Thread: Did the CIA get its mojo back?

Based on the intelligence failures of Iraq, and the double agent operation that led to the suicide bombing of a sensitive location of an intelligence facility in Afghanistan, and one of the most serious losses for the agency, the CIA has been heavily criticized. Notice the tone of the article printed in GQ.

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/poli...ger-to-the-cia

My question is simple, now that Osama bin Laden is dead, did the CIA get its mojo back? Was it ever gone to begin with?

Granny wantin' to know how much money we gonna save now dat Osama is dead?...

Will there be an Osama 'peace dividend'?
5/3/2011 - Until now, cuts in defense spending haven’t played dominant role in budget debate

With Osama bin Laden dead, can America go back to the days before terrorism and the big defense costs that came with it? The Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the United States took place near the end of a fiscal year in which the federal government ran a budget surplus of $127 billion. Military spending that year amounted to $291 billion, or about 15 percent of total spending. But the attack sent military budgets soaring. Defense outlays since 9/11 have increased, on average, by nearly 7 percent a year in inflation-adjusted terms. Military spending this year will be about $700 billion, nearly two and a half times the level in 2001, and nearly 20 percent of total federal spending.

The new billions being pumped into defense, along with other factors, helped change the budget surplus of 2001 into the deficits that followed. This year’s deficit will be close to $1.5 trillion, nearly 10 percent of gross domestic product, adding to growing fears of a debt crisis. If operations in Afghanistan and Iraq came to an end, total defense outlays would be reduced by roughly one fifth. Of course the Pentagon would still be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on pay and benefits for the troops, operations and maintenance, new weapons purchases, military construction, and housing for military families. The United States, for example, still keeps nearly 80,000 military personnel in Europe and 35,000 in Japan.

Room to cut spending?

As members of Congress return from recess this week to intensify their debate over the deficit and the debt, Osama bin Laden’s death focuses attention on military spending and specifically on the $110 billion-a-year U.S. commitment in Afghanistan. Until now, cuts in defense spending haven’t played a dominant role in the budget debate. But if U.S. troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan — which President Barack Obama says he wants to begin doing by July 1 — and if voters don’t see the need for continued outlays at post-9/11 levels, it could transform the budget debate.

Smaller military outlays might reduce the need for big cuts elsewhere in politically risky budget items like Medicare spending. In his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, Obama has already called for discretionary military spending (that is, not including spending on military retirement benefits) to be cut by 5 percent. Some argue that bin Laden's death opens the door to new spending cuts.

More http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42879948/ns/politics/

... an' if dey gonna use the money to pay down the deficit or dey just gonna spend it on sumpin' else??

Originally Posted by waltky

Granny wantin' to know how much money we gonna save now dat Osama is dead?...

Will there be an Osama 'peace dividend'?
5/3/2011 - Until now, cuts in defense spending haven’t played dominant role in budget debate


... an' if dey gonna use the money to pay down the deficit or dey just gonna spend it on sumpin' else??

Didn't read your post, but I'm going to say the CIA did get its mojo back. Yeah baby!!!

Clausewitz, et al,

You really don't have enough information to make this assumption.

Originally Posted by Clausewitz

Didn't read your post, but I'm going to say the CIA did get its mojo back. Yeah baby!!!

(COMMENT)

The Hunt for Osama bin Laden, not counting the interest in him prior, began nearly a decade ago. It cost over a Trillion Dollars; not counting those killed in the process and what it will take to extract ourselves out of the Region. There is still much more cost to bare.

A little story:

Originally Posted by Wiki

On January 6, 2007, the Beavers' men's basketball team snapped a 207-game losing streak to Division III schools, beating Bard College 81-52. It was their first Division III victory since 1996. Until their win over Occidental on February 22, 2011 the team had not won a game in conference play since 1985.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor..._of_Technology

Just because you score a win, does mean your decade of losing is broke. They went on to lose for another decade. But in CalTechs defense, it has produced over 30 Nobel Prize winners and twice that many National Medal in either Science or Technology.

The CIA didn't necessarily have (or have not) MoJo to gain or re-acquire. It may have, just as the Beavers were, lucky.

Most Respectfully,
R

Originally Posted by RoccoR

Clausewitz, et al,

You really don't have enough information to make this assumption.

(COMMENT)

The Hunt for Osama bin Laden, not counting the interest in him prior, began nearly a decade ago. It cost over a Trillion Dollars; not counting those killed in the process and what it will take to extract ourselves out of the Region. There is still much more cost to bare.

A little story:


Just because you score a win, does mean your decade of losing is broke. They went on to lose for another decade. But in CalTechs defense, it has produced over 30 Nobel Prize winners and twice that many National Medal in either Science or Technology.

The CIA didn't necessarily have (or have not) MoJo to gain or re-acquire. It may have, just as the Beavers were, lucky.

Most Respectfully,
R

And how does one, who doesn't work for the CIA, judge their success when they are not privy to the classified operations they conduct? They say the CIA got lucky

They got their mojo back! yeah baby

Clausewitz, et al,

You don't have to have access to classified operations to make this judgment; just be a product user.

Originally Posted by Clausewitz

And how does one, who doesn't work for the CIA, judge their success when they are not privy to the classified operations they conduct? They say the CIA got lucky

They got their mojo back! yeah baby

(COMMENT)

We don't even know if the location of ObL was even derived through a CIA Collection Operation. It may very well have come from a walk-in or a bounty hunter looking for the reward.

We simply don't have the data points to make very many assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

fun read.



I'd argue that the CIA never had Mojo to begin with.

Originally Posted by krunkskimo

fun read.



I'd argue that the CIA never had Mojo to begin with.

I'd argue if they did, we'd only hear about the failures.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

Clausewitz, et al,

You don't have to have access to classified operations to make this judgment; just be a product user.

(COMMENT)

We don't even know if the location of ObL was even derived through a CIA Collection Operation. It may very well have come from a walk-in or a bounty hunter looking for the reward.

We simply don't have the data points to make very many assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R

What products aren't classified?

Clausewitz, et al,

While most INTEL products are classified, INTEL OPS are compartmented and often protected behind a special access program. The INTEL derived from an operation, divorced of anything that would compromise sensitive sources and methods (AKA: below the "tear-line"), is usually handled differently.

Originally Posted by Clausewitz

What products aren't classified?

(COMMENT)

There are a few UNCLASS products. A typical CIA Fact Book is an example.

The NIE comes in three forms (UNCLASS, collateral, and SCI). As you know, the WMD info was nearly 95% wrong leading up to the Iraq Invasion.

Anyone that served recently in the military (AIP) probably used, at one time or another, an INTEL Product.

Most Respectfully,
R