jury is still out on of course) data to 5 different analysts and you will rarely get a unanimous opinion back.