U.S. Intelligence Agencies Militarizing

Broad Changes Include Placing Military Officers in Leadership Positions

From Top Left: Army Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander at the National Security Agency, retired Airforce Gen. Jim Clapper, retired Vice Adm. Michael McConnell and Gen. Michael Hayden (WDCpix, Associated Press, DefenseLink)

By Spencer Ackerman 02/21/2008

Without much notice, something strange has happened to the intelligence community during the second term of President George W. Bush. The leaders of the 16-agency, $45 billion-a-year spy apparatus have started wearing stars and gold braid on their shoulders.

It’s more than a sartorial change. For the first time in American history, the people holding the most important positions in the civilian U.S. intelligence agencies and offices are now all military or ex-military men. First Gen. Michael Hayden, an active-duty Air Force officer, replaced civilian Porter Goss as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency in 2006. Then retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell replaced civilian John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence—the overall leader of the intelligence community—in 2007. Shortly thereafter, retired Air Force Gen. Jim Clapper ascended to chief of Pentagon intelligence, ultimately replacing civilian Steve Cambone. That’s to say nothing of the uniformed leaders of the various defense intelligence agencies, most notably Army Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander at the National Security Agency. Indeed, the most significant non-military head of an intelligence agency is Randall M. Fort, the bureaucrat who helms the State Department’s relatively puny Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

According to long-time observers, the militarization of the U.S. intelligence community goes further than the uniforms worn by agency leaders. Put another way, those leaders are symptoms of a more fundamental shift over the last several years. With the U.S. mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, intelligence has moved away from long-term forecasting and toward immediate support to military commanders prosecuting the wars.

"There needs to be a semi-independent voice that voices the broader strategic perspectives and is not driven by the [intelligence] demands of day," said Robert Hutchings, who chaired the National Intelligence Council from 2003 until 2005. "The worry is not that Mike Hayden and Mike McConnell happen to be military officers; it’s that the system is now skewed to current intelligence, driven by military operations. That’s leaving too little left over for strategic analysis of what’s going on more broadly. And that leads to [an echo chamber effect]: this is what’s presented to policy-makers, and it just reinforces the worldview they began with."

For the first time in American history, the people holding the most important positions in the civilian U.S. intelligence agencies and offices are now all military or ex-military men.

To a some degree, the shift is understandable, Hutchings and others said. In the middle of two ground wars, it would perhaps be more surprising if war-fighter support didn’t eclipse mid-to-long-term analysis. Then there’s the broader structural fact that Pentagon-based intelligence assets account for, by most estimates, nearly 90 percent of the annual intelligence budget.

But as a question of emphasis, the intelligence community risks a certain myopia. "There is a genuine risk of over-investing in military intelligence at the expense of larger strategic concerns," said Steven Aftergood, an intelligence-policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists. "We could end up doing those things we know how to do well and failing to meet the new and emerging challenges that we don’t quite know how to address. If the war Iraq resolved itself, and terrorism receded as a threat, we would still have serious intelligence challenges to contend with, and those are in danger of being shortchanged."

Even if terrorism doesn’t recede as a threat, Hutchings contends that the over-militarization of intelligence risks short-changing that as well. In December, he excoriated the intelligence community before a House intelligence sub-committee for losing sight of the bigger strategic picture. "The creation of the National Counterterrorism Center may have enhanced inter-agency coordination among terrorist operators," Hutchings said, "which is a good thing, but it has surely weakened coordination between them and the country and regional experts," he said. "The net result is that the intelligence community is probably stronger in tactical counterterrorist coordination but is surely weaker in strategic counterterrorism. While we are looking for the next car bomb, we may be missing the next generation of terrorist threats."

One analyst at the National Counterterrorism Center disputed Hutchings—up to a point. "In terms of warfighting [support], the folks who own all the units on the ground are perhaps two or three agencies, and they’re not [part] of us," said the analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "He’s correct, but this is the wrong example."

As much as the militarization of intelligence owes to the structural pressures of wartime, there is an element of necessity as well, according to intelligence historian Matthew Aid. "When talking with civilian intelligence officials, they say that when [the administration] went looking for a replacement for [former Director of National Intelligence] John Negroponte, the few civilians who were qualified for the job turned them down," said Aid, a visiting fellow at George Washington University’s National Security Archive. "Intrinsic problems currently exist in intelligence today—the politicization, there’s a host of problems. If you’re an intelligence professional and a civilian, it’s almost a career killer to accept a senior position in the U.S. intelligence community now. A lot of people are waiting the nine months or however long for the next administration before accepting a promotion."

Aid observed that militarization is not a recent problem for the intelligence community. "Since the end of World War II, there’s been an inherent tension between military and civilian consumers [of intelligence], who slug it out for the hearts and minds of collectors," he said. "In times of war—and we’re in two and a half of them now—the military has taken control of the collection process. ... You end up having to give short shrift to strategic targets—North Korea, Iran, the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, China. There are only a finite amount of resources to play with."

In 2006, Thomas Fingar, the chief of analysis for the Director of National Intelligence, defended the intelligence community’s commitment to long-term analysis in a letter to The New Republic."The DNI has established a new ‘Long Range Analysis’ unit within the [National Intelligence Council], in accordance with a recommendation made by the WMD Commission," he wrote. "This new unit is purposely walled off from current demands so that it can focus on producing integrated, in-depth, strategic assessments and serve as a catalyst for such work throughout the [intelligence community]."

But close intelligence watchers don’t see the intelligence community possessing such expertise with long-term analysis. "Support to military operations is certainly the most urgent day-to-day concern at the moment," Aftergood said. "But there are other concerns that may fall by the wayside as result of the focus on those day-to-day concerns." (Full disclosure: Fingar wrote to the magazine to dispute a story I wrote.)

The Office of the Director National Intelligence said Fingar was not available for an interview for this story. Nor did it address a list of questions sent to two public-affairs officers.

Blaming the intelligence community alone for the shift in focus to military matters misses the point somewhat, Hutchings contends. "It’s the president’s call," he said. "There needs to be a better sense at the very top that we need a broader perspective if we’re to cope successfully with the multiple challenges we face."

And the Republican Party has been eager to follow Bush’s lead. When Democratic lawmakers proposed last spring to have the intelligence community study the security implications of global climate change, their GOP counterparts blasted the effort. "Our government should not commit expensive spy satellites and human intelligence sources to target something as undefined as the environment," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, derided the idea of "tak[ing] resources from other places" to study the impact of global warming.

The placement of prominent active or retired military officials at the top of the intelligence community may not be the heart of the problem … but their ascendency entrenches it.

The placement of prominent active or retired military officials at the top of the intelligence community may not be the heart of the problem, Aftergood contends, but their ascendency entrenches it. "It means that the leaders of the intelligence community have all arisen out of a military mindset and are habituated to seeing intelligence challenges and responses within a certain framework," Aftergood said. "It means both conceiving of threats and responses in military terms, and being unresponsive to issues and insights that might arise outside that familiar framework."

For Hutchings, now a professor at Princeton University, the militarization of intelligence reveals an apathy to the necessity of strategic forecasting—a critical component of national security. "People don’t really value long-view intelligence," he lamented. "They may understand [the need for it] on some abstract level, or see diminishing resources spent other issues or topics, but they don’t care. They care about what they need right now: intelligence support for warfighters, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq."

He continued, "I think it’s quite acute. I’m not speaking about specific dangers, I’m talking about the broad challenge of international terrorism. We’ve gotten so operational and so over-militarized that we’re only capable of thinking of this challenge in one dimension."

The last time that happened, he did not need to add, three thousand Americans died on a clear September morning.

CIA Monitors YouTube For Intelligence

U.S. spies are looking increasingly online for intelligence and they've become major consumers of social media. By Thomas Claburn
InformationWeek
February 6, 2008 04:40 PM

In keeping with its mandate to gather intelligence, the CIA is watching YouTube.

U.S. spies, now under the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), are looking increasingly online for intelligence; they have become major consumers of social media.

"We're looking at YouTube, which carries some unique and honest-to-goodness intelligence," said Doug Naquin, director of the DNI Open Source Center (OSC), in remarks to the Central Intelligence Retirees' Association last October. "We're looking at chat rooms and things that didn't exist five years ago, and trying to stay ahead. We have groups looking at what they call 'Citizens Media': people taking pictures with their cell phones and posting them on the Internet."

In November 2005, the OSC subsumed the CIA's Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which housed the agency's foreign media analysts. The OSC is responsible for collecting and analyzing public information, including Internet content.

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists project on government secrey, posted transcript of Naquin's remarks on his blog. "I found the speech interesting and thoughtful," he said in an e-mail. "I would not have thought of YouTube as an obvious source of intelligence, but I think it's a good sign that the Open Source Center is looking at it, and at other new media."

Not everyone in the intelligence community sees the value in open source intelligence. "[W]e still have an education problem on both ends, both with the folks who are proponents of open source but perhaps don't know exactly why, and folks internally who are still wondering why I am sitting at the same table they are," said Naquin.

But further acceptance of open source intelligence, of the Internet and social media, seems inevitable in the intelligence community if only because traditional media is becoming less relevant. "What we're seeing [in] actuality is a decline, a relatively rapid decline, in the impact of the printed press -- traditional media," said Naquin. "A lot more is digital, and a lot more is online. It's also a lot more social. Interaction is a much bigger part of media and news than it used to be."

Despite its name the Open Source Center hasn't proven to be particularly open with its findings. "One area where Mr. Naquin's Center falls short, in my opinion, is in public access to its products, which is very limited," said Aftergood. "I know that there are some copyright barriers to open publication of foreign media items. But there shouldn't be any such barriers to release of the Center's own analytical products. And yet they are hard to come by. I hope this is one aspect of the Center's activities that will be reconsidered."

Ohio Muslims unite behind Obama

Ohio Muslims unite behind Obama

As Ohio prepares to vote on Tuesday for the candidates it would like to see running for the US presidency, Matthew Wells talks to Muslims in Cleveland who are impressed by Barack Obama.

A large majority of Muslim-Americans voted for George W Bush on the road to the White House eight years ago.

But now their support seems to be coalescing around an African-American senator, whose first name derives from the Arabic word for blessing.

Among them are the 60,000 Muslims of the economically depressed Cleveland area.

They are mostly middle-class naturalised citizens, disappointed with the Bush administration's record and with a powerful sense that their religion has been misrepresented in the years since 9/11.

The city boasts Ohio's largest mosque, a building that until a few years ago was a Christian church, complete with a wooden spire, but is now attached to the Shiite Unity Center.

I'd vote for Obama - he has some new ideas Mohammad Assar Shiite Unite Center

A group of men, led by the centre's president, Faud Hamed, spoke to BBC News after evening prayers.

"Republicans think there are more votes from other sources, so they forget and ignore," said Mohammad Assar, a placard-carrying Bush supporter in the past.

"I'd vote for Obama. He has some new ideas."

He was speaking to the BBC, with other leaders of the mosque, after evening prayers.

There was exasperation at the on-going war, and a sense that social justice - a central tenet of Islam - is being ignored: "We all know that in the US Constitution it calls for peace and justice, but if we look around the world do we see any peace and justice?"

Uneasy about being publicly critical, most asked not to be identified.

"We are sometimes given the short end of the stick but in general we're treated fairly... I agree with the brothers [that] if you look at the cost of the war in Iraq so far, how much of these billions could have saved lives in the US alone," said one.

Identity politics

The fact that Mr Obama has Muslim roots on his Kenyan father's side, despite being a committed Christian, clearly makes him the most intriguing candidate, for many here - though may be less so for second-generation immigrants.

Zaid Farukhi, who works in his father's multi-million-dollar electronics business, says Mr Obama may be his choice this time round, but escaping identity-politics altogether would be his preferred position.

When you're making prayer, regardless of whether you're a doctor, lawyer, multi-millionaire or king, you've got to stand shoulder-to-shoulder Khalid Samad Youth leader

"Most of the Muslims in America have become independents now, which in a sense is probably better for them because they need to get more active in politics," he said.

The unifying nature of Islamic values is well-illustrated in Cleveland by the close ties that exist between upwardly mobile immigrants and the self-described indigenous Muslim converts.

"When you're making prayer, regardless of whether you're a doctor, lawyer, multi-millionaire or king, you've got to stand shoulder-to-shoulder," says Khalid Samad, an African-American Muslim convert, who works with inner-city youths.

He does acknowledge, however, that the historical concerns of Muslim African-Americans are different from, say, a newly-arrived doctor from Pakistan.

Mr Samad is actively campaigning for Barack Obama, and trying to bring minority groups together, including the local Latino voting bloc.

'Media demonisation'

Building common-cause coalitions is one of the ways that Muslim activists believe they can make their votes - and their issues - count more.

That is certainly the view of another convert, who is playing a central role in educating Cleveland's Muslim population about the voting process.

Julia Shearson's ancestors may have arrived in the first wave of English settlers to America, but now she is dressed like millions of other Muslim women around the world, and running the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) office in the city.

She is well aware of CAIR's role as a lightning rod for criticism from right-wing advocacy groups who regard it as a cloak for so-called Islamofacism.

She rejects the conspiracy theories completely, but contends that Islamophobia - stoked by media demonisation - is a daily threat to all American Muslims.

"We should be drafted as advisors and policy experts, as people who can help understand and help mediate this horrible crisis between America and the Muslim world," she said.

"Exactly when our help could be most utilised, we've been effectively marginalised and stymied and stifled... But at the same time it will never work. A people can never be kept down."

CAIR is not endorsing specific candidates, but she sees the move towards Mr Obama, by the young in particular, as part of a wider awakening.

"What we see happening in the Muslim community is that our young people who before used to go into medicine - their parents are now saying, we have enough doctors - they're all going into journalism, political science, and law."

"It's wonderful to see them really stand up and try and protect their families from these horrible civil rights abuses."

Story from BBC NEWS:

Human Justice

Human beings behave unjustly because of incorrect concepts about life. Some view non-white as less than white, so when thousands of Arabs were arrested and thrown in jail after September 11^th, there was no out cry. When black youth are targeted and beaten by the police, its acceptable, for the police officer was only serving and protecting his self. Some have concepts that women are only for sexual pleasures, nothing more, so when the boy gets the girl pregnant he runs away from the responsibility because he only wanted to play her like he played with his playstation game. Some view the life of an American as more important than one of a non-American. So there is a problem when one American reporter is killed, but none when thousands of Afghanis are blown the pieces by American collateral damage.

Social injustice comes from the concepts in society and the system being implemented on society. A comprehensive idea is called an Ideology. The social system stems from its Ideology. This country we live in boasts an ideology of capitalism/democracy, a man made ideology, that gives the rule to the people. On the surface this might seem fair, but in reality only benefits a few. To understand this fact, just look at the wealth distribution in America.

America says in God we trust, but in which god? America says all men are created equal, but if you are rich you are somehow more privileged to preferential treatment. Despite of these realities of the American empire, the people are fooled into thinking that they call the shots; I do not know when the last time you asked a homeless person how much input he feels he has in the system ruling him, or even the average working poor, they feel disenfranchised. The system implements its laws and conditions its people. If enough public opinion was created we one day might see the Muslims in concentration camps in America as the Japanese were in the 1940s. At one time this seemed a distant fantasy. However, after September 11, it is clear to see the Islamicphobia.

Now the question results: How can I threat a woman fairly when I am not a woman? How could I be equal to the poor when I am rich? How could I see the problems of the black when I am white? Even if I tried to come up with a system that could deal justly with all in human creation I would fail. This is because the human being is limited and subjective in its knowledge and thinking. Mankind could never give justice to itself without knowing all there is to know about itself. Since the human being can never know this on its own it needs help.

If the very roots of the system are imperfect and man made how could it ever provide social justice and solve the social problems of the world? We see the social injustice in the segregation of the white and black in the American society. What is the solution to social injustice? Islaam provides the solution to the human problem of injustice by giving the human being the correct view about where he came from, this life, and where he is going after this life.

Allah says in Surah Ar-Rahman ayat 3 “Khalaqal Insan.” “He Created Man.”

Thus, if I am a white male who accepts Islaam as my worldview, I acknowledge that I am no better than the man of color, and that Allah subhanawata3ala created me! The Qur’an tells me that the best amongst mankind is the one who has Taqwah. The hadith tell me that the most worthy of good treatment is my mother, a woman. Islaam teaches me that the goal in life is the seek the pleasure of Allahsubhanawata3ala.

Islaam tells me that no matter where I am or what color I am, I am a part of this transnational Ummah. So When America bombs and kills innocent Muslims I feel this social injustice that is happening across the globe. I cry. I cannot sleep knowing my brothers and sisters are dying.
I feel the pain of the brother who is thrown in jail because he overstayed his visa. This is the correct view of social justice. Social justice comes from having the right concepts about life.

Allah says:

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice as witnesses to Allah even as against yourselves or your parents or your kin and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts) lest ye swerve and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.” (Surah An-Nisaa ayat 135)

We as Muslims know that our concepts about life are correct because we have checked with the Creator, Al-Khaliq, to give us our world view. Once the Human being is convinced that Allah subhanawata3ala is the Creator he submits and accepts Al Qur’an and Sunnah as his concept giver and thus his guide on how to deal with the human being justly.

Islaam is a natural way of life because it deals with the human being as such and it comes from the One who created and thus knows the human beings needs and instincts the best.

'And perfect are the words of your Lord in truthfulness, and in justice; His words cannot be changed; He is the All-hearing, All-knowing' (al-An'am 6:116).

“Allah doth command you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due; and when ye judge between man and man that ye judge with justice: verily how excellent is the teaching which He instructs you! Indeed Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing.” (Surah An-Nisaa ayat 58)

Islaam comes from the perfect One Allah so Islaam naturally solves the problem of social injustice. The Prophet (Salalahu ‘alayhi was-salaam) explained to the Muslims when the first state was established in Medina what was brotherhood. He condemned a sahabah when he insulted Bilaal the Ethiopian slave for being the son of a black mother, right there on the spot. He did not wait on Bilaal to gain political power like in the so-called greatest country there ever was.

In short, Social Justice comes about when society is functioning the way the Perfect-All knowing One has said it should function.

Thus, if the Objective Lord of the Worlds says cover, I cover. Lower my gaze I lower it. Stay away from Zina, I stay Allah. Treat one another with respect based on Islaam, I do it.

How is social justice implemented? What is the Solution?

Social Justice cannot come without a mechanism to implement it. Social justice demands a just government that would implement its Just laws and systems. So we see when the first Islaamic State was established in Medina the people experienced a just social order. Social agents give concepts. The Family, friends, schools, and entire society breed concepts.Social justice needs the media, TV, schools, masjids, economic system, judicial system, etc. all working together to complement the world view about life. There can be no contradiction in a just society between its social, political, or economic system.

Once the human being accepts Islaam and its concepts about life Taqwah is formed and thus it forces the human being to consider his actions.

The only solution to the problem of social injustice is for human beings to live under the shade of what their Creator wants them to live by.

Allah says in Surah Al –A’araaf ayat 181:

“waminnan khalaqanaa Ummatuum yahduuna bil Haqqi wa bihi ya`diluun.”

“And among those We created is a community which guides by the truth and thereby establishes justice.”