The English Premier League 2006/07 season is over. Manchester United took the title from Chelsea, who were unable to win it three times in a row. Also, Clint Dempsey, formerly of the Revolution, kept his team Fulham FC in the Premiership by scoring the only goal of the game against Liverpool for a 1-0 win (Fulham avoided the drop by two points, so without the three points from Dempsey's goal, they'd be going down to the lower division). Man U and Chelsea also square off in the FA Cup final, this Saturday.
Here are ten of the best goals from the season:
An NIE on climate change?
Recently Congress (including my Representative, Ed Markey) has directed the Intelligence Community (IC) to write up a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on global climate change. Michael Tanji, at Haft of the Spear, thinks this is a dumb idea for the following reasons:
1) His first concern, that the IC would be re-issuing the IPCC report, is off-base because, as the text of the law says, the NIE will focus not on climate change itself, but on the geopolitical effects of climate change. The IC will prepare the NIE "using the mid-range projections of the fourth assessment report of the [IPCC]." This wouldn't be reinventing the wheel, it'd be building on it (if that metaphor makes any sense).
2) While certainly climate change exists over a period longer than thirty years, I don't think it's really plausible to try to plan more than thirty years ahead. In the last thirty years, we had five different presidents and ten different Directors of National Intelligence (counting the DCI as a DNI before the latter position existed). Given the lack of continuity in our government, plus the difficulty of predicting the different ways climate change could pan out in the future, I'd say even thirty years is optimistic.
3) All NIEs on politically sensitive issues have the potential to become political footballs, such as the NIE on Iraq's WMD programs. This is inevitable, but in my opinion shouldn't be a reason against doing the NIE in the first place.
4) An NIE really isn't a tool of statecraft the way I see it. The NIE should instead help Congress improve it's decisions when it comes to issues relating to climate change, as well as helping other departments, such as Commerce, Agriculture, etc., achieve "decision advantage"* over their competitors abroad.
5) I agree that issues like climate change need to be considered as part of country studies, etc., but when Congress is drafting legislation on climate change, they don't want to go through every single report the IC has to find the relevant bits on climate change - they want it all in one document.
All in all, I guess I really don't see anything wrong with the IC helping the President and Congress make better decisions when it comes to foreign policy even if those decisions aren't directed against other states or hostile organizations. Some will always say that climate change issues aren't the IC's "core competencies", but that ignores two things - a) in a constantly changing world, the IC's core competency (as far as analysis goes) should be learning rather than specific technical or analytical areas of expertise, and b) when the world changes, the IC needs to keep up; when one of the biggest threats to peace and security might be climate change, the IC needs to develop expertise in that area rather than hyping Chinese fighters 30 years behind our own.
* "Decision advantage" comes from this idea:
"‘Intelligence’ is best understood as the collection, analysis and dissemination of information by parties in conflict or competition. What turns the simple pursuit of information into the business of intelligence is its purpose: gaining competitive advantage over adversaries. This goal fuels the desire for specific, urgent and often secret knowledge as well as a systematic way of obtaining it in time to win the contest. Given that the context is competition, such ‘decision advantages’ can be acquired in two ways: by getting better information for one’s strategy than one’s opponents gain for theirs, or by degrading the competitors’ decision-making through denial, disruption, deception, or surprise." Jennifer Sims. "Intelligence to counter terror: The importance of
all-source fusion."
Trackback to Haft of the Spear.
First, if you trust the science the IPCC has already provided everyone with a comprehensive study of what climate change is doing to the planet. This is wheel reinvention.I disagree with Michael - I think an NIE on climate change is overdue. I'll answer his concerns point by point.
Secondly, in 30 years the world’s oceans are supposed to rise what, an inch? Six? Sub-Saharan Africa gets two degrees hotter? Ten? The timeframe is too short to make effective strategic assessments (had there been an NIE from the 70s when we thought the planet was freezing that would be a nice lesson-learned to use).
Third, even if it ends up being the world’s best friggin’ study on climate change, totally free of bias and objective to a fault, someone isn’t going to like it, they’ll leak it, and it’ll become a political football that renders effective decision-making impossible.
Fourth, of all the tools of statecraft one could employ to address climate change, intel is the least effective of them all. Where is Commerce? Justice? Agriculture? HHS? HUD? These are the elements that should be working up plans to be employed (or not) by potential expeditionary forces (a’la Barnett’s Dept. of Everything Else).
Finally, we already have studies on every country, every political party, every sub-state group, every key individual in the world; we are better off injecting the impact of climate change into standing scenarios to determine how people will react/decisions will be made/events that will be spawned.
1) His first concern, that the IC would be re-issuing the IPCC report, is off-base because, as the text of the law says, the NIE will focus not on climate change itself, but on the geopolitical effects of climate change. The IC will prepare the NIE "using the mid-range projections of the fourth assessment report of the [IPCC]." This wouldn't be reinventing the wheel, it'd be building on it (if that metaphor makes any sense).
2) While certainly climate change exists over a period longer than thirty years, I don't think it's really plausible to try to plan more than thirty years ahead. In the last thirty years, we had five different presidents and ten different Directors of National Intelligence (counting the DCI as a DNI before the latter position existed). Given the lack of continuity in our government, plus the difficulty of predicting the different ways climate change could pan out in the future, I'd say even thirty years is optimistic.
3) All NIEs on politically sensitive issues have the potential to become political footballs, such as the NIE on Iraq's WMD programs. This is inevitable, but in my opinion shouldn't be a reason against doing the NIE in the first place.
4) An NIE really isn't a tool of statecraft the way I see it. The NIE should instead help Congress improve it's decisions when it comes to issues relating to climate change, as well as helping other departments, such as Commerce, Agriculture, etc., achieve "decision advantage"* over their competitors abroad.
5) I agree that issues like climate change need to be considered as part of country studies, etc., but when Congress is drafting legislation on climate change, they don't want to go through every single report the IC has to find the relevant bits on climate change - they want it all in one document.
All in all, I guess I really don't see anything wrong with the IC helping the President and Congress make better decisions when it comes to foreign policy even if those decisions aren't directed against other states or hostile organizations. Some will always say that climate change issues aren't the IC's "core competencies", but that ignores two things - a) in a constantly changing world, the IC's core competency (as far as analysis goes) should be learning rather than specific technical or analytical areas of expertise, and b) when the world changes, the IC needs to keep up; when one of the biggest threats to peace and security might be climate change, the IC needs to develop expertise in that area rather than hyping Chinese fighters 30 years behind our own.
* "Decision advantage" comes from this idea:
"‘Intelligence’ is best understood as the collection, analysis and dissemination of information by parties in conflict or competition. What turns the simple pursuit of information into the business of intelligence is its purpose: gaining competitive advantage over adversaries. This goal fuels the desire for specific, urgent and often secret knowledge as well as a systematic way of obtaining it in time to win the contest. Given that the context is competition, such ‘decision advantages’ can be acquired in two ways: by getting better information for one’s strategy than one’s opponents gain for theirs, or by degrading the competitors’ decision-making through denial, disruption, deception, or surprise." Jennifer Sims. "Intelligence to counter terror: The importance of
all-source fusion."
Trackback to Haft of the Spear.
Revs beat Galaxy 3-2
Due to technical difficulties with the MLS website, I was unable to watch this game live. Here are the highlights:
Treat intelligence analysts like soccer stars!
From The Spy Gap, in Government Executive Magazine:
Could this work in the Intelligence Community? Maybe. Think of MLS as the Intelligenc Community, and "big clubs in Europe" as the beltway bandits.
Already agencies in the IC give out scholarships to students in exchange for a pledge to work a certain number of years for that agency. Why couldn't they do the same thing for the security clearance process and training? i.e., the CIA could say "if you get a security clearance, you have to work for us for five years."
This wouldn't solve the larger problem of poor management, especially at agencies like the DIA, that leads to the loss of much more experienced personnel (I'm taking Larry Johnson's word on this), and it wouldn't the problem of a lack of middle-aged analysts that the GovExec article talksa bout. But a lot of my friends are aiming to get internships and jobs not with the CIA, DIA, NSA or other agencies, but with contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton. Internships at the CIA and State Department are unpaid, whereas the internship with Booz Allen pays between $23 and $26 per hour. We'd be a lot less valuable to beltway bandits if we didn't have security clearances that we got from internships and short job stints with actual government agencies, and the IC would be better off if it was able to get the guaranteed benefit of, say, five years of work after giving us security clearances and training.
Or they could, ya know, pay people in the Intelligence Community competitive wages.
Tip o' the hat to Wired's blog "Danger Room."
Today's competitive job market is defined not by the institution, but by the free agent. The federal intelligence community has become a place where the millennials learn spying tradecraft, obtain a coveted top-level security clearance and then bolt to contractors for heftier paychecks. This has become so common that intelligence observers now fear it could become the career path of choice - break into the private sector via the government.There's a similar problem for many clubs in soccer. Unless you are Barcelona, Chelsea, Manchester United, Milan or a handful of other clubs, your players would likely jump at the chance to be picked up by a bigger club. The solution has been to sign players to longer contracts - for example, MLS's policy is to sign players picked up through the draft to four year contracts. While this can lead to some unhappiness when college players making $13,000 turn out to be good enough so that they're keeping senior players paid $150,000 on the bench, it means that European teams aren't waiting for MLS to discover college players and then snapping them up as soon as they figure out which ones are decent. The idea is that after the player has only a year left on his contract, he'll either be sold to a bigger club in Europe, or he'll have the leverage to negotiate for a higher salary.
Could this work in the Intelligence Community? Maybe. Think of MLS as the Intelligenc Community, and "big clubs in Europe" as the beltway bandits.
Already agencies in the IC give out scholarships to students in exchange for a pledge to work a certain number of years for that agency. Why couldn't they do the same thing for the security clearance process and training? i.e., the CIA could say "if you get a security clearance, you have to work for us for five years."
This wouldn't solve the larger problem of poor management, especially at agencies like the DIA, that leads to the loss of much more experienced personnel (I'm taking Larry Johnson's word on this), and it wouldn't the problem of a lack of middle-aged analysts that the GovExec article talksa bout. But a lot of my friends are aiming to get internships and jobs not with the CIA, DIA, NSA or other agencies, but with contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton. Internships at the CIA and State Department are unpaid, whereas the internship with Booz Allen pays between $23 and $26 per hour. We'd be a lot less valuable to beltway bandits if we didn't have security clearances that we got from internships and short job stints with actual government agencies, and the IC would be better off if it was able to get the guaranteed benefit of, say, five years of work after giving us security clearances and training.
Or they could, ya know, pay people in the Intelligence Community competitive wages.
Tip o' the hat to Wired's blog "Danger Room."
Bill Richardson
Bill Richardson came out with two new ads recently. Here they are:
Richardson apparently has a real sense of humor. Here's an ad from his 2006 reelection campaign for Governor of New Mexico (he won in a landslide):
Right now, I'd say that if Wes Clark doesn't enter the race (as is looking more and more likely with each passing day), then Richardson has my vote.
Richardson apparently has a real sense of humor. Here's an ad from his 2006 reelection campaign for Governor of New Mexico (he won in a landslide):
Right now, I'd say that if Wes Clark doesn't enter the race (as is looking more and more likely with each passing day), then Richardson has my vote.
New era in politics
Ed Markey posts the first ever Youtube video filmed from the perspective of the chairman of a Congressional Committee.
Congress not told of covert action. Why?
Steven Aftergood has a post up at Secrecy News. Apparently, the U.S. intelligence community recently did a covert action without informing Congress, as they are legally mandated to do:
The National Security Act of 1947 says:
The tricky part comes in the definition of "covert action." Here's the definition the law uses (emphasis added):
I imagine that Congress added the escape clause for intelligence agencies for two reasons. First, they didn't want to be bombarded with notifications of what ambassador is spreading nasty rumors or other such trivialities. Second, because the Act was written in the context of the Cold War, activities such as counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics weren't very important - the target of the Intelligence Community was the Soviet Union. In contrast, now those activities are two of the core functions of the IC, and can also be justified as law enforcement actions, hiding them from Congress. This means Congress can be kept in the dark about a much larger portion of the IC's actions.
Perhaps it is time to amend that chunk of the National Security Act?
"The Committee was dismayed at a recent incident wherein the Intelligence Community failed to inform the Congress of a significant covert action activity. This failure to notify Congress constitutes a violation of the National Security Act of 1947."At first glance it seems like this is fairly straightforward. The Intelligence Community (IC) did a covert action, they are legally required to inform Congress, and they didn't. However if you look at the text of the law that requires them to inform Congress it gets a little trickier, because Congress created some exceptions.
"Despite agency explanations that the failure was inadvertent, the Committee is deeply troubled over the fact that such an oversight could occur, whether intentionally or inadvertently."
"The Committee firmly believes that scrupulous transparency between the Intelligence Community and this Committee is an absolute necessity on matters related to covert action."
The National Security Act of 1947 says:
(c)(1) The President shall ensure that any [covert action] shall be reported to the congressional intelligence committees as soon as possible after such approval and before the initiation of the covert action authorized by the finding, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3).Paragraphs 2 and 3 that they refer to say that in extraordinary circumstances, the President can decide to only inform the chairmen and minority leaders of the intelligence committees and of Congress, and if the President doesn't inform Congress of a covert action ahead of time, he better get on his horse and tell them as soon as possible and explain why he didn't tell him sooner.
The tricky part comes in the definition of "covert action." Here's the definition the law uses (emphasis added):
(e) As used in this title, the term "covert action" means an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly, but does not include -This means that if, say, the CIA undertakes what would normally be considered a covert action, for example, influencing a parliamentary election in a foreign country, but justifies doing so on the basis of improving diplomatic relations with the head of that country (this scenario happened in Nepal in the 1950s, as recalled by Duane Clarridge), the CIA could argue that they don't need to inform Congress because it does not fall under the definition of "covert action" due to its diplomatic motives. Whether they'd be correct or not would depend on your definition of "traditional diplomatic activities." If the CIA were to justify what would otherwise be covert action on the basis of counterintelligence activities it could get even more difficult to disagree with them because counterintelligence activities can be very wide-ranging, and counterintelligence should ideally permeate every aspect of intelligence activity.
(1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence, traditional counterintelligence activities, traditional activities to improve or maintain the operational security of United States Government programs, or administrative activities;
(2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities;
(3) traditional law enforcement activities conducted by United States Government law enforcement agencies or routine support to such activities; or
(4) activities to provide routine support to the overt activities (other than activities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3)) of other United States Government agencies abroad.
I imagine that Congress added the escape clause for intelligence agencies for two reasons. First, they didn't want to be bombarded with notifications of what ambassador is spreading nasty rumors or other such trivialities. Second, because the Act was written in the context of the Cold War, activities such as counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics weren't very important - the target of the Intelligence Community was the Soviet Union. In contrast, now those activities are two of the core functions of the IC, and can also be justified as law enforcement actions, hiding them from Congress. This means Congress can be kept in the dark about a much larger portion of the IC's actions.
Perhaps it is time to amend that chunk of the National Security Act?
What I'm reading
With finals basically done, I can actually read stuff that I'm not forced to. However, this list is just as much to remind myself to read this stuff as it is for my audience of five readers...
What if Bin Laden Were Smart, Like Dr. No or Ernest Blofeld? by Fabius Maximus.
Kremlinology & the Censored DNI Outsourcing Study, by R. J. Hillhouse.
How the CIA Used a Fake Sci-Fi Flick to Rescue Americans from Tehran, by Joshuah Bearman in Wired.
'People in the White House are talking only to each other,' by Steve Benen.
Fourth Generation Warfare Evolves, Fifth Emerges, by T. X. Hammes.
Fire the Generals! by Douglas MacGregor.
What if Bin Laden Were Smart, Like Dr. No or Ernest Blofeld? by Fabius Maximus.
Kremlinology & the Censored DNI Outsourcing Study, by R. J. Hillhouse.
How the CIA Used a Fake Sci-Fi Flick to Rescue Americans from Tehran, by Joshuah Bearman in Wired.
'People in the White House are talking only to each other,' by Steve Benen.
Fourth Generation Warfare Evolves, Fifth Emerges, by T. X. Hammes.
Fire the Generals! by Douglas MacGregor.
A good soccer day
Chelsea vs. Arsenal:
A bit of a grudge match, as they are city rivals and tend to knock each other out of competitions (like the Carling Cup this season, in which there was a big fight at the end). However this was simply a fantastic game. Chelsea needed to win to maintain any hope of winning the Premiership title, but in reality they had lost the title a couple weeks earlier, so I was able to just enjoy the game and root for a Chelsea win just because. The way it played out, I feel it was a moral victory to Chelsea in the end, as they were pressing to get the winning goal despite being a man down (Khalid Bouhlarouz made an absolutely boneheaded tackle to get red-carded and give Arsenal a penalty just before halftime).
Then, later today, the New England Revolution hosted the Chicago Fire. The Revolution were missing Shalrie Joseph, suspended as part of a bogus red card sustained Thursday during their game at DC United (a 1 - 1 tie).
The Revs won, 3-1. Chris Rolfe of the Fire scored a good goal from the edge of the area. The Revolution got the first goal of the season from my Man of the Match, Jeff Larentowicz (Brown class of 2004), the first goal of the season from Steve Ralston, and the first goal of the season from rookie Wells Thompson. Nice to see someone other than Taylor Twellman or Andy Dorman score for the Revs. I'll update with highlights when they come online.
Updated:
Here are the Revs highlights:
A bit of a grudge match, as they are city rivals and tend to knock each other out of competitions (like the Carling Cup this season, in which there was a big fight at the end). However this was simply a fantastic game. Chelsea needed to win to maintain any hope of winning the Premiership title, but in reality they had lost the title a couple weeks earlier, so I was able to just enjoy the game and root for a Chelsea win just because. The way it played out, I feel it was a moral victory to Chelsea in the end, as they were pressing to get the winning goal despite being a man down (Khalid Bouhlarouz made an absolutely boneheaded tackle to get red-carded and give Arsenal a penalty just before halftime).
Then, later today, the New England Revolution hosted the Chicago Fire. The Revolution were missing Shalrie Joseph, suspended as part of a bogus red card sustained Thursday during their game at DC United (a 1 - 1 tie).
The Revs won, 3-1. Chris Rolfe of the Fire scored a good goal from the edge of the area. The Revolution got the first goal of the season from my Man of the Match, Jeff Larentowicz (Brown class of 2004), the first goal of the season from Steve Ralston, and the first goal of the season from rookie Wells Thompson. Nice to see someone other than Taylor Twellman or Andy Dorman score for the Revs. I'll update with highlights when they come online.
Updated:
Here are the Revs highlights:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)