大象传媒

INTELLIGENCE

If we screened Prime Ministers for megalomania, illusions of grandeur, etc (help me here JJ) intelligence might be of some value. But nutter PMs (Blair knew) and strange retired Judges, will always give us 'just wars' - on any pretext.

I am looking forward to the playback of how Mr Urban and his investigative newshounds as one voiced such scepticism and quickly debunked all of the Blair governments "facts being fixed around the policy" during those dark days, by a simple fact find and a few hours research on the internet.After all its"what we do best".

Why have ypu been so slow to cover this? This is just another example how the MOD consistently displays poor judgement - on equipment, manpower and now seemingly the deployment of it's real estate.

Are the people in charge really up to the job? - why should we have to put up with an inept MOD - something is structurarly wrong with this Dept.

To all new labourites - quit now and quietly go

The former head of the Civil Service advocating the strengthened involvement of the Civil Service? I cannot see any conflict there.

If the DIS had any teeth, then surely they would have made a difference nearly 6 years ago, instead of whining to the 大象传媒 about it now.

You assume that the cuts led to mistakes in Iraq. I beg to differ, the so called mistakes made over Iraq's WMD were deliberate & intentional to mislead the HoP and the public into supporting the Blair's drive into the war.

....could make a repetition of the Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction saga more likely. ....

for that you would also need a captain ahab figure like blair? whose only defence is that he believed with every fibre of his being? Which is not a rational basis for any decision. There was enough doubt in the facts to make the probability the uk was in danger unlikely?

intelligence wasn't the problem. the politics was and the grip of the neocons over uk foreign policy.

if Kelly didn't stop them nothing would? If Blix didn't nothing could? For the neocons in uk govt evidence and facts only got in the way?

I was serving in the RAF at Headquarters Strike Command (involved in communications network planning) and I remember the publication of the government鈥檚 鈥渄odgy dossier鈥� claiming that some WMD could be used within 45 minutes and some could threaten Cyprus. This raised quite a laugh amongst myself and colleagues as anyone with a little military knowledge knew that both claims were stretching the truth: Saddam lost plenty of his own troops to chemical munitions in the Iraq/Iran War and his ballistic missile programme was a joke (based on the SCUD missile). Moreover, I was in daily contact with colleagues in theatre (both Cyprus and Kuwait/Iraq) and they were shocked at NBC (chemical warfare) kit shortages, which indicated even the military viewed this supposed causus belli with a great deal of realism. Afterwards, of course, we found out that too much weight was placed on the claims of a single source regurgitating Soviet doctrine.

Presumably the government wants to simply dispense with intelligence and replace it with propaganda, as they did the last time. After all, they can trawl the internet and get Mr Campbell to come up with whatever headlines he wishes!

FAILURE OF PUBLIC SERVICE

The postings above add up to a strong urge to the 大象传媒 to run a 'Special', showing (succinctly please - no semi-obscured visuals and musical enhancement) the bare faced deception foisted on Britons under a bogus banner of democracy. For a start, I would like to see IDS grilled over his part in sending Tory MPs into the War lobby, when anyone with two brain cells (am I on to something?) could see what Blair was up to.

Mark

Arguably the DIS is a business managed by the MOD on behalf of we the tax payer. As a tax payer and thus shareholder in this business, questions come to mind about the actions of the managers (MOD) in relation to the on-going health of this business.

Severe cost cutting of this magnitude will inevitably impact on business (DIS) output. And we need to be reassured that managers are acting in the national best interest rather than simply blindly seeking short term departmental specific savings. Which if any of the current DIS services are to be cut or curtailed, or diminished in value by the loss of so many analysts ? How quickly could that expertise be re-established , if needs be ? What does this mean for the resilience of supply of said analysis in a time of crisis or peak demand when strains on manning become extreme ? Have customers been made aware of the specific implications for them and have their needs been properly addressed as part of the business decision to cut staff in the DIS. Have managers been diligent in seeking additional sources of funding to sustain output considered valuable by customers. ?

Whilst I doubt MOD would willingly enter into a discussion with journalists about this, it is to be hoped that the Cabinet Office are already asking such questions and ensuring that national intelligence priorities rather than departmental estate priorities lead decision making with regard to the DIS. Any comment from the Cabinet Office to date ?

Mark,

You have answered your own question -

"During the run up to the Iraq war, the DIS proved to be the only part of the government machine that seriously questioned the way that the case was being argued."

The government were wrong, DIS were right and now they are paying the price.

AND SCARLET GOT HIS PROMOTION (#10)

Plus ca change. Spot-on threnodio.

GREY AREA (Observation for Jaded Jean)

It has just dawned on me that, since the 'improvements' to the blog, WE (the punters) are all fighting to be 'heard' against a background greyness that might be regarded as redolent of the 'small print' of devious documents.

Then up pops the 大象传媒, in the form of Mark Urban's comments above, on a holier that thou, white background, WITH A 'DOMINANCE' (separatist) BOX ROUND IT!

It's all subversion these days, isn't it! (:o)

Oh, Mark, It is lovely to know that you still have the touching naivety that humans are essentially good and kind, and that middle age hasn't infected you with cynicism and scepticism.

Your belief that the 'intelligence' services are what will decide whether we go to war, or whether we licence arms exports, is laudable, but I'm of the view that such decisions will always be made for political and mercenary economic reasons...

And if the intelligence services 'piper' can be strongly reminded who is paying, then they may be slightly more reluctant to play their own choice of tune.

Mark

Thanks for the info on which functions are to be affected by the DIS cuts. Of course I have not seen the documents to which you refer, but it seems counter intuitive to believe that cutting analytical capacity will in some way improve our capability. If the current management structure is inefficient then it is reasonable to restructure accordingly, but what is the point of making management more efficient if you simultaneously cut the number of analysts and thus dilute the quality and quantity of analytical product that is to be provided.

The intent to cut Scientific and Technical Intelligence appears to make even less sense. Technology is such an important aspect of modern warfare that cutting the number of analysts involved in providing technical intelligence to our Defence Forces seems nonsensical.

Bland assurances from Baroness Taylor to the Lords to the effect that, "we are satisfied that the changes we are making will not have an adverse impact" are simply not enough.

Politicians act on our behalf and it is we who have to be reassured that serious negative consequences will not flow from the cuts being imposed. Any significant reduction in key areas of intelligence / Defence capability are bound to have consequences. It is the Government's responsibility to explain to the taxpayers their rationale for doing what appears intuitively quite stupid.

To-date all we know is that MOD has a desk space problem in Whitehall and as a consequence key Defence Intelligence capability is being diminished as a consequence. That makes sense to no one and calls into question the managerial competence of those involved.