23 Dec. 2016 – WAISer Brian Blodgett was a former intelligence officer at the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA). Here are some of his posts on the Forum.

==========================

“I am not disagreeing directly with this comment, but as a former military officer (USA) and intelligence officer at the US Defense Intelligence Agency, it is common knowledge that intelligence agencies worldwide are already understaffed and in most of the world, where no threat seems likely to occur, are barely staffed. The lack of focus on a country results in very limited, if any, collection of intelligence. Thus, when an event occurs, like has happened a lot lately, the amount of actionable intelligence is not what the planners and decision-makers need. “

Intelligence Gathering Today (Brian Blodgett, USA, 09/27/11 1:40 pm)

http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=67107&objectTypeId=61357&topicId=44

==================

 

“In response to Robert Whealey (29 September), we need to separate the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the Department of Defense (DoD), since they are separate in the United States and by no means does the DoD have any control over the CIA. Nor does the DoD control the other national intelligence agencies, and these agencies and DoD often have very different opinions of the same general facts! “

 

Intelligence Gathering Today (Brian Blodgett, USA, 09/30/11 5:51 pm)

http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=67137&objectTypeId=61387&topicId=44

 

  ==========================

 

“In my experience, they worked for the government intelligence officer in the section and while they provided actionable intelligence, they were not the only ones that looked at it before sending it up the chain. I worked with several on papers designed for the President’s Daily Brief and in each case, the final product was gone over with a fine tooth comb by those senior to us–much senior.”

 

Intelligence Gathering and Private Contractors (Brian Blodgett, USA, 10/03/11 5:01 pm)

http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=67172&objectTypeId=61422&topicId=44

 

  ==========================

According to ABC News, it is believed that the Galaxy-3 rocket has the capability to travel approximately 3,400 miles, making it ABLE TO REACH THE WEST COAST of the United States. (We can’t go to the beach anymore.)

 

When I studied the DPRK’s (North Korea) ballistic missile program several years ago, they were not even remotely capable of achieving this type of success and it is a bit concerning that they are at this point. I do not begrudge any country from doing as they see fit, but this still concerns me. Regarding China’s concern, I believe that they must not only consider political stability, but also the fact that the DPRK could now, if upset enough, target Beijing and other Chinese cities.

 

Korea -> North Korea Launches Missile (Brian Blodgett, USA) Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=73770&objectTypeId=65750&topicId=15

==================

Intelligence Gathering Today (Brian Blodgett, USA, 09/27/11 1:40 pm)

http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=67107&objectTypeId=61357&topicId=44

 

Robert Whealey stated in his posting of 26 September that “The CIA and the NSC can still exist, but its staff should have fewer duties.”

 

I am not disagreeing directly with this comment, but as a former military officer (USA) and intelligence officer at the US Defense Intelligence Agency, it is common knowledge that intelligence agencies worldwide are already understaffed and in most of the world, where no threat seems likely to occur, are barely staffed. The lack of focus on a country results in very limited, if any, collection of intelligence. Thus, when an event occurs, like has happened a lot lately, the amount of actionable intelligence is not what the planners and decision-makers need. A mad rush is made to gather information, something that usually cannot be done without having a solid comprehension of the country and /or ethnic groups involved. One cannot simply pick up a book, read it, and become an overnight expert. Hiring contracted “subject matter experts” usually means that they know the culture, which is great, but they do not know the foreign military that a country may soon be facing. This is often why nations enter into conflicts that they cannot win–the decision-makers lack proper intelligence of the situation, the enemy’s capabilities, even the terrain.

 

I am not suggesting that we raise the size of our intelligence gathering agencies, but short of there being an international intelligence clearing house (ever hear of UN Secret–I have and it does not work), the nations of the world will continuously find themselves in a conflict that they are not prepared for. This is not a new problem, but one going back centuries.

 

Conflicts, unfortunately, are going to occur. Nations will become involved without adequate knowledge, and wars will continue. How many nations can fight a war / conflict without US support of some type–remember the Kosovo, the Falklands, and let us not forget World War II and the War to End all Wars. Nations need the power, both in American service members and the high-tech equipment they bring with them–even if it is just strategic lift and some eyes in the sky. How many foreign nations depend on the US to be there for them if called upon?

 

The concept that Robert mentioned that the US will be able to eventually return to our side of the oceans that offer protection and we will be able to limit expensive weapons of war is idealistic in my opinion and one that I would support–if the world wants the US to return to its once famous policy of isolationism.

 

JE comments: Brian Blodgett (great to hear from you, by the way!) reminds us of that intelligent intelligence will always be in demand, even though it’s too often in short supply. In unhappy times like these it’s comforting to think of a new era of American isolationism–but as Brian pointedly asks, is this really what the world wants?

 

 

 

 

 

  ==================

Intelligence Gathering Today (Brian Blodgett, USA, 09/30/11 5:51 pm)

http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=67137&objectTypeId=61387&topicId=44

 

In response to Robert Whealey (29 September), we need to separate the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the Department of Defense (DoD), since they are separate in the United States and by no means does the DoD have any control over the CIA. Nor does the DoD control the other national intelligence agencies, and these agencies and DoD often have very different opinions of the same general facts!

 

Ranking of countries of interest does occur due to the need to effectively “watch” various countries, but in the end, a country that has a very low priority can suddenly become a high priority overnight, or perhaps more realistically over the course of weeks. In either case, the lack of focus on a particular country for years has a negative effect on the ability of the decision-makers to have access to actionable intelligence, thus often creating quagmires that should have been avoided if proper intelligence had been available.

 

I am a bit confused about the comment, “to control the millions…,” since I believe the objective is not to control, but to have situational awareness in order to be proactive or reactive when necessary and in both cases, with the proper level of scrutinized intelligence. Often, what appears on CNN may actually effect a country’s national security–take Somalia for example. In the example Robert provided, Norway was important to both Britain and the Germans due to their mineral wealth and the actions of both countries in planning for ensuring Norway remained either neutral or in their camp was rather unique and naive in all reality, since neither Britain or Germany had adequate knowledge of the topography, military forces, weather, and public / government opinion that they would be facing. This is unique, since Norway was Britain’s number one priority and also high for the Germans.

 

I agree that the US cannot police the world, nor should it. The concern is, if the US reduces its intelligence gathering capabilities, then many of our current and future friends may suffer. As it is, the limitations already in place could very well already be ensuring that this occurrence is much more likely than known.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

==================

Intelligence Gathering and Private Contractors (Brian Blodgett, USA, 10/03/11 5:01 pm)

http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=67172&objectTypeId=61422&topicId=44

 

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich (1 October) brings up an excellent point about outsourcing intelligence. When I was with DoD in various positions, we had individuals from several of the private companies Soraya mentioned working for us. They were viewed as a part of the team and often provided a type of intelligence that the agency did not have its own inherent ability to staff.

 

In my experience, they worked for the government intelligence officer in the section and while they provided actionable intelligence, they were not the only ones that looked at it before sending it up the chain. I worked with several on papers designed for the President’s Daily Brief and in each case, the final product was gone over with a fine tooth comb by those senior to us–much senior.

 

Personally, the use of private contractors to work in the intelligence community is useful, but I can definitely see how there could be a conflict of interest. I just did not knowingly experience it. I believe that as long as we have the proper checks and balances in the flow of intelligence that we are doing fine, but that is only my personal opinion.

 

Thank you for asking the question.

 

JE comments:  And thank you, Brian, for the answer!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  ==================

North Korea Launches Missile (Brian Blodgett, USA, 12/12/12 2:36 pm)

http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=73770&objectTypeId=65750&topicId=15

 

According to NightWatch, “North Korea launched its long-range rocket on 12 December. The North Koreans claimed the launch was a success. The Yonhap news agency, citing a South Korean government source, said the rocket took off from the Sohae/Tongchang-ri launch center on the west coast at 0951 local time (0051 GMT), and was immediately detected by South Korean navy ships deployed in the Yellow Sea. Multiple other news sources reported the rocket launched at 0949 local time. Japanese sources reported a rocket stage fell into waters off the Philippines at 1005, 12 December, giving a flight time of 14-16 minutes. The US military confirmed the trajectory of what it called a missile and said, ‘Initial indications are that the missile deployed an object that appeared to achieve orbit.’

 

“Comment: The information about technical troubles appears to have been disinformation. A 16-minute flight time would support the North’s claim that the launch was a success. If confirmed, this would be the first North Korean success in launching a satellite into orbit, and the first successful test of the components of an intercontinental ballistic missile. That makes this a great marketing tool for the North.

 

“Naturally and reflexively, the Allies condemned the launch. The only comments that matter, however, are those from China. None have been reported during this Watch. The Chinese made clear last week their opposition to any North Korean action that promotes instability in Northeast Asia. On the other hand, the Chinese will be the first to observe that this launch has caused no significant instability, aside from diplomatic bombast.

 

“This is North Korea’s second rocket launch this year in apparent defiance of Chinese official public opposition. It is time to question whether all factions in the Chinese government are opposed to North Korean provocations. Alternatively, it is time to explore which factions in the Chinese government are encouraging North Korean provocative behavior.”

 

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/NightWatch/NightWatch_12000235.aspx

 

According to ABC News, it is believed that the Galaxy-3 rocket has the capability to travel approximately 3,400 miles, making it able to reach the west coast of the United States.

 

When I studied the DPRK’s ballistic missile program several years ago, they were not even remotely capable of achieving this type of success and it is a bit concerning that they are at this point. I do not begrudge any country from doing as they see fit, but this still concerns me. Regarding China’s concern, I believe that they must not only consider political stability, but also the fact that the DPRK could now, if upset enough, target Beijing and other Chinese cities.

 

JE comments: Brian Blodgett’s last point must make the Chinese nervous–they really have no choice but to treat their rogue ally with kid gloves, and never force them into a “what do we have to lose?” scenario.

 

I’m sure someone has already calculated how much food the North Koreans had to forego to build that rocket.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hillary’s Role in Syria Crisis (Massoud Malek, USA, 12/21/16 4:56 am)

http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=110676&objectTypeId=83826&topicId=4963

Massoud Malek writes:

In early 2011, twelve Arab countries experienced the Arab Spring. They were Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Only in Libya and Syria did the uprising morph into civil war.

In October 2011, the killing of Muammar Gaddafi made Hillary Clinton extremely happy. No one denies that Gaddafi was a dictator, but are Libyans better off today than when Gaddafi was ruling the country? I don’t think so.

In Syria, it took over a year for the demonstrations to morph into a civil war. Did Hillary Clinton start the civil war in Syria?

In one of Al-Jazeera’s Head to Head episodes, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Michael Flynn, confirms to the journalist Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but he even asserts that the Administration’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (who would emerge as ISIS and Al Nusra) against the Syrian regime was “a willful decision.”

Here is the transcript relating to this subject:

Mehdi Hasan: I took the liberty of printing out that document. This is the memo I quoted from. Did you see this document in 2012? Would this come across your table, one of your analysts wrote.

Michael Flynn: Oh yeah, yeah, I paid very close attention to all those, sure.

Mehdi Hasan: So when you saw this, did you not pick up a phone and say, “What on earth are we doing supporting these Syrian rebels who are -“?

Michael Flynn: Sure. That kind of information is presented and those become–

Mehdi Hasan: And what did you do about it?

Michael Flynn: I argued about it.

Mehdi Hasan: Did you say, “We shouldn’t be supporting these groups?”

Michael Flynn: I did. I mean, we argued about these, the different groups that were there and we said, you know, “Who is that is involved here?”  And I will tell you that, I do believe that the intelligence was very clear, and now it’s a matter of whether or not policy is going to be as clear and as defining and as precise as it needs to be, and I don’t believe it was.

Mehdi Hasan: Just to clarify here, you’re saying today–today my understanding is you’re saying we should have backed the rebels. You’re saying in government, you agreed with this analysis.

Michael Flynn: We should have done more earlier on in this effort, you know, than we did. We really–we sort of kicked that can.

Mehdi Hasan: But three–we’re not–but three years ago, let’s just be clear for the sake of our viewers. In 2012, your agency was saying, quote: “The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Iraq are the major forces driving the insurgence in Syria.” In 2012, the US was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups. Why did you not stop that, if you’re worried about the rise of quote, unquote, “Islamic extremism”?

Michael Flynn: Yeah.

Mehdi Hasan: Before we move on, just to clarify once more, you are basically saying that even in government at the time, you knew those groups were around. You saw this analysis–

Michael Flynn: Sure.

Mehdi Hasan: And you were arguing against it. But who wasn’t listening?

Michael Flynn: I think the administration.

Mehdi Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis–

Michael Flynn: I don’t know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

Mehdi Hasan: A willful decision to go–support an insurgency that had Salafist, al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood?

I highly recommend the video in the link to anyone who believes that the Syrian tragedy is caused by Russia:

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2016/01/transcript-michael-flynn-160104174144334.html

By reading my post of December 17 and watching the video in the link, you decide if Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the Syrian tragedy.

JE comments:  Michael Flynn, Trump’s pick as National Security Advisor, may not be the most reliable source on Hillary Clinton.  Flynn was also involved in the “Hillary child sex ring” Tweets we discussed a couple of weeks ago.  Still, the interview should be given an impartial listen.  WAISer thoughts?

PHOTO: Gabriel Macario, Massoud Malek, & Anthony Candil, Carlton Lodge 10 Oct. 2013 during the 2013 WAIS Conference at Adrian College, Adrian MI

 

re: Turkey and the EU; Mexico and the US (Bienvenido Macario, Philippines) Feb. 9, 2007

https://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=13691&objectTypeId=7941&topicId=1

Bienvenido Macario writes:

The WAIS discussions of late are quite interesting. It is not easy to simply join the “fray” for fear of adding unnecessary work for the WAIS editor. [No problem! I enjoy doing this on Friday evenings—JE.] It seems the most important points are covered or being actively raised on both sides of the arguments anyway.

MEXICO & the US

Selected US Purchases & 1 Annexation from 1803 to 1899:

1.) PHILIPPINES, Marianas Islands & Puerto Rico Purchase (1899) – The 1898 Treaty of Paris ending the Spanish-American War – $20 million from Spain. (Seriously, is there another country called “Philippines” on this planet?)

 

2.) Hawaii Annexation (1898).  Made a territory in 1900 and became a state on August 21, 1959. No payment or exchange was made.  This is only annexation on this list.

3.) Alaska Purchase (1867) $7.2 million (from Russia)

4.) New Mexico-Arizona Purchase or Gadsden Purchase (1854) $10 million (from Mexico – Gen. Sta. Ana)

5.) Land for Railroad Purchase for US$10 million (1853) a 30,000-square-foot strip of Californian land south of the Gila River, today’s southern New Mexico and the southern quarter of Arizona. (from Mexico / Gen. Sta. Ana)

6.) California Purchase / Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty (1848) $15 million (from Mexico Gen. Sta. Ana)

7.) Florida Purchase (1819) was ceded to the United States and purchased from Spain for $5 million.  In addition, the remaining border disputes were settled with Mexico.

8.) Louisiana Purchase (1803) – $15 million (from France)

Except for the Philippines, in which known pro-Japanese oligarchs, quislings and collaborators “declared” independence in 1946, territories annexed by the US were first made territories or trust territories before being allowed to apply for statehood. In fact, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands are still US Trust Territories, although the recently Democrat-dominated House of Representatives gave delegates from these islands the right to vote in the US House of Representatives.

 

Democrats give delegates~ voting rights

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:36 PM ET

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012401261_pf.html

WASHINGTON – Democrats on Wednesday pushed through a rules change giving limited voting rights on the House floor to the chamber’s five non-state delegates. Republicans described the move as an unconstitutional power grab.

With the 226-191 vote, delegates~ representing the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa can cast ballots on amendments. The lawmakers, however, will not be allowed to vote on final passage of legislation. If the delegates’ votes decide the outcome of an amendment, the House immediately will vote again without the delegates’ participation. (news abbreviated)

=================

 

re: US: Howard Dean’s Remark (Bienvenido Macario, (John Eipper, USA, 08/17/08 10:06 am)

http://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&objectType=post&o=22831&objectTypeId=17081&topicId=1

Randy Black wrote on August 16:

I am interested in the WAIS reaction to comments by the chairman of the Democratic National Committee:

“If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the Republican Party,” (Howard) Dean said Friday in an appearance on NPR’s “Tell Me More” program.

Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[…] What in heck is a person of color and why is it important to Howard Dean?

Bienvenido Macario responds:

I anticipate a very lively and interesting discussion on the two points Randy Black raised in this post.

First this is a major political history test beginning with the history of the Democratic and Republican Parties around 1854. Which of the two parties for the last hundred years or so is more supportive of the Native Americans or non-Caucasian peoples? We have to look at the period immediately after the American Civil War, to the SS St. Louis episode of 1938. And to which party did those who strongly opposed

Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights movement belong?

If England’s and Germany’s political history would be of any guide to that of the US, then I have to say that the first female president of America will likely come from the conservative Republican party, including the first president with non-European family heritage. Margaret Thatcher, the first female prime minister of England, and Benjamin Disraeli, the first and only prime minister of Spanish-Jewish ancestry, were conservatives. Angela Merkel, the first female Chancellor of Germany, also came from the equivalent conservative party of Germany.

Already, I am grateful to Randy Black for bringing up the second topic: the definition of “Native American.” I will watch this discussion closely.

The inhabitants of land purchased by the US from 1803 automatically became Native Americans. This is the status I am seeking for the people of the Philippines, and in the process we are willing to give to the US Federal government the right, power and authority to take good care of our natural resources, especially because it has been proven beyond any doubt that Filipinos have turned the tropical islands into a massive environmental disaster.

JE comments: If we accept the experiences of other nations as a guide, it no doubt would/will be easier for the Republicans to elect a woman to the White House.

—

For information about the World Association of International Studies (WAIS), and its online publication, the World Affairs Report, read its homepage by simply double-clicking on: http://wais.stanford.edu/

John Eipper, Editor-in-Chief, Adrian College, MI 49221 USA