Mar 26 2008
Precision Without Purpose Leads To Confusion
I have worked on Federal programs most of my life. And while the people in the federal government are nice, normal people just like the rest of us – the environment of government creates bad habits. We all know it burns out creativity and initiative (which are punished for being disruptive and disrespectful of others) and can create a lost of waste (as some people just sit and hold their spot so they can pull in a paycheck).
In the 20+ years I have worked for the federal government either things got worse or I rose high enough to get good view of how things don’t function well. But one thing is for sure, the government can make simple things very complex, and slice things so fine with ‘precision’ that the result is complete confusion. It is like trying to measure a football field to within a micrometer – it is precision without purpose.
So when I ran across this great article in the Weekly Standard on how a bureaucracy can create a report that claims Saddam had not ties to AQ but ties to AQ’s second in command I just had to shake my head in sad understanding.
THERE IS PERHAPS NO clearer example of why the U.S. intelligence community has such a serious credibility problem than the recently released report on the relationship between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and terrorist groups.
…
Anyone with a basic knowledge of Islamic terrorism who read the early headlines and then read the report cannot help but come away with a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism and had we not gone to war with Iraq after 9/11, it would still be a focal point in our fight against Islamic terror.
…
Nothing illustrates this more clearly than documents from Saddam’s own intelligence service, which confirm that the regime was funding the group Egyptian Islamic Jihad in the early 1990s. Led by Ayman al Zawahiri, the EIJ eventually morphed into what most observers call “core” al Qaeda. Zawahiri became al Qaeda’s second in command when
al Qaeda was formed in the late 1980s. Saying Iraq was not supporting al Qaeda, when there was no meaningful distinction between the EIJ and al Qaeda, strains credulity.
Therein lies the problem: this report–and every assessment dealing with intelligence or national security matters–is crafted with such extreme precision in an impossible quest to be “right” that they end up being absurdly wrong. This quest for false precision skews our understanding of very clear and simple truths. This is part of the reason why so many policymakers of all political persuasions hold intelligence in such disdain.
This is a problem that is endemic in the intelligence community and particularly bad in agencies that have taken a beating in recent years for providing incomplete information about the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD programs. To compensate, agencies caveat their work to the point that ten different people reading the same report will come away with at least nine different interpretations of the report’s findings. By not making unambiguous calls about what is known and more importantly what is unknown, intelligence agencies don’t serve their consumers; they confuse and infuriate them.
This is a great insight into why our intelligence is broken and misleading – read the whole thing and bookmark it. But I would go further – it is tentative precision. It has to be so bullet proof that no crack of doubt can be allowed to exist. I still see a fairly decent (not great) study of the paper trail supporting what was well known about Saddam’s ties to terrorists and his threat for future 9-11s. What I also see is a political hack adding in the ‘smoking gun’ line and then leaking it to a well established liberal mouthpiece in the so called news media.
But it is the precision without purpose (or value) that gave the political hack his or her opening. It was the inability to have enough confidence to put 2+2 together and say Saddam supported Zawahiri’s group, so there is little doubt (and no evidence) that those connections disappeared when Zawahiri integrates his group with al-Qaeda. It doesn’t sound like a big leap of logic, but to some in the government that kind of bold statement, since it has ramifications, is a horror to utter.
So what you get, instead, is all the non-controversial conclusions – like Saddam support Egyptian Islamic Jihad for over a decade. The problem is it is the controversial, disturbing news that is typically what leaders need to know to avoid a problem. No one likes to be accused of crying ‘wolf’, so they just keep to the easy and obvious. Sadly, dealing with terrorists like AQ is not going to be easy or obvious.
Hi AJ,
Whatever happened to that FISA bill? Has Pelosi succeeded
in killing it?
The House passed a dead-on-arrival version. My guess is in conference they hammer out something like the Senate version which Bush will sign.
Right now the bums are on “Easter Break” behind their security walls.
Good article… now imgaine the confusion the public is in once the news media does thier work to distort everything. This is why it’s critical we have a President who can actually speak.
Bush can speak. It’s just that the media types don’t like the message, hence they marginalize it.
There you go again Vince, demonstrating why there is no reason to try and please people who can’t ever be pleased. Why bother?
And why do you have to echo the liberal bashing of Bush? Think it helps the GOP and conservatives? Please don’t answer ‘yes’ – for your own sake.
AJStrata
Suppose #2 had all the fighters and bin Laden had the money so they got together calling the new organization al Queda.
AJ,
Is it possible that the “precision” could be used to distort or mislead? Intentionally?
Of course. But typically it just bureaucrats dodging responsibility. That is why the article struck home. It is a CYA move to avoid making the big conclusion. No one wants to lose their job.
“So what you get, instead, is all the non-controversial conclusions – like Saddam support Egyptian Islamic Jihad for over a decade.”
And to some it is “non-controversial” that America supported the precursors to Al Qaeda and the broader jihad movement when it
supported the Muslim militants who drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
Blowback time, guys & gals.
In the private sector we risk losing our jobs every day. My tax dollars pay their salaries I say they take that risk. Things really do need to change drastically.
AJ
FISA is scheduled to be back on the floor next week when Pelosi and the House return to session.
Truth,
Just like we teamed up with the Soviets to defeat Nazi Germany, only to have to face them later. Sometimes we are not given perfect choices.
truthbetold :
We never supported Bin Ladin or any of the groups that became Al Qaeda.
When are you leftists going to drop the false cliches?
There you go again Vince, demonstrating why there is no reason to try and please people who can’t ever be pleased. Why bother?
And why do you have to echo the liberal bashing of Bush? Think it helps the GOP and conservatives? Please don’t answer ‘yes’ – for your own sake.
I love how sensitive you are to criticism of Bush.. reveals you to be quite the Bushbot.
We can’t fight a war effectively if the CinC has only a 30% approval rating . I dont know why you think this is an acceptable situation but you do. The impact of this low approval is that our enemies are emboldened by it and our own military is not fighting with all the gusto it could if it had th ebacking of most of the country.
Instead we have a mute President. A steady stream of hate from the Democrats and a steady stream of lies from the media.
I think it’s appaling you would object to anyone not being happy with this.
AJ,
I think the president is just fighting against so many things right now (al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, Syria, the dems, the press, fighting in his own cabinet and inside own government) that dealing with this is probably not near the top of his priorities.
Thanks for linking me with the other post by the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden
The weight of the evidence says we did. Never fear, Israel also funded Hamas, to counter the PLO when Arafat was stronger. Then again, America was world-policing, Israel only nation-policing,–it has agents like Doug Feith to manipulate policy here. Wonder when he’ll be indicted like that alleged Hussein agent today?
truthbetold
I honestly do not give a rat’s azz if all that crap was true. I love America. It is by far the best there is…….mistakes and all.
Vince
Don’t get confused……….I’m the true Bushbot. Have I said lately how he is my verrrry favorite president? And I am old enough to have observed several. MSM created Bushworld and there was not a snowball chance of anything he could have said to change it. The Congress when it was Pug? Yep………..they could have changed this entire picture with a tiny dab of spine. Instead we had the Specters……….you know he was recently on TV holding up a picture where he was trying to show that the body language of Bush Sr (where supposely he was turning away) represented what he thought about Specter’s cancer. What a gem.
I dont trust wikipedia (of all things) for info on something as controversial as US support for Obama.
Obama has denied it.
Zarahiri as denied
The folks at the CIA who were in Pakistan at time cutting checks denied.
No one involved admits .. so where is the evidence? there is none.
Osama HATED the United States. Viewed us to be just as evil as teh Soviet Union was. He was fighting a religious war. what makes you think he would align himself with the forces of the devil while fighting in the cause of Allah.
You give yourself away as someone very ignorant of Islam and the motivations of Bin Ladin
owl: I dont care if someone supports Bush. I’m glad they do. All I’m saying is there is plenty of valid criticism against him.
Vince,
There’s always valid criticism for every President which is why I understand your frustration. Owl is much more moderate than you therefore he likes Bush’s policies more than you do. I on the other hand am quite conservative and even though there are things I wish Bush had done differently I happen to be proudest of Bush as a man.
A man who made the right decisions in the War on Terror and has stood firm in his resolve to see it through. In this day and age that means something. I don’t think there are many who could have withstood the onslaught of hatred directed at him over the years without modifying their views depending on which way the popular political winds were blowing.
We have a media that is the propaganda arm of the Democrat/Socialist/Communist Party and they have literally demonized the man. And many people like “truthbetold” lack the common sense to recognize propaganda when they see it.
The rest of us pick through what we read, mull it all over and decide if our President has done enough for each of us. It’s easy to second guess when we weren’t the ones making the decisions or knowing all of the details that we will never be privy to.
I’m satisfied because the Man had the balls to take on an enemy that others before him created and then feared. And he didn’t give a second thought, thank God, to the “truthbetolds” of the world.