Bush's Political Capital = GOP refusal to vote on

[UConn James]

House GOP delivers defeat to Bush, derailing 9/11 legislation

 

Nice work guys!

[blzrul]

I heard a report on NPR earlier this week that an email was circulated to the White House press corps, quietly, that Bush plans to increase the CIA ranks by some 50%. I can't believe that would be the ENTIRE CIA ranks, so perhaps it's the covert section ... at least they're going to try to get people who speak Arabic (somewhere I read that there are only about 60 people in intelligence who speak Arabic but LOTS of Russian speakers). Anyway I haven't seen it in the mainstream press yet but there was a tape of a White House official confirming this.

 

So maybe this is part of Bush's answer to the report and also what he meant when he stated late last week that he had a "plan to create more jobs".

 

More government, just what we were needing.

[RkFast]

Yeah....that Bush....increasing the CIA's strength that was cut to shreads by Clinton and trying to implement the Commissions recommendations. And according to the article I read about it...doing it with exsisting funds.

 

What a bad leader!

[KRC]

I heard a report on NPR earlier this week that an email was circulated to the White House press corps, quietly, that Bush plans to increase the CIA ranks by some 50%.  I can't believe that would be the ENTIRE CIA ranks, so perhaps it's the covert section ... at least they're going to try to get people who speak Arabic (somewhere I read that there are only about 60 people in intelligence who speak Arabic but LOTS of Russian speakers).  Anyway I haven't seen it in the mainstream press yet but there was a tape of a White House official confirming this.

 

So maybe this is part of Bush's answer to the report and also what he meant when he stated late last week that he had a "plan to create more jobs". 

 

More government, just what we were needing.

133695[/snapback]

 

But yet, you would probably be the first one to complain, if something were to happen again, that we did not have enough people working on the problem.

[UConn James]

Yeah....that Bush....increasing the CIA's strength that was cut to shreads by Clinton and trying to implement the Commissions recommendations. And according to the article I read about it...doing it with exsisting funds.

 

What a bad leader! 

133700[/snapback]

 

I wasn't bashing for the desire of a stronger CIA. I was bashing at the Republicants in Congress who wouldn't pass the recommendations of a bipartisan commission that did an excellent job in telling us where the weaknesses are. Bush publicly says he supports them. But he can't deliver, even when it's not going to take more money and his party controls our entire gov't!?

 

Nov. 3 was a severe overestimation of how much "political capital" he's got in his wallet. Which in some areas (not this one tho) is fine by me.

[_BiB_]

Probably the single biggest chokepoint in intelligence analysis is the lack of interpreters. Arabic, Farsi and similar languages have unusual nuances to them based on regional differences that almost require a native speaker (or someone with years of study and experience) in order not to make misinterpretations. There is also a serious shortfall in field agents, not necessarily folks running around in disguise in the back alleys, but those who manage collection assets on the ground. HUMINT collection and analysis was cut to the bone during the Clinton administration through short sightedness. As was mentioned, the majority of effort was directed at the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and to a lesser extent, Asia (China). After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the establishment of "friendlier" relations with China, the determination was made that collection efforts in those areas need not be so heavily weighted, as the threat prtrayed there was lessened. This actually makes a lot of sense, practically and fiscally. The problem was, no one was looking down the road. What should have happened, hindsight being 20-20, is that the Africa-Middle East branches should have ramped up. You just don't shift gears. The Russia guys and gals are specialists in their areas. You just can't say "OK, today we quit Russia and start concentrating on Islamic Jihad." One has to build a new organization. I personally think the Clinton Administration should have seen the writing on the wall after Somalia, as early on there was ample evidence of Al Qaida's involvement not only there, but within the Horn and in several areas of the middle east. It didn't happen, and the Bush administration never picked up on it until it was too late. For 50 years, we viewed our primary National Security threat as a fairly easily monitored, organized state run military machine.

 

When facing any potential adversary, you have an intelligence requirement vs an operational requirement. With a "conventional" threat such as the Soviet forces, this is weighted maybe 20% intell vs. 80% operational, since it's very easy to figure out where they are and what they might do. With an asymetrical threat such as Al Qaida this becomes reversed. Both the Global War on Terror and the Combating Proliferation of WMD are extremely intell intensive, and also operationally much less of a strain. The ratio becomes something more like 80% intell and 20% operational. The single biggest and most important piece of the war on terror is a decent intelligence apparatus. Once the intell comes through, the operational aspects are relatively simple.

 

So, when you take a look at how the dynamics have changed, a 50% or whatever it is increase in that area is probably the best spent money the government has spent in quite some time. This is also hampering the construction of an "all purpose" intelligence apparatus, which is affecting the passage of the intell bill. The "flavor" of the intell required by the warfighter is of a different type than that provided by an organization such as the CIA, though a lot of it crosses over. Until an interface that everyone is comfortable gets ironed out and agreed on, I'd much rather see them sit on it until a wiring diagram we know will work gets drawn up.

[BuffaloBorn1960]

I was bashing at the Republicants in Congress who wouldn't pass the recommendations of a bipartisan commission that did an excellent job in telling us where the weaknesses are.

 

 

Thats right! No need to have a debate or discussion... We should rubber stamp this as soon as possible! That will keep us safe and protect the Homeland. The Commision was all knowing!! They had no political agenda... These guy are the smartest group ever assembled!!

[Mickey]

Yeah....that Bush....increasing the CIA's strength that was cut to shreads by Clinton and trying to implement the Commissions recommendations. And according to the article I read about it...doing it with exsisting funds.

 

What a bad leader! 

133700[/snapback]

"Cut to shreds"???? Do you have any support for that claim?

 

Counter Terrorism appropriations under Clinton increased dramatically over the course of his administration. By 1999, he was spending over 3 times what Bush had spent in 1991. The appropriations for CT for the CIA in particular during that period mirrored the overall increase. In fact, a Senate Investigation of 9/11 concluded that prior to the attacks, CT spending had "quintupled" during a time of tight budgets. The FBI experienced a 350% increase in it's CT funds. Personnel in both the FBI and CIA working on CT increased just as dramatically during the Clinton years although they leveled off in his last year in office as the budget got tighter. The numbers actually fell during Dubya's administration and prior to 9/11. An FBI budget official noted that Ashcroft specifically wasn't interested in CT efforts by the FBI, they were not a priority as far as he was concerned.

 

Overall intelligence budgets are meaningless in this context. What matters is what is spent on CT. It won't help you to nab terrorists if you double the intel budget and they spend the increase on a pension plan. Cuts in intelligence budgets were supported after the fall of the USSR by just about everyone, including Republicans. Arlen Specter proposed and had passed a $1 Billion cut in 1996 to recover unspent funds which had accumulated in what amounted to a slush fund. A bi-partisan committee headed by Warren Rudman (R-NH) commented that despite the overall cuts in intelligence in the post Cold War climate, we were still spending, in the 1990's, about 80% more than was spent a decade before at the height of the Cold War even after adjusting for inflation.

 

Tellingly, at the same time there were some cuts in overall intelligence spending, counter-terrorism spending increased dramatically. Obviously, counter-terrorism became a priority in the 1990's and that is reflected in the the increased spending on this issue at a time of fiscal austerity when all other intel spending was dropping.

 

Senate Report 9/11, see also, Fact Check

 

The idea that Clinton "shredded" defense is just as full of s**t as the claim we heard over the last six months that Kerry "gutted" intelligence agencies. Of course, with the Republicans running the show for the last 4 years and 4 more ahead, they have to keep blaming Clinton for every shortcoming of their own.

 

9/11 is over three years old now and we still don't have enough interpreters? How is it Bill Clinton's fault that the CIA hasn't hired over the last three years the interpreters that they need? Heck, I could learn Farsi from scratch myself in less time than that. By all means though, blame Clinton.

 

*Edit: Here is a link that shows that despite the end of both the Gulf War and the Cold War, defense spending, adjusted for inflation, under Clinton remained virtually the same as under Bush without the large cuts one would have expected given those developments and the record shattering deficits he inherited from Bush I. National Securtiy Spending 1940-2003

[Mickey]

Probably the single biggest chokepoint in intelligence analysis is the lack of interpreters. Arabic, Farsi and similar languages have unusual nuances to them based on regional differences that almost require a native speaker (or someone with years of study and experience) in order not to make misinterpretations. There is also a serious shortfall in field agents, not necessarily folks running around in disguise in the back alleys, but those who manage collection assets on the ground. HUMINT collection and analysis was cut to the bone during the Clinton administration through short sightedness. As was mentioned, the majority of effort was directed at the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and to a lesser extent, Asia (China). After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the establishment of "friendlier" relations with China, the determination was made that collection efforts in those areas need not be so heavily weighted, as the threat prtrayed there was lessened. This actually makes a lot of sense, practically and fiscally. The problem was, no one was looking down the road. What should have happened, hindsight being 20-20, is that the Africa-Middle East branches should have ramped up. You just don't shift gears. The Russia guys and gals are specialists in their areas. You just can't say "OK, today we quit Russia and start concentrating on Islamic Jihad." One has to build a new organization. I personally think the Clinton Administration should have seen the writing on the wall after Somalia, as early on there was ample evidence of Al Qaida's involvement not only there, but within the Horn and in several areas of the middle east. It didn't happen, and the Bush administration never picked up on it until it was too late. For 50 years, we viewed our primary National Security threat as a fairly easily monitored, organized state run military machine.

 

When facing any potential adversary, you have an intelligence requirement vs an operational requirement. With a "conventional" threat such as the Soviet forces, this is weighted maybe 20% intell vs. 80% operational, since it's very easy to figure out where they are and what they might do. With an asymetrical threat such as Al Qaida this becomes reversed. Both the Global War on Terror and the Combating Proliferation of WMD are extremely intell intensive, and also operationally much less of a strain. The ratio becomes something more like 80% intell and 20% operational. The single biggest and most important piece of the war on terror is a decent intelligence apparatus. Once the intell comes through, the operational aspects are relatively simple.

 

So, when you take a look at how the dynamics have changed, a 50% or whatever it is increase in that area is probably the best spent money the government has spent in quite some time. This is also hampering the construction of an "all purpose" intelligence apparatus, which is affecting the passage of the intell bill. The "flavor" of the intell required by the warfighter is of a different type than that provided by an organization such as the CIA, though a lot of it crosses over. Until an interface that everyone is comfortable gets ironed out and agreed on, I'd much rather see them sit on it until a wiring diagram we know will work gets drawn up.

133742[/snapback]

"Cut to the bone"? link? From what I could find, the budgets for CT show otherwise at both the CIA and the FBI.

[DC Tom]

"Cut to shreds"????  Do you have any support for that claim?

 

Counter Terrorism appropriations under Clinton increased dramatically over the course of his administration.  By 1999, he was spending over 3 times what Bush had spent in 1991.  The appropriations for CT for the CIA in particular during that period mirrored the overall increase.  In fact, a Senate Investigation of 9/11 concluded that prior to the attacks, CT spending had "quintupled" during a time of tight budgets.  The FBI experienced a 350% increase in it's CT funds.  Personnel in both the FBI and CIA working on CT increased just as dramatically during the Clinton years although they leveled off in his last year in office as the budget got tighter.  The numbers actually fell during Dubya's administration and prior to 9/11.  An FBI budget official noted that Ashcroft specifically wasn't interested in CT efforts by the FBI, they were not a priority as far as he was concerned.

 

Overall intelligence budgets are meaningless in this context.  What matters is what is spent on CT.  It won't help you to nab terrorists if you double the intel budget and they spend the increase on a pension plan.  Cuts in intelligence budgets were supported after the fall of the USSR by just about everyone, including Republicans.  Arlen Specter proposed and had passed a $1 Billion cut in 1996 to recover unspent funds which had accumulated in what amounted to a slush fund.  A bi-partisan committee headed by Warren Rudman (R-NH) commented that despite the overall cuts in intelligence in the post Cold War climate, we were still spending, in the 1990's, about 80% more than was spent a decade before at the height of the Cold War even after adjusting for inflation.

 

Tellingly, at the same time there were some cuts in overall intelligence spending, counter-terrorism spending increased dramatically.  Obviously, counter-terrorism became a priority in the 1990's and that is reflected in the the increased spending on this issue at a time of fiscal austerity when all other intel spending was dropping.

 

Senate Report 9/11, see also, Fact Check

 

The idea that Clinton "shredded" defense is just as full of s**t as the claim we heard over the last six months that Kerry "gutted" intelligence agencies.  Of course, with the Republicans running the show for the last 4 years and 4 more ahead, they have to keep blaming Clinton for every shortcoming of their own.

 

9/11 is over three years old now and we still don't have enough interpreters?  How is it Bill Clinton's fault that the CIA hasn't hired over the last three years the interpreters that they need?  Heck, I could learn Farsi from scratch myself in less time than that.  By all means though, blame Clinton.

134021[/snapback]

 

Clinton didn't "cut" counter-terrorism, per se. What did happen under the Clinton administration is that the intelligence community in general shifted away from relying on human resources towards relying on technological resources - in other words, fewer agents, more communications interception and satellite recon. And even beyond that shift, it was a policy long before Clinton's administration to rely on "allied" services such as the Pakistani ISI for regional HUMINT...even during the Soviet Afghan invasion, the number of Afghans directly on the CIA payroll rarely if ever exceeded 40, and most of those were cut loose after the Soviet withdrawal.

 

As for learning Farsi...go ahead, try it. Keep in mind the differences in dialects are much wider than differences in English dialects, so learning a single dialect is of limited use...plus, even after you've learned it, you still don't necessarily have the cultural context that allows you to do translations of an accuracy needed at the national security level...plus Farsi itself is limited in its demographic spread, so you'd also have to learn Pashtu and Arabic (which themselves have a wide variety of dialects - Egyptian Arabic is not the same as Palestinian Arabic is completely different from the classical Arabic of the Koran). Then to actually work with it, you'd need your security clearance...probably TS, which takes about two years these days. Maybe you could teach yourself Pashtu in three years - probably in six months; you're smart enough. But if you think you can learn to work with it in that time, you're delusional.

[Alaska Darin]

"Cut to shreds"????  Do you have any support for that claim?

134021[/snapback]

Sorry Mick, you're wrong. I lived it. Not read about it, not perused studies by some desk jockey in a "think tank", LIVED IT.

 

We cut our asset recruitment to the bone and hamstrung our field operatives with ridiculous rules that made it easier for our enemies to do what they do and harder for us to find out about it.

 

For some reason people like to pretend the government throwing money at a problem is actually a good solution. Then there's reality.

 

Of course, you actually believe John Kerry is close to the center...

[_BiB_]

"Cut to the bone"?  link?  From what I could find, the budgets for CT show otherwise at both the CIA and the FBI.

134031[/snapback]

 

The appropriations may have been there, but the type of gathering it was invested in proved to be off the mark. There wasn't much of anything put into field collection as compared to what was put into analysis and high-tech gathering means. Toys and analysis are the big ticket items, money wise and garner more support at appropriations time. The increases into the FBI did nothing for foreign intelligence gathering. I'm not picking on Clinton. Everyone, including Bush 1 and 2 got whacked by looking the wrong way and not recognizing the actual threat until it was too late. Hindsight once again being 20-20, we should have been on this like a dog on a bone somewhere not long after the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan.

 

A problem that you have to accept with interpreters and other intelligence workers is that those positions require a Top-Secret security clearance with Special Compartmented Access. These take upwards of two years to complete, and often an additional 6-12 months for agency vetting. Especially when you are forced to use foreign associated help. Many American citizens that are qualified also tend to have relatives living within the targeted nations. These people have to be investigated to a degree as well, and that is a difficult and time consuming process.

[Mickey]

The appropriations may have been there, but the type of gathering it was invested in proved to be off the mark. There wasn't much of anything put into field collection as compared to what was put into analysis and high-tech gathering means. Toys and analysis are the big ticket items, money wise and garner more support at appropriations time. The increases into the FBI did nothing for foreign intelligence gathering. I'm not picking on Clinton. Everyone, including Bush 1 and 2  got whacked by looking the wrong way and not recognizing the actual threat until it was too late. Hindsight once again being 20-20, we should have been on this like a dog on a bone somewhere not long after the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan.

 

A problem that you have to accept with interpreters and other intelligence workers is that those positions require a Top-Secret security clearance with Special Compartmented Access. These take upwards of two years to complete, and often an additional 6-12 months for agency vetting. Especially when you are forced to use foreign associated help. Many American citizens that are qualified also tend to have relatives living within the targeted nations. These people have to be investigated to a degree as well, and that is a difficult and time consuming process.

134077[/snapback]

 

I am sure there were problems and I agree that we all got caught looking the wrong way. That is why you won't find posts from me claiming that evey military or intel problem we have is Senator Hossenfeffer's fault or Bush's fault or whatever. I was responding to the "gutted" and "cut to the bone" stuff. Presidents and legislators have a lot more to say over total appropriations than they do on the day to day spending of those resources. The money was not gutted and when it comes to CT, that is the only place that experienced a dramatic increase.

 

I agree with AD that simply throwing money at something doesn't solve anything. Then again, I am not the one claiming that we don't have interpreters because Clinton "gutted" the CIA. It is kind of a push-me-pull-me argument: One guy slams Clinton saying he gutted, ie slashed the budget, of the CIA so we don't have interpreters. I point out that the truth is, CT appropriations went up 350%. Then the response is: so what? money doesn't matter. See, when it slams Clinton, money matters. When the numbers support him, they don't matter.

 

One guy says bean counting doesn't matter and the other says it does and that Clinton screwed us out of a lot of beans.

 

I understand and appreciate the info on the problems getting interpreters. What I don't get is why we are just starting a program to deal with that shortage 3 years after 9/11.

[blzrul]

Throwing bodies at a problem won't solve it. And so far that's all this administration has done. Pretty funny how conservatives B word that Clinton CUT government and side with Bush's GROWING government without asking for indication of a return.

 

Now if they'd replace, say, a certain number of those Russian-speakers with Arabic, that would be good (if they could GET the Arabic speakers, which is a separate issue). That could be done without adding headcount.

 

As to funding - the claim that it's "existing" funding is a little squishy. The aide interviewed refused to address that question in detail. It's coming from somewhere, that's for sure. Just because it doesn't mean going to Congress for supplemental funding doesn't mean it's all in the clear. Somewhere another program will be un- or underfunded for a period of time, because unlike a finite project with a completion date, once you hire someone they tend to want to CONTINUE to be paid and THAT funding has to come from somewhere.,

[Mickey]

Sorry Mick, you're wrong.  I lived it.  Not read about it, not perused studies by some desk jockey in a "think tank", LIVED IT.

 

We cut our asset recruitment to the bone and hamstrung our field operatives with ridiculous rules that made it easier for our enemies to do what they do and harder for us to find out about it.

 

For some reason people like to pretend the government throwing money at a problem is actually a good solution.  Then there's reality.

 

Of course, you actually believe John Kerry is close to the center...

134073[/snapback]

I don't get it AD. I was responding to the notion that the CIA was "cut to shreds" by showing a 350% increase in CT funding. Your response is that money doesn't matter so apparently, whether he cut anything to shreds is irrelevant. I am not sure what role the President himself plays in determining agency policy and day to day actions but I am guessing, not much.

 

The report I linked contains numerous statements by FBI, NSA and CIA officials that despite the CT budget increases, they didn't have enough resources but those same sources pretty much acknowledged that they never ever thought they had enough resources for any objective. A Gov't Agency complaining that they don't have enough money is pretty much a reflex response to budget issues. The problem is that determining how much is enough is simply not possible, we are not buying widgets.

 

What are these ridiculous rules you are talking about? Somebody apparently didn't think they were so ridiculous. Obviously, you think that they are and that carries plenty of weight with me but I can't discuss them intelligently with you if I don't know what they are. There are usually two sides to every story and I imagine that the higher ranking people who made those rules had reasons they saw as compelling, backing up their decisions.

 

Any way, we are getting a little far afield here in that my main concern was the fiction that Clinton "gutted" the military budget. On the ground decisions, tactics, strategy and the rest are more interesting and probably more relevant to understanding effectiveness but it is a far step from where this discussion started.

[_BiB_]

All I know for certain is that I'm involved in working on something major that is very intelligence driven in it's requirements, and it's hurting the effectiveness of what we are trying to do because of the assumptions that have to be made (rather than having facts) because of the void. It will get better in time, but in a nutshell it comes down to a lack HUMINT assets on the inside that just aren't there. Analysts need something to analyse, and sat photos and Ferret intercepts aren't going to do it.

[Alaska Darin]

I don't get it AD.  I was responding to the notion that the CIA was "cut to shreds" by showing a 350% increase in CT funding. Your response is that money doesn't matter so apparently, whether he cut anything to shreds is irrelevant.  I am not sure what role the President himself plays in determining agency policy and day to day actions but I am guessing, not much. 

 

The report I linked contains numerous statements by FBI, NSA and CIA officials that despite the CT budget increases, they didn't have enough resources but those same sources pretty much acknowledged that they never ever thought they had enough resources for any objective.  A Gov't Agency complaining that they don't have enough money is pretty much a reflex response to budget issues.  The problem is that determining how much is enough is simply not possible, we are not buying widgets. 

 

What are these ridiculous rules you are talking about?  Somebody apparently didn't think they were so ridiculous.  Obviously, you think that they are and that carries plenty of weight with me but I can't discuss them intelligently with you if I don't know what they are.  There are usually two sides to every story and I imagine that the higher ranking people who made those rules had reasons they saw as compelling, backing up their decisions.

 

Any way, we are getting a little far afield here in that my main concern was the fiction that Clinton "gutted" the military budget.  On the ground decisions, tactics, strategy and the rest are more interesting and probably more relevant to understanding effectiveness but it is a far step from where this discussion started.

134158[/snapback]

The E.O. Mr. Clinton signed that prohibited the recruitment of unsavory characters as intelligence assets was probably the single worst thing. Reality is "choir boys" can't infiltrate bad guy organizations, especially in places we don't have alot of assets in the first place just because of culture differences.

 

The Church Commission back in the 1970s pointed out alot of issues with our intelligence gathering apparatus that ended up showing their validity throughout the 1990s, culminating in 9/11.

 

There were members of Mr. Clinton's own staff that recognized the need for legislation similiar to the Patriot Act during the administration. It fell on deaf ears.

 

We fell in love with technology at the expense of HUMINT. We paid a high price for it.

[stuckincincy]

House GOP delivers defeat to Bush, derailing 9/11 legislation

 

Nice work guys! 

131377[/snapback]

 

Too bad Torrecilli, Church et al put the fetters on the CIA and the FBI in years past...

[DC Tom]

Throwing bodies at a problem won't solve it. 

134157[/snapback]

 

It will if they're properly trained bodies. The backlog in translation work, for example, is immense...and as far as I know, the job's funded, but there's simply no one capable of doing the work. Like you said, GETTING the linguists is the problem.

[blzrul]

It will if they're properly trained bodies.  The backlog in translation work, for example, is immense...and as far as I know, the job's funded, but there's simply no one capable of doing the work.  Like you said, GETTING the linguists is the problem.

134350[/snapback]

My point exactly. There are approximately 60 Arabic speakers in the intelligence service that we know of, period.

[GG]

I wasn't bashing for the desire of a stronger CIA. I was bashing at the Republicants in Congress who wouldn't pass the recommendations of a bipartisan commission that did an excellent job in telling us where the weaknesses are. Bush publicly says he supports them. But he can't deliver, even when it's not going to take more money and his party controls our entire gov't!?

 

Nov. 3 was a severe overestimation of how much "political capital" he's got in his wallet. Which in some areas (not this one tho) is fine by me.

133732[/snapback]

 

My understanding is that the bill had a lot of unsettled issues on budget and lines of authority, and Pentagon was fighting it like mad. I'd rather have them fight out all the isuses before passing the bill, instead of rushing to pass something to meet the lame duck deadline and pass a half arsed law.

[Terry Tate]

Since the subject came up, I thought someone might be interested in what is involved in recruiting and training a DoD Arabic linguist.

 

1. Identify candidates by screening recruits based upon standard aptitude battery tests.

2. Further screen using the Defense Language Aptitude Battery (DLAB). A short introduction of a foreign language - cold - followed by a written test, and a listening and comprehension test. Candidates who pass the test are allowed to select a language-based specialty.

3. Basic military training, time period varies between services. After graduating basic training, a specific target language is selected. If there is more than one language class beginning that still has open slots (usually the case as they try to group classes together), a candidate may have more than one language to choose from.

4. Candidates then attend an English language class for six weeks. Basic little brown book grammar instruction, to cut down on the amount of time spent during target language instruction on basics. (note - I don't believe this is done anymore, but was test case done years ago and dropped.)

5. Basic Language training at the Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center (DLI/FLC), Presidio of Monterey, California. Students attend language training Monday through Friday, eight hours a day for the duration of the course. The course length is determined by the language difficulty. The longest courses - Chinese, Korean, Russian, and Arabic are 47 week courses. After school study time depends on the individual, could be 1-2 hours up to 4 hours or more. At the end of the course, the student must demonstrate reading, writing, speaking, listening and comprehension skills at the basic level (level 2). Many students do not last the year for various reasons. The year-long courses have the highest washout rate. It is during this time that the candidates are being investigated for their Top Secret clearance, with access to Sensitive Compartmented Intelligence (TS/SCI). Some are not granted this access, for various reasons, and are reassigned to other specialties, even if language training was successfully completed. They will never work in the intelligence field.

6. After learning the most basic level of the language, the candidates then must complete technical training, which introduces you to the intelligence field. The tools that are used, and how to apply your language skills to the task at hand. This training lasts four months. Failure to grasp this knowledge and apply it at the most basic level causes more candidates to washout. As these skills are somewhat different than the ones used to learn the foreign language, it is sometimes surprising to see which candidates fail and which pass, or struggle to do so.

7. After a year and a half of basic, language, and technical training, the candidate is now ready for his first duty assignment. He is not done training, however. Once arriving at his duty assignment, the candidate is now entered into training at an actual duty position. These duty positions vary in scope and difficulty that require training anywhere from a couple months to a year or more. Candidates can and do make it this far and fail. Not often, but it happens.

 

The candidate is now ready to perform the most basic, entry-level tasks in the intelligence field. It will be some time before the candidate has the necessary skill to be entrusted with the more demanding, sensitive tasks. Some candidates are selected for additional intermediate or advanced language training to increase their skills up to near-native or native, which vary in length from months to another year.

 

If you've read all of this, you can begin to appreciate the difficulty in recruiting, identifying, training, conducting background investigations, pipelining the candidates to units in need, and retaining them.

[_BiB_]

Very good post. You just don't get these people off the street. To give a post-training perspective, the organization I work for spends a lot of time in the former Soviet Union (we are responsible for treaty monitoring and verification, as well as assisting the FSU in dismantling their cold war nuclear stockpile). Our military interpreters average 10-12 years before even being considered for an assignment. They are required to not only demonstrate native fluency in Russian, but are required to have what amounts to college major level understanding of the culture and philosophy of the people. Some of these folks (all enlisted, mostly E-6 some E7) hold Masters degrees in Russian Studies, International Politics, Policy, etc)

 

I can't imagine that the intelligence agencies are (or should be) much less demanding. As a matter of fact, some of them have previously served tours with the DIA. A great many of our military people have done so as there is a huge requirement for understanding the intelligence business in order to be able to work on the combating WMD issues.

 

And, to the best of my knowledge, we don't have a single one who speaks arabic.

[UConn James]

My understanding is that the bill had a lot of unsettled issues on budget and lines of authority, and Pentagon was fighting it like mad.  I'd rather have them fight out all the isuses before passing the bill, instead of rushing to pass something to meet the lame duck deadline and pass a half arsed law.

134668[/snapback]

 

Much of it is politics. Pure and simple. It's a matter of who gets the credit, rather than doing what needs to be done.

 

Intelligence bill's failure reflects speaker's tactic

 

Hastert's "majority of the majority" reads a lot like "Congress within the Congress." This is exactly the type of utter crap that loses you elections. So, actually, keep it up, Denny! Maybe the right will be forced back to a position where I might consider voting for them again.