Author Topic: CIA Chief will head Pentagon, Faint-prone chickenshit to head CIA [Full RMA!]  (Read 13366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kita

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,333
  • Action is the ONLY answer!
CIA Director Leon Panetta will replace Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, Gen. David Petraeus will be nominated to fill top CIA post, sources say.

(AP)  WASHINGTON - Administration sources say President Barack Obama plans this week to name CIA Director Leon Panetta to replace Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Gen. David Petraeus, now running the war in Afghanistan, would take the CIA chief's job.

The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because the changes are not final.

The changes would probably take effect this summer. Gates has already said he will leave this year.

The officials say Obama is expected to also announce that Lt. Gen. John Allen would replace Petraeus as Afghanistan commander, and that diplomat Ryan Crocker will be the next U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan.

The changes are expected to be announced Thursday at the White House

ONLY answer to God,for God is Good, honest and just.God is the one,we'll have to answer to one day for our actions in the here and now -DO NOT DOUBT IT!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
CIA’s Panetta Held Secret Talks on Syria in Ankara, Sabah Says
By Benjamin Harvey - Tue Apr 26 05:58:07 GMT 2011

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency chief Leon Panetta spent five days in the Turkish capital at the end of March discussing regional tensions as Syria became the latest Mideast country to erupt in protests, Sabah newspaper reported. The visit to meet Turkish officials including intelligence chief Hakan Fidan, who according to Sabah was sent to Syria to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan last month, was not announced to the public. Deborah Guido, spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, said she could not confirm it. Panneta’s talks included planning for possible regime change in Syria and ensuring the safety of the Assad family, Sabah wrote without saying how it got the information. The talks also touched on the fighting in Libya, Turkish- Israeli relations, intelligence-sharing in Iraq, cooperation in Afghanistan and the fight against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK, Sabah said.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta Unveils Blueprint for Agency’s Future
April 26, 2010

In remarks this morning to the Agency workforce, Director Leon E. Panetta unveiled CIA 2015, his blueprint for the organization’s future. CIA 2015 is an aggressive plan that builds on outstanding work done since 9/11. Its goal is to ensure that the Agency continues to act decisively on today’s national security challenges—such as terrorism, the proliferation of dangerous technology, cyber threats, and the actions of rogue states—while pivoting more easily toward emerging priorities.

“There’s something I’ve often said about government, but it applies to every organization,” said Director Panetta. “We govern either by leadership or by crisis. Leadership means making tough choices and planning ahead. That’s why we’re taking a hard look at future challenges, and what we want our Agency to look like five years from now. It’s our responsibility to get out in front of any problems, and CIA 2015 will help us do that.”

Director Panetta outlined CIA 2015’s three pillars. The first is investing in people. The CIA will recruit, train, and retain a highly talented and diverse workforce with the strengths to tackle any mission that arises. Bolstering the Agency’s foreign language capabilities is essential to that objective. The plan doubles the number of clandestine officers—and triples the number of analysts—enrolled in language training.

The CIA will enhance its use of more flexible and innovative deployments overseas—including new approaches to cover—paving the way for even better intelligence collection. More co-location of analysts and operators at home and abroad will both enrich the information provided to policymakers and lead to even more operational success in the field. This sort of fusion has more than proved its value over the years, and has been key to victories in counterterrorism and counterproliferation, among other disciplines.

The second pillar is investing in technology to extend the CIA’s operational and analytic reach and become more efficient. Agency personnel must be able to operate effectively and securely in a rapidly changing global information environment.

The plan boosts the CIA’s potential for human-enabled technical collection and provides advanced software tools to help Agency officers tackle the huge volume of data they encounter in their work.

The third pillar is to achieve a new level of agility in maintaining the Agency’s global presence and surging for emergencies. The Agency will transform its support platforms around the world and consolidate certain business functions.

Director Panetta commended the Agency’s tradition of minimal bureaucracy, a key ingredient in its responsiveness and impact. “When we’re told to get a job done, we can do it,” he said. “But we can’t take anything for granted. As good as we are, we can be better. As capable as we are, we can do more. As smart as we are, we can be tougher.” He closed by paying tribute to the men and women of the CIA. Noting the bravery that Agency officers so often show—including in situations overseas like natural disasters that go beyond their intelligence charter—Director Panetta said, “You reflect not only America’s strength, but its ingenuity and decency, too.”

“During the course of my career, I’ve come to appreciate the people who truly focus on doing what’s right for the nation. I’m honored to lead this Agency and to be part of its amazing mission. My goal is to build on the strengths of the CIA and keep it the very best intelligence agency in the 21st century. Every generation has dedicated itself to the American dream of giving our children a better life. The test of our success is whether we can give our children a safer world.”

The Director’s session with employees, held in the Headquarters Auditorium, was also broadcast to CIA personnel in the Washington area and overseas.

100% full ttreason. The CIA is supposed to only be for information gathering and is not to operate on American soil. Panetta lays out a plan to have the CIA be fully autonomous with full technology to undermine the legitimate government of the United States of America and now he is being appointed to run the entire Pentagon. This represents a clear vision for the banksters to shift the Pentagon from overseas battles to attacking the United States. And Mr. Chicken Shit (according to Admiral Falon) is now going to allow all of the IED false flags in Iraq/Afghanistan to be implemented in the US along with white phosphorous, death squads, full martial law, and abu graibs on every street corner. Or maybe he will just faint on the job like he did in the middle of congressional testimony.

This is full implementation of the communist "Revolution in Military Affairs" for the entire country! Full Nazi Cybernetics for the banksters control. There will be no liberty and no security. These total puppet morons are just front men for complete psychopaths to deploy unholy hell onto the American people via William Lynn III cyber tyranny, Jane Lute control over our childrens' minds, Raytheon drone wars, DARPA cheetah carnivore robots, weather weapons, more insane drills for continuity of gov, and General Electric control over all commerce. This is a coup d'etat climax for the East India Trading Company.

These appointments are worse than having Charles Manson becomming head of Planned Parenthood.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Special Reports

The 2015 world, according to the CIA

Global Trends 2015:
A dialogue about the future with nongovernment experts

"This paper was prepared under the direction of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). In undertaking this comprehensive analysis, the NIC worked actively with a range of nongovernmental institutions and experts. We began the analysis with two workshops focusing on drivers and alternative futures, as the appendix describes. Subsequently, numerous specialists from academia and the private sector contributed to every aspect of the study, from demographics to developments in science and technology, from the global arms market to implications for the United States. Many of the judgments in this paper derive from our efforts to distill the diverse views expressed at these conferences or related workshops."

1. Overview
2. The Drivers and Trends
3. Key Uncertainties: Technology Will Alter Outcomes
4. Key Challenges to Governance: People Will Decide
5. Discussion
6. Population Trends
7. Divergent Aging Patterns
8. Movement of People
9. Health
10. Natural Resources and Environment
11. Food
12. Water
13. Energy
14. Environment
15. Science and Technology
16. Information Technology
17. Biotechnology
18. Other Technologies
19. The Global Economy
20. Dynamism and Growth
21. Unequal Growth Prospects and Distribution
22. Economic Crises and Resilience
23. National and International Governance
24. Nonstate Actors
25. Criminal Organizations and Networkss
26. Changing Communal Identities and Networks
27. Overall Impacts on States
28. International Cooperation
29. Future Conflict
30. Internal Conflicts
31. Transnational Terrorism
32. Interstate Conflicts
33. Reacting to US Military Superiority
34. Major Regions
35. East and Southeast Asia
36. South Asia
37. Russia and Eurasia
38. Middle East and North Africa
39. Sub-Saharan Africa
40. Europe
41. Canada
42. Latin America
Appendix: Four Alternative Global Futures
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Hey look...



CIA Predicts the Future 2015 - Overpopulation
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

Thant is the whole point of the coups in North Africa and the genocide in Liba!

CIA Predicts the Future 2015 - Water Resources.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
What everyone needs to know is that CIA 2015 did not start after 9/11. In fact, 9/11 was the first part of the 15 year plan! And who communicated the plan to the sub-elites in 2000? None other than the totally treasonous piece of anti-American crapola...John Gannon! And what other title did Mr. John Gannon have prior to 9/11? He was director af ANSER Institute of Homeland Security (that is right, Homeland Security predated 9/11, and ANSER was founded by the RAND Corporation). So now we can see clearly that the plan for CIA 2015 could only get to the level it is today with the 9/11 false flag which gave the false flag planners unlimited power. These anti-government trilateral terrorists involved with CIA 2015 must be investigated as they are the highest risk to National Security ever imagined.

BTW - What was the title of the speech Gannon gave in 2000?

The CIA in the New World Order:
Intelligence Challenges Through 2015

Remarks by John C. Gannon

1 February 2000
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Look at this shit, again a road map by the CIA...

Pak will be failed state by 2015: CIA
PTI, Feb 13, 2005, 10.11am IST

NEW DELHI: Pakistan will be a "failed" state by 2015 as it would be affected by civil war, complete Talibanisation and struggle for control of its nuclear weapons, premier US intelligence agencies have said in an assessment report. Forecasting a "Yugoslavia-like fate" for Pakistan, the US National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a jointly prepared Global Futures Assessment Report have said "by year 2015 Pakistan would be a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation". "Pakistan will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive policies, lawlessness, corruption and ethnic friction," said the report quoted by former Pakistan High Commissioner to United Kingdom Wajid Shamsul Hasan in an article in the ' South Asia Tribune '. Titled 'Will Pakistan Army invade Balochistan as per the NIC-CIA Plan', the former senior diplomat said "in the context of Balochistan, one would like to refer to the 2015 NIC report. It forecast a Yugoslavia-like fate for Pakistan. "The military operation that has been put in motion there would further distance the Baloch people from rest of the country. That perhaps is the (NIC-CIA) Plan," Hasan said. "Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the Central government's control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi," the former diplomat quoted the NIC-CIA report as saying. Expressing apprehension, Hasan asked, "are our military rulers working on a similar agenda or something that has been laid out for them in the various assessment reports over the years by the National Intelligence Council in joint collaboration with CIA?"
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
"The CIA in the NWO" -John Gannon, ANSER Institute of Homeland Security, Feb2000

The CIA in the New World Order:
Intelligence Challenges Through 2015
Remarks by John C. Gannon

Chairman, National Intelligence Council
to the
Smithsonian Associates’
"Campus on the Mall"
1 February 2000

Thank you for the warm introduction. I’m delighted to represent our Director, George Tenet, at the Smithsonian Associates’ "Campus on the Mall." This is an exceptional public education program that takes on today’s challenging issues in a creative and stimulating manner that is in keeping with benefactor James Smithson’s well-known commitment to what he called the "increase and diffusion of knowledge." I look forward after my remarks to your comments and questions, which, for me, is the "value added" of having to listen to myself talk.

When my former boss, Bob Gates, was here in 1992, he entitled his address, "The End of the Cold War: Where Do We Go From Here?" I actually had thought of calling mine, "Ten Years After the Cold War: Where Do We Go From Here?" Now, the typical Washington cynic would say that this just proves intelligence bureaucrats are notoriously slow in responding to change.

On this subject, I hear that a world-renowned geologist lectured here recently about some ancient rock formations in the American Mid-West. "It took over two hundred million years to complete this," he pointed out in one dramatic interlude. A member of the audience shouted, "Was that an Intelligence Community project?"

I am proud to say that the US Intelligence Community today is in much better shape than that. What we have learned in the eight years since Bob Gates stood here is that, absent the remarkably stable order of the Cold War world, global change is a constant. The answer to Bob’s question, "Where do we go from here?" will always be a work-in-progress requiring closer collaboration across the Intelligence Community, greater investment in technology and skills, and in fresh approaches to both analysis and collection. This recognition is at the heart of George Tenet’s strategic direction.

In fact, the world and the workplace of the CIA analyst have changed more in the past decade than in the previous 40 years of the Agency’s existence. The single strategic threat from the Soviet Union, a remarkably stable intelligence target throughout the Cold War, has gone and is not coming back. Threats to the United States today are more diverse and dispersed — distributed, if you will — and intelligence priorities shift continuously — presenting a tougher and enduring environment for both collection and analysis.

The post-Cold War challenge has been increased by the revolution in information technology and telecommunications, which has fundamentally transformed the globe we cover, the service we provide consumers, and the workplace in which we function. Information abounds. A lot of open-source material is relevant to our needs. Everybody is better informed. Intelligence requirements, as a result, tend to be sharper and more time sensitive. Everything moves faster! And Will Rogers’ advice still holds: "It isn’t good enough to be moving in the right direction. If you are not moving fast enough, you can still get run over!" Let me add some personal context to a discussion tonight that will often focus on technology. It was about fifteen years ago, when I was managing European analysts at CIA, that I began to see the impact of Mikhail Gorbachev’s too-little, too-late efforts to respond to the rapid—and, in his view, alarming—advance of technology in the West. He correctly saw the Soviet Union on the wrong side of a widening technological gulf. We were engaged in the final contest of the Cold War, during which Soviet and Western nuclear forces had the potential literally to annihilate the human race. Let me note, however, that we saw this awesome threat as attenuated by verifiable arms control agreements, by explicit nuclear doctrine that both sides had reasonable confidence would be observed, by the control of nuclear delivery systems by civilian and disciplined military forces, and by the existence of effective procedural and technical safeguards over the systems themselves.

So, what, in shorthand, will the picture look like over the next fifteen years? My one-sentence encapsulation would say the following:

"Globalization will provide mankind with the unprecedented opportunity to improve the quality of human life across the planet; but progress will be hampered by economic volatility, by the political and security implications of sharpening inequalities in income, and by the growing threat from multiple, relatively small-scale programs of weapons of mass destruction."

By contrast with the massive but arguably contained Soviet threat, we now face a serious challenge from lesser developed—and less disciplined—states , well-financed international terrorist groups, and powerful individuals with increasingly easy access to conventional explosives and to biological, chemical, and, to a lesser extent, nuclear weapons, along with the missile systems to deliver them. The bottom line is that these adversaries, who are often motivated by ideological rage or ethnic hatred, will have fewer and less powerful weapons than the Soviets, but are more likely to use them!

Tonight, I will try to describe the world as we see it evolving over the next 15 years, and I will attempt to assess the impact of all this on the intelligence business. I hope this broad approach will set the stage for the seven distinguished speakers who will follow me in this series on intelligence in the new world order. I assure you that these folks, many of them my colleagues and friends, will feel free to elaborate on any point I make or to disagree, if so inclined. There obviously is no single or simple response to the challenges we face. Some debate would be healthy! I will make four points:

First, a networked global economy will be a net contributor to increased political stability in the world. US national interests will increasingly be tied to our dependence on global networks that ensure the unrestricted flow of economic, political, and technical information, as well as people, goods, and capital—which, by the way, is my definition of "globalization." I recently read that an American electronics producer had put on a shipping label the following statement: "Made in one or more of the following countries: Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, or the Philippines. The exact country of origin is unknown." This, in fact, is not surprising when we appreciate the growing impact of a global economy driven by information technology. Today’s tough challenges, such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Serbia, may well be transformed tomorrow into opportunities for constructive engagement. But as a rule, in areas not effectively integrated into the world economy, disaffection will grow as both economic development and investment in people lag behind. Terrorism and weapons-of-mass-destruction programs will, to some degree, reflect such disaffection and pose threats to American citizens, soldiers, territory, allies, and global interests. "Bad actors" on the world stage, often motivated by ethnic hatred and revenge and with allegiance to no state, will increasingly have ready access to critical information, to technology, to finance, and to deception and denial practices. Little guys with less-than-state-of-the-art weapons will be able to do us harm!

Second, global change in the decades ahead will broaden our definition of "national security" and expand the US intelligence agenda in both the numbers and complexity of issues we cover. In 15 years, CIA will still be focused on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, narcotics, and organized crime. But newer issues, such as information operations and threats to our space systems, will command a growing amount of our time. And we will be engaged, even more than today, in covering regional conflicts, refugee crises, peacekeeping, humanitarian emergencies, environmental problems, global health issues, technological developments, and key economic trends. The fast-moving, broadly distributed threat environment is here to stay.

Third, technology will challenge us in every area of the intelligence business to be smarter, more agile, more responsive to the policymakers we serve, and more collaborative with experts, wherever they may be found – in academia, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The center of gravity for expertise on both Research & Development and many of the substantive issues we cover has shifted outside the Intelligence Community in recent years. We need to be out there to get it.

Fourth, the intelligence business is fundamentally about skills and expertise, and this means people—people in whom we will need to invest more to deal with the array of complex challenges we face over the next generation. This, you may know, is one of George Tenet’s highest priorities. No system or technology by itself will enable us to master the new threat environment that I am describing tonight or the glut of information we will face in the years ahead. We will need a skilled and expert workforce enabled by technology and armed with the best analytic tools. Now, getting to the meat of my remarks, let me summarize some of the preliminary research we are conducting in the National Intelligence Council, or NIC, which I am proud to chair. The NIC is a sort of Intelligence Community "think tank," staffed by senior experts, called National Intelligence Officers, who have regional specialties, such as Latin America and the Middle East, or functional specialties, such as global, economic or military issues. They produce authoritative National Intelligence Estimates, coordinated throughout the Intelligence Community, on issues of high stakes for US national security.

The work I am about to summarize, which involves extensive collaboration with experts in academia and the private sector, attempts to identify the drivers that will influence the world of 2015. We call it "Global Trends 2015," and it follows on a similar strategic study we completed in 1996. Now, some people think intelligence analysts are arrogant in the bold way they make assertions about the future. When we roll up our sleeves with outside experts, moreover, that image is enhanced. What follows is clearly and confidently stated, but the intent is to encourage, not curtail, debate. The Intelligence Community, to date, has no sources in God’s inner circle.

The first driver is global population trends. Despite substantial drops in fertility in some countries, the momentum of the existing population translates into an increase in the world’s population from 6 billion to around 7.2 billion by 2015. Ninety-five percent of this growth will be in developing countries. But population patterns will vary markedly in different regions of the world. Most population growth will occur in relatively low income, developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia, as well as in much of the Middle East. Much of this growth will occur in crowded and volatile cities.

In many developing countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, a "youth bulge" — the burgeoning number of people between ages 15 and 24— will strain educational systems, infrastructure, and job markets.

At the same time, the overall populations of many developing countries are gradually aging, as better primary health care and vaccinations for childhood disease have enabled most people to live to adulthood. Increasingly, the needs of older people will also impose economic demands and burdens on poor societies.
But not all developing countries will experience population growth. Despite fairly high birth rates, some countries in Africa, which are heavily affected by HIV/AIDS and associated diseases, such as tuberculosis, will have stable or even declining populations.

And Russia’s population is likely to shrink—perhaps substantially–– as a result of declining life expectancy, which is linked to poor health care, as well as declining birth rates.
Meanwhile, in the industrialized world, slow or negative population growth means that some governments, particularly in Europe, will have to deal with providing social welfare and health services to aging populations while labor forces—the people whose taxes help finance services—will shrink.

Additionally, "national security" in the industrialized world will rely on volunteer military forces, drawing from a shrinking or static pool of military-age men and women. Facing labor shortages, some industrialized countries will encourage immigration; thus voluntary migration will increase, often raising sensitive questions of citizenship and national or cultural identity. Some countries will discourage large flows of immigrant labor: both because of their effects on local wage and living standards and because of their challenge to national and social cohesion. They will prefer to substitute technology for labor or to outsource labor requirements overseas.

As the immigration question becomes increasingly salient in some countries, extremist politicians will play on fears of immigration, and tensions with immigrant populations—as well as their countries and cultures of origin—will grow. I don’t have to tell you how this works in today’s world, even in strong democracies.

Other diversity problems loom. Throughout the world, there are now more than 2,000 distinct ethnic and indigenous groups, which are minorities in the states in which they live. Countries with distinct ethnic or religious minorities which lack established traditions of political rights and civil liberties are likely to experience increased communal tensions, political instability and even conflict.

Ethnic or other communal tensions will persist in parts of Africa, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Southeastern Europe and parts of Indonesia, generating large flows of displaced people and spreading instability into neighboring countries.

Ethnic networks will mobilize expatriates and kindred groups in diasporas and fellow-believers to raise money, buy weapons and recruit fighters for their respective causes. By 2015, at least a few new ethnicity-based nation-states are likely to come into being.

As a sidebar to population trends, let me mention another issue—the growing threat from infectious diseases, a topic we covered in a recent National Intelligence Estimate that I have made available to this audience tonight. Fueled in part by migration, in addition to a number of other factors, some infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and malaria, are reemerging throughout the world in deadlier, drug-resistant forms.

Moreover, new infectious diseases are appearing: we estimate that at least 30 previously unknown diseases have appeared globally since 1973, including HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, Ebola hemorrhagic fever, and the encephalitis-related Nipah virus that emerged in Indonesia last summer. Many are still incurable.

Indeed, senior policymakers are becoming increasingly concerned about the implications of growing infectious disease threats for U.S. citizens at home and abroad, for US armed forces deployed overseas, and for countries and regions in which the United States has major interests.

Asia is likely to witness a major increase in infectious disease deaths, driven by the spread of HIV/AIDS, replacing Africa as the epicenter of the disease before 2015.

Eurasia and Europe will also see substantial increases in infectious diseases.

Moving on to a second global trend, the demand for food, water, and energy will increase over the next 15 years, while the uneven distribution of natural resources will persist in many developing countries. The good news is that world food stocks are projected to be sufficient to meet overall global needs by 2015. But despite promising technologies and liberalized trade, bottlenecks remain in the distribution of food. Thus, the problems of feeding the world’s poorest populations, as well as those affected by internal conflicts, will persist.

North Korea, in particular, will continue to risk nationwide famine—exacerbated by frequent natural disasters—until there are major regime and policy changes.

And famines will continue to occur in poor countries embroiled in internal conflicts, which are often accompanied by deliberate destruction of crops. Many of these countries—such as Sudan and Somalia—are also subject to frequent natural disasters.

Water is a big issue! Fresh water, while globally abundant, is scarce today in much of South Asia, northern China, the Middle East, and parts of Africa, and will become scarcer in the years ahead. As you may know, access to water is a critical issue in Israel’s treaty negotiations with both Syria and the Palestinians.

Experts at the Global Water Policy Project estimate that by 2025, 40 percent of the world’s population will live in countries that are "water stressed,"—a sixfold increase over 1995. These countries will be unable to provide sufficient water for agricultural, industrial, and household needs. The majority of those affected will live in Africa and South Asia.

Given such scarcities, there are serious risks of future "water wars" along several large rivers and seas.

At the same time, growing populations and increases in per capita income will drive the demand for more energy. By 2015, the world’s demand for oil will have grown by as much as 60 percent over present levels. Fortunately, this demand will not be difficult to meet. The oil deposits most economically exploited remain in the Persian Gulf region and Venezeula, with new areas coming online in the West African Basin and the Caspian Sea. The global shift to natural gas—with its fixed installations for fuel delivery––will establish long-lasting energy dependencies. Neighboring countries will become increasingly reliant upon natural gas supplies from Russia, Algeria, and Central Asia. Improvements in the efficiency of solar cells and batteries will result in greater use of these and other renewable energy resources, but they are unlikely significantly to affect global reliance on fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.

Now let me turn to the third major driver, economic growth. I’ve heard the cynical barb about economists who, when asked for a telephone number, can only give estimates. I am also aware that the global financial crisis of two years ago, in fact, surprised us all. Notwithstanding the uncertainty, we anticipate that accelerating global trade and the growing integration of capital markets will lead to at least modest real growth in world GDP and in per capita income. We expect world per capita income to increase at an average annual rate of at least 2 percent between now and 2015, but the rising tides will not lift all boats. Not every state will benefit equally, nor will every group within every state. Divisions between "haves" and "have-nots" will have political implications in some cases, such as the recent populist-inspired regime changes in two democratic countries to our south--Venezuela and Ecuador. This dichotomy between rich and poor is less likely to provoke mass unrest in more authoritarian systems in African and the Middle East, where populist dissidence is more likely to be crushed.

Output from countries now outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, which is today comprised of 29 industrialized countries, is likely to rise from 45 percent to around 60 percent of global GDP by 2015. Thus, global economic influence and power will spread from the current G-7 countries of North America, Europe, and Japan to a more multipolar global economic system in which Brazil, India, China, and South Korea will be economic centers.

Market liberalization and economic growth will ultimately benefit additional developing countries, but their inclusion in the global economy will be bumpy and slow. And countries with internal conflicts will fall further behind economically.

Market liberalization and economic growth will, over time, include more women in modern economic and mainstream social activity, although this process will lag in traditional Islamic societies.

Disparities within societies will increase in almost all countries.

The wealthy and well educated will get richer, while the poor will get poorer, with middle classes moving toward one or the other group.  In the globally wired world, the persistence of poverty amid wealth will become more striking. As uneven distribution of wealth becomes more visible, discontent will increase, particularly among the 600 million relatively poor urban dwellers in developing countries whose aspirations will exceed their economic prospects.

Volatility will be a major downside of global economic integration. All states will become more vulnerable to shocks and disruptions. These shocks could take several forms, including a major disruption in global energy markets stemming from political instability in the Persian Gulf; a major US stock market correction, which would have a significant impact on the world economy; or another major financial crisis in the developing world.

The fourth global trend is that scientific and technological developments will permeate every aspect of the global environment. The continued digital data and communications revolution will further shrink distances and weaken barriers to the flow of information.  Optical fiber and newer technologies will add enormous capacity for data transmission among nodes around the world. International affairs, in all its dimensions, will increasingly involve competition over control of information networks. The problem of "haves" versus "have-nots" may become a problem related to information as much as to economics. But information and technology will not be "owned" by a single country, nor can they be easily contained.

Information and communications technologies will continue to advance and diffuse rapidly, empowering individuals and groups of all kinds, with widespread but uneven economic, political, and social consequences. Communications technology will become so inexpensive that most countries will be able to connect to the global information infrastructure. Countries and groups with the requisite human capital, skill base, and infrastructure will benefit, enabling some groups to accelerate their entry into the global economy. But rigid and authoritarian governments—such as North Korea––that resist the flow of information associated with communications advances will fall further behind technologically, economically, and politically. The diffusion of information technology will create powerful synergies with other dynamic fields of science and technology.

The biological sciences will be increasingly important primarily for their potential applications to medicine and agriculture. Advances in basic biology have the potential to allow us to diagnose and cure diseases, but most biomedical advances will remain expensive, benefiting only those with the resources to access them, most of whom will live in developed countries. However important cutting-edge technologies may be over the next 15 years, applications and distribution of established technologies to new uses and markets will also have an immense impact. Examples range from using established technologies for development projects in Sub-Saharan Africa to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technologies throughout the world. The capability to purchase, copy, or steal existing technologies rather than developing new ones offers significant "catch-up" opportunities for less-developed countries and nonstate actors.

To cite a fifth trend, the relative power and influence of many nation-states will continue to erode over the next 15 years, while transnational networks of all kinds will almost certainly grow in number, economic power, and political significance.

Globalization and the permeability of borders to the flow of people, goods, and information are all combining to erode state sovereignty. The state’s power is shifting in three directions: outward to nonstate actors, downward to subnational and local levels of government, and upward, to a certain degree, to regional and international institutions and legal regimes.

The information technology revolution will allow widely dispersed but globally connected groups to communicate more freely, facilitating new transnational networks built around shared values and interests of all kinds. Nonstate actors will pose a much greater threat to the US homeland than ever before. Aided by technology, terrorist groups, criminal organizations, and narcotraffickers are expanding their operations and sometimes forming "alliances" of convenience. We are particularly concerned with the emergence of a new breed of terrorist has emerged that is skilled in conventional explosives, interested in weapons of mass destruction, and able to maintain international networks. Even small groups are using laptop computers, establishing Websites, becoming increasingly mobile, and using sophisticated encryption. And international crime and narcotics groups are using networks to organize criminal activities, including narcotics trafficking, illegal migration, and money-laundering.

In some countries, criminal networks will be better armed than the government and will be able to control portions of national territory. International businesses and financial institutions will play increasingly important roles in the world market economy and in broader society. At times, this will present problems for US national security policymakers, as US businesses, tightly integrated into national, regional, or even global economies, find their interests diverging from US policies. At the same time, nongovernmental organizations will continue to expand in sheer numbers, range of activity, and political clout. Although no widely accepted global count exists, worldwide, NGOs today may number "in the millions" if one includes the full range of organizations from large international groups to tiny village associations. These NGOs and other concerned groups and individuals will increasingly network to mount campaigns for or against social causes or political change. As you know, this already is happening today. On the positive side, NGOs can increase their effectiveness in responding to crises such as humanitarian emergencies. On the negative side, networking by extremist groups, such as neo-Nazis, can fuel social hostility. The "upward" shift of power from nation states to international legal regimes and international and regional organizations is evidenced by the role of supranational bodies such as: the European Community; international organizations, such as the World Health Organization and UNICEF, which provide resources that developing countries cannot or will not deliver; and intergovernmental forums which negotiate global norms on issues such, as trade, the environment, and human rights. In addition, a large body of international laws and treaties govern international commercial and financial transactions, international technical standards, global environment and health issues, and human rights. Whether international institutions and legal agreements will be capable of adequately addressing the complex transnational problems of the future is an open question.

The sixth trend points to a shift in power relationships and international alignments. The world currently has only one superpower, but it will not be a hegemon, as other states – principally the collective European Union, Japan, Russia, and China – try to shape the world of the future. Shifting power alliances will take place because of the increased economic and political power of Europe and East Asia and because of the potential for American internationalism to continue to wane over time. Power alignments are in great flux as key states undergo uncertain transitions:

European states—through a new EU military organization linked to NATO—will retain ties with the United States to ensure Washington’s nuclear umbrella and continued military presence in the region.

US ties with Japan and Korea may become more attenuated, but neither is likely to discard its American connections.

Russia’s claim to continued great power status rests almost entirely on nuclear weapons. Russia is likely to spend the next 15 years trying to restore its economy and struggling to reconcile the gap between its reduced capabilities and the continuing great power aspirations of many of its elites. I try to keep an open mind about Russia, but I am often reminded of the difference between the Russian optimist and the Russian pessimist. The pessimist says, "Things cannot possibly get any worse." The optimist replies, "Oh, yes they can!"

China is a rapidly modernizing country with growing economic strength and assertive national and regional interests. The direction China goes will be determined by its internal political and economic evolution.

Our best judgment, however, is that the risk of conflict among the great powers and the United States remains low. The most dangerous consequence of a return to multipolarity will be the reemergence of national rivalries within East Asia, and even within Europe, if American internationalism declines. Several regional powers in Asia and the Middle East—North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq––will continue to pursue regional agendas that collide with US interests. All these states are developing weapons of mass destruction and long- or medium-range ballistic missiles.

Such weapons will enable regional powers to do three things they otherwise might not be able to do against the United States: try to deter the United States by threatening to significantly damage an urban center of one of our allies; attempt to constrain US policy and military operations in a given region; and try to cause direct harm to the US homeland.

The seventh and final trend is the changing nature of warfare. The widespread consensus is that the United States will have no peer military competitor by 2015. But our military and technological prowess will not be enough to guarantee that our interests are protected.

Many countries and groups will try to blunt US military superiority in other ways — for example: by improving their capabilities relative to those of their neighbors, and by using asymmetric means, such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, instead of large conventional forces.

Terrorist incidents are likely to continue, at least at current levels, and may increase by 2015. Terrorists will be better armed with more sophisticated weaponry. Some groups are already pursuing chemical and biological weapons capabilities. In the future, terrorists will seek to cause more casualties per incident, the vast bulk of whom will be civilians. Because of the high cost involved in developing a nuclear capability, most countries or groups are unlikely to take the path followed by India and Pakistan, although we cannot rule this out. Instead, they probably will focus on chemical and biological weapons as more feasible and cost-effective ways to threaten their neighbors and to raise the potential costs of US or other outside involvement in their region. As you may know, last year the NIC published and declassified a National Intelligence Estimate on the worldwide ballistic missile threat.

We project that during the next 15 years the United States will face ICBM threats from Russia, China, and North Korea; we go on to project that the US probably will face an ICBM threat from Iran and possibly from Iraq.

We said that the arsenals of the new missile powers will be dramatically smaller, less reliable, and less accurate than those of Russia and China.

Nonetheless, the probability that a missile armed with chemical or biological weapons may be used against US forces or interests is higher today than during most of the Cold War. More nations now have longer range missiles and warheads armed with weapons of mass destruction. Although the majority of systems being developed and produced today are short- or medium-range ballistic missiles, North Korea’s Taepo Dong-1 in August 1998 demonstrated North Korea’s potential to cross the 5,500-km-range ICBM threshold. Other potentially hostile nations could cross that threshold during the next 15 years. Our potential adversaries are likely to conclude that the threat of using longer range missiles would complicate US decision-making during a crisis. Some of these systems may be sought principally for their political impact, while others may be built to perform more specific military missions.

The bottom line is that we could find that what some call a doctrine of "massive technological superiority" is limited in its applications and effectiveness today, just as was the doctrine of "massive nuclear retaliation" some years ago.

Viewing the world of 2015 as a whole, no country, no ideology, and no movement will emerge to threaten US interests on a global scale. Nonetheless, the regional agendas of some countries will collide with those of the United States, and the threat of terrorism directed against US interests —both at home and abroad — will remain.

The scenarios of the future world I have posited, by and large, are the most probable ones that matter today. We are realistic enough to understand, however, that in our business the only certainty is that there are no certainties. The world may well be a far more benign place than I have portrayed it. Economic growth may be more rapid. For example, the potential for globalviolence would decline if Middle East peace talks were successful; when Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and Fidel Castro depart the scene; or Iran reasserts itself as a responsible regional power. Alternatively, however, we could be in for a rockier ride than I have projected.

What if:
-Economic turmoil in Latin America deepens and spreads, sparking difficulties in other emerging markets and engulfing whole regions and countries?
-Russia takes a turn toward authoritarianism domestically and acts like a regional bully or, alternatively, drifts into anarchy and even fragmentation?
-China cannot peacefully resolve its differences with Taiwan?
-North Korea in an act of desperation marches south?
-Nuclear conflict occurs in South Asia?
-Greece and Turkey come to blows over Cyprus?
-An information warfare attack on the US grinds major sectors of the economy to a halt?
-Iran or an Arab state, perhaps with the assistance of others, gets "the bomb"?
-A failure of the Middle East peace process leads to another Palestinian intifada, and Jordan and Egypt are dragged into a conflict with Israel?
-Foreign terrorists foul water supplies in a major metropolitan area or pollute the air abroad with toxic chemicals?
-A government unfriendly to the United States makes a major technological breakthrough that has at least the potential to do major damage to US security interests?


So what does all this mean for CIA and the Intelligence Community? First of all, it means that America will continue to need a robust intelligence service to help our policymakers make sense of the complex, fast-moving world that will confront them. Over the next several years, intelligence consumers will demand carefully targeted clandestine collection to support their programs and will want rigorous all-source analysis that integrates classified and unclassified information, that is tailored to rolling policy agendas, and that presents disinterested analytic judgments free of policy bias. In an environment of distributed threats and shifting priorities, this job will be harder than ever to do.

Second, it means that we will have to devote more effort to strategic work such as I have described tonight, so that we can better understand the dynamics of the fast-changing world in which intelligence will be operating. And we will need to work harder to make our strategic analysis relevant and useful, not just to consumers, but also to resource planners in the defense and collection communities. The high cost of collection systems—and the increasingly heavy demands on them—will require a more integrated approach among intelligence analysts and collectors in developing collection requirements, evaluation, and procurement processes. By the way, I regard what I just said as an understatement.

Third, it means that we must continue our efforts to apply greater rigor to our analytic work—using competitive analysis and state-of-the-art gaming techniques to quickly and fully weigh alternative outcomes, both in our long-term and current production. This will be an imperative in a fast-paced, distributed threat environment in which surprise will be frequent and response time often short.

Fourth, it means that we must see technology as a golden opportunity as well as a challenge in every area of our business—from operations and collection in the field, to protecting our own information systems, to analytic tools, to dissemination of analysis to consumers. Technology, in fact, is our only hope to deal with what otherwise will be a future of frenzy. To deal with our packed agenda, moreover, we cannot think of intelligence as a compartment, existing apart from the information world. We will continue to be the storied espionage business that steals secrets and protects sources. But more and more, we will be a modern "knowledge business" that skillfully integrates classified reporting with the best available unclassified information—with the latter becoming an increasingly larger piece of the pie.

Fifth, it means we will have to recruit, train, and deploy a work force with more specialized skills and expertise. We will have to develop stronger incentives and rewards to develop our people both as regional and technical specialists and, at the same time, as broad-gauged intelligence officers who know our business—and our Intelligence Community--end to end.

Sixth, and mercifully last, it means we will have to be more collaborative with experts outside the Intelligence Community, both to improve our analysis and to get the cutting-edge technology we need. Making a virtue of necessity, I am glad to say that we are well on our way to building the outside partnerships to do this.

Let me close by saying that, with all my talk of change tonight, the fundamental role of the intelligence officer in 2015 will be essentially what it is today: to anticipate and meet the needs of our consumers, who are the President and his senior national security advisers, cabinet heads, diplomats, law enforcement officers, and warfighters.

Former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft summed it up in a recent letter to the Washington Post: "The most difficult task the foreign affairs policymaker faces is making decisions in an environment of ambiguity and inadequate information.

The role of intelligence is to narrow the range of uncertainty within which a decision must be made. What really matters is not how well the Intelligence Community predicts particular events, but its ability to spot, track, and interpret trends and patterns."

My key point tonight is that to keep doing this in the world we see ahead, smart intelligence officers are going to have to train harder, run faster, and team up with players outside the Intelligence Community.

Let me stop here. I look forward to your questions and comments.

The CIA in the New World Order: Intelligence Challenges Through 2015
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341

  Will someone please stop these psychopaths?  They just change psychopaths in these positions.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
So why let Ron's message be heard at all? I mean, they could take him out today, if they wanted to. Ron's message of freedom is powerful.

The New World Order is not a secret cabal...THEY ARE WIDE OPEN!

ANSER INSTITUTE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY* was founded in 1999 as a spin off from a RAND corporation created Non Government Organization. They became officially known in April, 2001...5 months before the terror attacks of 9/11. Their board of directors include Ruth David and John Gannon who are top CIA directors and who helped the banksters perform a full fledged coup d'etat on 9/11. The coup was just a more elaborate one then in 1963.


The issue is that most sub-elites believed in the value of the New World Order 9/11 plot just as many in the CIA (like E. Howard Hunt, on record) believed that the JFK assassination represented an honorable act in defending this country. But, as ANSER INSTITUTE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY continues the TSA rape scanners, the creation of more wars, the continued path to bankruptcy, the exposure of the global warming fraud, the increased torture, the increased assassinations, the poisoning of our water, the MK Ultra nuts popping up all over the place, the cybernetics agenda, etc...the elites risk total and complete elimination. They cannot continue acts of insanity and expect any ability to deceive.

* ANSER INSTITUTE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY "is a not-for-profit center that operates under an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract vehicle between DHS and Analytic Services Inc."[3] The Under Secretary for the DHS Science and Technology Directorate was authorized to fund FFRDCs like the Institute under The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Section 305 of PL 107-296, as codified in 6 U.S.C. 185), and ANSER operates the Institute as an FFRDC for DHS under contract HSHQDC-09-D-00003.[4] The Institute for Homeland Security is an off-shoot of the ANSER Institute, which was established by the RAND Corporation in 1958.[1] As Margie Burns wrote June 29, 2002, in Online Journal: "Although funded and initiated in October 1999, the institute was formally established only in April 2001, following a month of high-tech and heavy-hitter-security-type buzz assisted by its ties to the military and to the intelligence community. On March 13-15, 2001, the Homeland Security (HLS) Mini-Symposium was held by the Military Operations Research Society (Alexandria, VA), at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in Laurel, MD. "Also on March 13, [2001] by coincidence, George Walker Bush released his first National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) (dated February 13, 2001), which expanded the National Security Council and added 11 new coordinating committees." [2] The NSPD directed the Deputy National Security Adviser -- Bush appointee Stephen J. Hadley, formerly with the National Institute for Public Policy and a former member of ANSER's Board of Trustees -- to attend NSC meetings, and makeing him Executive Secretary of the NSC. "Interestingly -- given today's emphasis on 'coordinating' and 'information-sharing' -- the directive also stated, 'The existing system of Interagency Working Groups is abolished.'"

If DoD really wants to find out where all the false flags are coming from, why aren't they investigating Cass Sunstein, George Soros, or the ANSER Institute on Homeland Security?

John C. Gannon

Dr. John C. Gannon[1] is on the Board of Advisors at the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security.

Gannon is "Vice-Chairman of Intellibridge Corporation, a Washington firm that provides web-based analysis to corporate and government clients. Previously he served as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (1997-2001) after serving for two years (1995-1997) as the Deputy Director for Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency. In June 1998, Mr. Gannon was also appointed the Assistant Director of Intelligence for Analysis and Production.

"From 1992 until 1996, Mr. Gannon was the Director of the Office of European Analysis in the Directorate of Intelligence (DI). Before that, he held many assignments in the DI, including various management positions in the Office of European Analysis and tours on the staff of the President's Daily Brief, in the Office of Economic Research, and as a Latin America analyst.

"Mr. Gannon served as a Naval Officer in Southeast Asia and later, while in the Naval Reserves, was an instructor of navigation at the Navy Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island. He has been active in civic affairs in Falls Church, Virginia, serving on the City Council and Planning Commission (as Vice Chairman and Chairman). Early in his career, Mr. Gannon taught social studies and science in a secondary school in Jamaica as a member of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps. He also taught high school in Saint Louis.

"Mr. Gannon earned a Ph.D. and an M.A. in history from Washington University in Saint Louis and a B.A. in psychology from Holy Cross College in 1966. His graduate studies focused on Latin America, and his doctoral dissertation documented the evolution of political parties in Jamaica. He speaks Spanish."

ANSER Institute for Homeland Security

The ANSER Institute for Homeland Security is the Department of Homeland Security's first "government think tank," or Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), focused on providing independent analysis on homeland security concerns. [1] The Institute operates within Analytic Sytems Inc. (also known as the ANSER Institute). Although the DHS Science and Technology Directorate announced in 2004 that they "selected [ANSER] to operate the Homeland Security Institute . . . [f]ollowing a full and open competition procurement process conducted by Science and Technology,"[1] the Institute was "initiated and funded by ANSER's Board of Trustees in October 1999" and "formally established in April 2001."[2].

The Institute

Governance and Enabling Legislation

According to the Institute's website, it "is a not-for-profit center that operates under an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract vehicle between DHS and Analytic Services Inc."[3] The Under Secretary for the DHS Science and Technology Directorate was authorized to fund FFRDCs like the Institute under The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Section 305 of PL 107-296, as codified in 6 U.S.C. 185), and ANSER operates the Institute as an FFRDC for DHS under contract HSHQDC-09-D-00003.[4]


The Institute for Homeland Security is an off-shoot of the ANSER Institute, which was established by the RAND Corporation in 1958.[1] As Margie Burns wrote June 29, 2002, in Online Journal: "Although funded and initiated in October 1999, the institute was formally established only in April 2001, following a month of high-tech and heavy-hitter-security-type buzz assisted by its ties to the military and to the intelligence community. On March 13-15, 2001, the Homeland Security (HLS) Mini-Symposium was held by the Military Operations Research Society (Alexandria, VA), at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in Laurel, MD.

"Also on March 13, [2001] by coincidence, George Walker Bush released his first National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) (dated February 13, 2001), which expanded the National Security Council and added 11 new coordinating committees." [2]

The NSPD directed the Deputy National Security Adviser -- Bush appointee Stephen J. Hadley, formerly with the National Institute for Public Policy and a former member of ANSER's Board of Trustees -- to attend NSC meetings, and makeing him Executive Secretary of the NSC.

"Interestingly -- given today's emphasis on 'coordinating' and 'information-sharing' -- the directive also stated, 'The existing system of Interagency Working Groups is abolished.'"

Homeland Security?

Burns continued: "Perhaps as part of the same push last March, a now-gone web page from the Institute for Homeland Security answers a question posed on March 30, 2002, by Mark Bower of the Air National Guard: why homeland?" ibid.

The Institute's answer conceded that the catch phrase homeland defense had only "recently entered the lexicon of public discourse," although "the concept of 'defending the homeland' is an idea dating back through the better part of human history. To the best of knowledge, the Burns added, the term homeland defense is attributed to a 1997 report by the National Defense Panel. "News reports credit it to panel member Richard L. Armitage, former CIA officer and now deputy secretary of State, though Mr. Armitage has not taken full credit for it -- understandably." [3]

Writing for Buzzflash, Margie Burns postulated, "If Congress actually creates a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security [which occurred through Executive Order on February 28, 2003], we will have a Cabinet office named after a corporation. Members of the House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee should be watchful. The government has already given the company lavish free advertising, with assistance from the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's publications. In spite of the Institute, the phrase homeland security was little seen in the popular media before September 2002 (at least in this country); aside from a sprinkling of journals and think tanks, only the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times newspaper, Insight Magazine, and UPI boosted the Institute and its central catch phrase with any frequency." ibid.

Burns continued in Online Journal, "Immediately after September 11, the Washington Times was foremost in aggressively touting and defending -- indeed, insisting on -- instant adoption of homeland as the term of the hour, in articles published on September 16, 22, 30, and October 3 [2001], also citing ANSER. Predictably, the institute's web site also references articles from the Washington Times." ibid.


According to the ANSER Institute web site, in May 2001, the ANSER Institute of Homeland Security "was established to enhance public awareness and education and contribute to the dialog on a national, state, and local level." [4]

However, when Dr. Ruth A. David, Ph.D., the Institute's CEO, was named the 2001 Bloomfield Distinguished Engineer-in-Residence at the College of Engineering at Wichita State University, the university's web pages stated: "ANSER ... performs technical, program, and policy analyses for the Department of Defense."

Additionally, at a plenary session presentation held at MORS from February 29 to March 2, 2000, and attended by Dr. David, ANSER was described as a "Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC)." [5]

On another occasion, "Mark DeMier of ANSER Analytic Services, a nonprofit U.S. Air Force-funded think tank, and editor of its Homeland Security Bulletin is quoted as saying. 'There is no single, coordinated U.S. government definition of homeland defense.'" [6] See ANSER Institute for more on the Institute's corporate status.

Institutional Goals

"The Institute believes that preparing for these new challenges will require a determined, integrated effort at every stage of the process: deterrence, prevention, preemption, crisis management, consequence management, attribution and response." The Institute states that it is "leading the debate through executive-level education, public awareness programs, workshops for policy makers and online publications." ANSER produces a weekly 15,000-subscriber newsletter and the Journal of Homeland Security, "which features articles by senior government leaders and leading homeland security experts."

In the spring of 2002, one analysis of the Institute's performance stated that the then less than two years old Institute had "already gained recognition outside of the Beltway as a landmine of information regarding timely and in-depth debates concerning national security policy." The Institute's newsletter provided "one example of ANSER's increasing position of influence, as initially fewer than 100 people subscribed to the weekly email," which had then "grown to include over 100,000 readers." The Institute's Journal of Homeland Security quickly become "a staple for those involved in national security industries, as it provides a comprehensive overview of homeland defense, with article authorship being balanced between defense experts and academics alike." ibid.

Further evidence of ANSER's influence comes from none other than the Council on Foreign Relations: "Due to its rising influence, earlier this year [2002], Foreign Affairs published a review of the Institute for Homeland Security, noting that the Institute's 'Web site presents an array of resources, including an online journal, access to the syllabi of several courses on terrorism and homeland security, links to a wide variety of Internet sources, and a virtual library' on homeland defense.'" ibid.

'Partnership agreements' with other policy-oriented agencies such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the RAND Corporation were also praised. Additionally, the Secretary of the United States Air Force "hailed ANSER for producing products for the defense industry 'marked by quality, responsiveness, and objectivity.'" ibid.

Other Programs

"ANSER has also been offering online programs in cooperation with American Military University in Manassas, VA, leading to certificates in Homeland Defense, Forecasting Terrorism, and Homeland Security. A course called Homeland Security, conducted by the Institute's Director Colonel Randall Larsen, was geared up to begin fall 2001 at the National War College, with the first lecture by Col. (ret) Randall Larsen and Col. Robert Kadlec on homeland security coincidentally scheduled for September 11." ibid.

The Washington Post, according to its 1998 annual report, engaged in a joint venture with ANSER: "'Legi-Slate, a subsidiary of the Washington Post Company ... and ANSER ... [April 15] announced the partnership to provide ANSER's summaries of congressional hearings on defense acquisition and readiness on Legi-Slate's online service.' ... The Post Company 'disposed of substantially all' its Legi-Slate assets in 1999 ... "ibid.

Leadership Team (as of September, 2010)[5]

Corporate Officers

Dr. Ruth A. David, Ph.D. (President & Chief Executive Officer)
Philip Anderson, Ph.D (Senior Vice President & Chief Operating Officer, HSI Operating Unit)
Mr. George Thompson (Vice President, Deputy Director for Homeland Security Programs, (HSP), Mission Area Director for Departmental Unification and Integration)
Mr. Robert Tuohy (Vice President, Deputy Director for Homeland Security Operations, (HSO), Mission Area Director for Resilience, Emergency Preparedness, and Response)

Director's Staff
Richard Kohout (Mission Area Director, Counterterrorism, Borders, and Immigration)
Glenn Price (Fellow, Outreach Program Director)
Margaret "Jo" Velardo, PhD (Research Director)

Division Managers
Gerald "Jerry" Diaz, Ph.D (Fellow, HSO Directorate, Manager, Operations Analysis Division)
Mark Hanson (Fellow, HSO Directorate Manager, Threat and Risk Analysis Division)
Sarah Maloney (Fellow, HSP Directorate Manager, Business Enterprise Analysis Division)
Stephen Ries, PhD (Fellow, HSP Directorate Manager, Work Force Analysis Division)
Shelby Syckes (Fellow, HSP Directorate Manager, Program Analysis Division)

Senior Research Staff
John Baker (Fellow, HSO Directorate)
Charles Brownstein, PhD (Fellow, HSP Directorate)
Joseph Chang, PhD (Fellow, HSO Directorate)
Samuel Clovis, PhD (Fellow, HSO Directorate)
Kim Corthell (Fellow, HSP Directorate)
Gary Foster (Fellow, HSO Directorate)
Jerome Kahan (Fellow, HSO Directorate)
Curt Mann (Fellow, HSP Directorate)
David McGarvey, Ph.D (Fellow, HSO Directorate)
Howard Smith (Fellow, HSO Directorate)
Peter Zimmerman, PhD (Fellow, HSO Directorate)
Robert Zimmerman (Fellow, HSP Directorate)

Past Institute Personnel
Col. Randy Larsen (USAF, Ret.)
Peter Roman, Ph.D.
Col. Dave McIntyre, Ph.D. (USA, Ret)
Dr. Elin Gursky
Lloyd Salvetti
Alan Capps
Jennifer Crook
Sonita Almas
Steve Dunham
Trisha Anderson
Madhavi Patil

Board of Advisors
Dr. Jay C. Davis
Michael J. Bayer
John C. Gannon
Admiral Harold W. Gehman Jr. (USN, Ret)
Dr. John A. Hamre
Phil E. Lacombe
Dr. Joshua Lederberg
Judith A. Miller
Dr. Michael C. Moriarty
Dr. Tara O'Toole

Contact details
ANSER (Analytic Services Inc.)
1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 800
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3251

External links
Chapter 4: U.S. Reflexive Modernization by Ian Alexander Oas. Re U.S. as "world hegemon" and the ANSER Institute and RAND Corporation influence on shaping U.S. defense policy.
ANSER Homeland Security entry from 911Review.Org, accessed August 30, 2010.

↑ 1.0 1.1 Homeland Security Establishes Its First Government "Think Tank", Department of Homeland Security press release, April 23 2004, from the DHS website], accessed August 31, 2010.
↑ ANSER Homeland Security Institute newsletter, August 21, 2003, accessed August 31, 2010
↑ "Governance" page on the ANSER Homeland Security Institute website, accessed August 31, 2010.
↑ Home Page, ANSER Homeland Security Institute website], accessed August 31, 2010.
↑ "Leadership" page on the ANSER Homeland Security Institute website, accessed August 31, 2010.
Category: Homeland security

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
The Role of Intelligence Services In a Globalized World
Remarks by John C. Gannon,
Chairman, National Intelligence Council,
at the Conference Sponsored by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung,
Berlin Germany
21 May 2001

(as prepared for delivery)
Thank you. I am delighted to be back in Berlin and honored to participate in this timely and relevant conference sponsored by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, which commands such respectand deservedly soaround the world.

As you know, I am Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, or “NIC,” a small think tank of senior analysts reporting to the Director of Central Intelligence that produces estimates on priority national security issues for the President and his top advisers. Today, I would like to share with you some observations about the future drawn from the findings of a strategic study the NIC published recently called Global Trends 2015. (6.4MB)

I want to emphasize that Global Trends 2015 is not just a product. More importantly, it reflects a process of engagement with outside sources of information and expertise that exemplifies how our intelligence community must behave in the future.

I have discussed this report, at their invitation, with several USG agencies, including our FBI, our military services, and our diplomats at State Department, as well as with numerous experts in academia and with foreign governments. To deal with this future, in my view, our services will require a revolution in five areas:

*First in our communication with senior policymakers who must understand and support our mission and who must benefit directly from the intelligence we provide;
*second, in collaboration with new partners within our own governments, with law enforcement, and with liaison abroad;
*third, in our approach to advanced technology, which will be critical to our success;
*fourth, in our recruitment and development of the skills we need to achieve our mission; and,
*fifth, in our commitment to leverage outside expertise, which will require unprecedented transparency in much of the way we do business.

Let me elaborate a bit on each of these points:

First, democratic governments and electorates, in collaboration with many new partners at home and abroad, recognize that the strategic threat environment has changed profoundly in the past decade with the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the same time, few of my countrymen, and I suspect yours, need to be convinced that our governments will continue to need intelligence services to protect their interests in a dangerous world. The question is whether we are demonstrating to our leaders and our parliaments that we are adapting our capabilities to new challenges; whether, in fact, we can do the tough job ahead. Our parliaments ask not whether we should exist, but what exactly our new mission should be and how much it should cost.

Second, to position ourselves to succeed, we must recognize that the much broader national security agendas we face will be increasingly transnational in nature and that our responses will have to be more collaborative across the agencies of our own governmentsincluding intelligence and law enforcementand across the borders of friends and allies. Threats—from global financial volatility, to illegal migration, to terrorism, organized crime, and information operations—will be globally dispersed and often complex, requiring close international cooperation from the get go.

Third, Technology. Every aspect of the intelligence business—collection, operations, analysis, dissemination, and protection of our sources and methods—will depend on the application of new technologies. Intelligence services will need to have access to state of the art technologies, which can only be realized these days by partnerships in the commercial sector.

Fourth, People. To cover the complex issues and meet the formidable technological challenges ahead, services must have the right mix of professionals who are recruited, trained, and deployed to deal effectively with the agenda of the future. Most of us, I believe, are struggling with this.

Fifth, Outside Experts. No service is likely to have “in-house” today the information and expertise needed to answer the critical questions our governments expect us to tackle: in such areas as science and technology, especially biotechnology; environment; humanitarian disasters; infectious diseases; etc. Services, therefore, will need to have sustained partnerships with outside experts in academia, the corporate world, and—most importantly—in the scientific community. GT2015 is an example, a model really, of intelligence professionals working with outside experts on a wide range of issues.

The NICs Global Trends 2015 study is not a traditional intelligence report based on classified sources and methods. Rather, as I have said, it reflects an Intelligence Community fully engaged with outside experts to talk about the future. For over a year, the NIC worked in close collaboration with specialists throughout the government as well as in academia, business, and the private sector to produce a strategic study that would identify drivers that will shape the world of 2015. The drivers that emerged from our discussions include:

*natural resources and the environment,
*economics and globalization,
*science and technology,
*national and international governance,
*and trends in future conflict.

Taken together, these drivers intersect to create an integrated picture of the world of 2015, about which we can make projections with varying degrees of confidence. The resulting report has drawn a lot of constructive reaction from US and foreign government officials and from the press and nongovernmental experts in the United States and abroad.
This report is not history, nor is it preordained to be history.  We hope many of the negative trends we describe will be changed or reversed because governments and/or the international community take steps to do so.  This is not a doomsday scenario.

It is a call to action, with fifteen years lead times—which is the benefit of strategic analysis.

So, let's run through the drivers.


First, demographic trends—including population growth, urbanization, migration, and health issues.

The world in 2015 will be populated by some 7.2 billion people, up from 6.1 billion in the year 2000. More than 95 percent of the increase in world population will be found in developing countries:
By 2015, Indias population will grow from 1.1 billion to at least 1.2 billion; Pakistans will swell from 140 million now to close to 200 million.  Other countries—including Russia and some countries in Africa—will see their populations decline.  Populations will decline in Japan and some Western European countries—Germany, along with France, Italy, and others—unless there are dramatic increases in birthrates and immigration. Population experts estimates that Germanys population will decline from about 82 million to around 80 million by 2015. Accompanying this decline will be an aging population requiring growing health care expenditures.


By 2015 more than half of the worlds population will be urban. The number of people living in mega-cities—those containing more than 10 million inhabitants—will double to more than 400 million. These will include Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Lagos, Cairo, Karachi, Mumbai, Calcutta, Dhaka, Beijing, Shanghai, and Tokyo.
Dhaka, Bangladesh, for example, had 400,000 people in 1950; has 12.5 million today; and will have 17.3 million in 2015.
Urbanization will provide many countries the opportunity to tap the information revolution and other technological advances.
But the explosive growth of cities in developing countries will aggravate environmental problems and natural resource scarcities, and will test the capacity of governments to meet the needs of their citizens.


In addition to increasing urbanization, during the next 15 years globalization, demographic imbalances between industrialized and developing countries, and interstate and civil conflicts will fuel increasing international migration. Rising migration will create opportunities and challenges:
For sending countries, emigration will relieve pressures from their unemployed youth but it also will result in the loss of skilled personnel—especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, South and East Asia, and Russia.
For most receiving countries, immigration will provide demographic and economic vitality even as it raises complex political and social integration challenges.

Illegal migration—another issue that will demand closer international cooperation and better coordination between intelligence and law enforcement—will be facilitated by alien-smuggling syndicatesand will grow dramatically—especially in the United States, Europe, and in the more developed countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Illegal migrants now comprise about one-third to one-half of new entrants to most developed countries. Although apprehension rates at major entry points into many developed countries have increased, police and immigration officials in several countries believe that the majority of illegal immigrants evade law enforcement. Alien smuggling is now a $10 to $12 billion-a-year industry involving the transport of more than 50 percent of illegal immigrants globally, often with the help of corrupt government officials, according to International Labor Organization and other estimates.  As you well know, despite tighter controls, Germany remains one of the preferred target countries of illegal immigrants. The work that the BND is doing to detect the organizational structures and transfer routes of human smugglers is key to driving the smugglers out of business. International cooperation will also be important.


Another form of illegal migration is the reprehensible crime of trafficking women and children across international borders for sexual exploitation and forced labor. Human trafficking—which includes alien smuggling as well as trafficking in women and children—is now the second most profitable criminal activity—following only drug trafficking.
The CIA estimated that in 1997 alone some 700,000 women and children were moved across international borders by trafficking rings. Some NGOs estimate the number to be significantly higher.
The US Government also estimates that each year the worldwide brothel industry earns at least $4 billion from trafficking victims.

The US Intelligence Community assesses that trafficking in women and children is likely to continue at high levels in the years ahead given the large profits, relatively low risk, and rare convictions for traffickers. Increased international attention, countermeasures, and law enforcement will be required to stem this heinous activity.


Looking at global health concerns, our report projects that the gap between the health of people living in developed and developing countries will widen over the next 15 years. In developed countries, progress against a variety of maladies will be achieved by 2015 as a result of generous health spending and major medical advances—sparked by the biotechnology revolution.

Developing countries, by contrast, are likely to experience a surge in both infectious and noninfectious diseases and in general will have inadequate health care capacities and spending.
Tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis, and particularly AIDS will continue to increase rapidly. AIDS and TB together are likely to account for the majority of deaths in most developing countries.
AIDS will be a major problem in Africa—where it is projected to generate over 40 million orphans by 2015—as well as in India, Southeast Asia, several countries formerly part of the Soviet Union, and possibly China.



Looking at the third driver—natural resources and the environment—world food grain production and stocks in 2015 will be adequate to meet the needs of a growing world population. Advances in agricultural technologies will play a key role. But distribution problems will persist in some countries.
The number of chronically malnourished people in conflict-ridden Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, will increase by more than 20 percent over the next 15 years.


The outlook for water is troubling:

By 2015 nearly half the worlds population—more than 3 billion people—will live in countries that are “water-stressed”—having less than 1,700 cubic meters of water per capita per year—mostly in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and northern China.
In the Middle East and Africa, per capita decline in water availability over the next 25 years looks something like this: Israel, 33 percent; Jordan, 75 percent; Iran, 50 percent; Saudi Arabia, 67 percent; Egypt, 40 percent; Ethiopia/Rwanda, 60 percent; and South Africa, 55 percent.

Water-sharing arrangements are likely to become more contentious—and could become a source of conflict.
Water shortages occurring in combination with other sources of tension—such as in the Middle East—will be the most worrisome.

Our report also projects that many of todays environmental problems will worsen over the next 15 years and I know that this is a major concern in Europe. With increasingly intensive land use, significant degradation of arable land will continue as will the loss of tropical forests. Given the promising global economic outlook—which I'll get to in a minute—greenhouse gas emissions will increase substantially.
Environmental issues will become mainstream issues in several countries, particularly in the developed world, but progress in dealing with them will be uneven.

The work that intelligence services—including the CIA and the BND—are doing on environmental issues reflects the broadened definition of “national security” that is appropriate for today's globalized world.

Several years ago—in 1997—the National Intelligence Council, which I chair, produced an unclassified assessment entitled “The Environmental Outlook in Central and Eastern Europe.” The report assessed that environmental conditions in CEE countries have improved considerably since the collapse of Communism, but CEE governments face an uphill battle to build on that progress.

One area of particular interest to CIA is environmental crime
which is one of the most profitable and fastest-growing new areas of international criminal activity.
The US Government estimates that local and international crime syndicates worldwide earn $22–31 billion annually from hazardous waste dumping, smuggling proscribed hazardous materials, and exploiting and trafficking protected natural resources.
Organized crime groups are taking increasing advantage of the multibillion-dollar legal trade in recyclable materials, such as scrap metals, to comingle or illegally export or dump toxic wastes. Most of these wastes are shipped in “trash-for-cash” schemes to countries in Eastern and Central Europe, Asia, and Africa.
The stealing and illicit trade of natural resources is also a significant income generator for criminal organizations. Well-organized criminal groups in Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America, China, and Southeast and Southwest Asia are heavily involved in illegal logging and trade of forest timber.


On the energy front, despite a 50 percent increase in global demand, energy resources will be sufficient. But there will be major changes in the geopolitics of energy.

Asia—especially China and to a lesser extent, India—will drive the expansion in energy demand, replacing North America as the leading energy consumption region and accounting for more than half of the world's total increase in demand.
By 2015, only one-tenth of Persian Gulf oil will be directed to Western markets; three-quarters will go to Asia.
The United States and other Western countries will increasingly rely on Atlantic Basin sources of oil.


Looking at the third driver—the global economy, though susceptible to cyclical downturns, is well positioned to achieve a sustained period of dynamism through 2015.

Our study suggests that the fundamentals of a global economy driven by information technology are strong, including increased international trade and investment, improved macro-economic policies, and the rising expectations of growing middle classes. Dynamism will be strongest among so-called “emerging markets”—especially in the two Asian giants, China and India—but will be broadly based worldwide, including in both industrialized and many developing countries.

The networked global economy will be a net contributor to increased political stability in the world in 2015, but the rising tide of the global economy will not lift all boats. The information revolution will make the persistence of poverty more visible, and regional differences will remain large, notably to the disadvantage of Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia and the Caucasus.


Looking at the fourth driver, the world will encounter quantum leaps in science and technology. The continuing diffusion of information technology and new applications of biotechnology will be at the crest of the wave.
Future technologies will challenge intelligence services first and foremost, to have a constructive relationship with the scientific community if we are to understand, let alone respond to, emerging scientific breakthroughs.
The challenge of future technologies is what I describe as a “system breaker.”

Information Technology IT will be the major building block for international commerce and for empowering nonstate actors of all kinds. By 2015, information technology will make major inroads in rural as well as urban areas around the globe, but some countries and populations will fail to achieve significant benefits.
Among developing countries, India will remain in the forefront in developing information technology, while China will lead in the use of such technology.
Latin America's Internet market will grow exponentially.

Internet usage in Europe is already expanding rapidly. As you know, with the introduction of flat-rate access, the number of Germans who are connected to the Internet is projected to grow substantially over the next three years—boosting e-commerce and Germany's rapidly growing Internet economy.


By 2015, the biotechnology revolution will be in full swing with major achievements in combating disease, increasing food production, reducing pollution, and enhancing the quality of life. Many of these developments, especially in the medical field, will remain costly and will be available mainly in the West and to wealthy segments of other societies.


Developments in other technologies are also noteworthy.
Breakthroughs in materials technology will generate widely available products that are “smart,” environmentally friendly, and that can be custom-designed.
Developments in nanotechnology are likely to change the way almost everything—from vaccines to computers to automobile tires to objects not yet imagined—is designed and made.
The challenge for the intelligence and law enforcement communities, of course, will be to monitor and intercept the activities of adversaries who will seek new technologies to advance their interests.


Turning to the fifth driver, nation-states will continue to be the dominant actors on the world even though they will confront fundamental tests of effective governance. The decisions that governments will make will be the critical factor that determines whether the negative trends I have described so far will continue or indeed will be reversed, and whether the full benefits of the positive trends I have cited can be fully realized by struggling countries.

Globalization will complicate government decision-making and create increasing demands for international cooperation:
Countries will have less and less control over the greater and freer flow of information, capital, goods, services, people, technology, and diseases across their borders.
Nonstate actors of all kinds—including business firms, nonprofit organizations, communal groups, and even criminal networks—will challenge the authority of virtually all governments.
Regional and international cooperation in intelligence and law enforcement will grow, but the most sensitive operations and information sharing will continue to occur at the bilateral level

Transnational criminal organizations will pose a particular challenge to nation-states. Such groups will become increasingly adept at exploiting the global diffusion of sophisticated information, financial, and transportation networks.

Criminal organizations and networks based in North America, Western Europe, China, Colombia, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, and Russia will expand the scale and scope of their activities. They will corrupt leaders of unstable countries, insinuate themselves into troubled banks and businesses, and cooperate with insurgent political movements to control large geographic areas.


Let me say a few words about the sixth driver—the nature of future conflict. The risk of war among developed countries will be low over the next 15 years. But the international community will continue to face the possibility of interstate wars as well as a number small-scale internal conflicts.

The potential for inter-state conflict will arise from rivalries in Asia, ranging from India-Pakistan to China-Taiwan, as well as among the antagonists in the Middle East. Their potential lethality will grow, driven by the availability of weapons of mass destruction, longer-range missile delivery systems and other technologies.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continues to change in ways that make it harder to monitor and control, increasing the risk of substantial surprise. Among these developments are greater proficiency in the use of denial and deception techniques—shielding their activities from our monitoring efforts and creating misleading indicators—and the growing availability of technologies that can be used for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes.

The bottom line is that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will tend to spur a reversion to prolonged, lower-level conflict.


Over the next 15 years, internal conflicts stemming from religious, ethnic, economic or political disputes—such as we have seen in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Sierra Leone, Congo, and Indonesia—will remain at current levels or even increase in number. Such conflicts frequently will spawn internal displacements, refugee flows, and humanitarian emergencies. The United Nations and several regional organizations will continue to be called upon to manage and respond to these crises. Internal conflicts will occur most frequently in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Caucasus and Central Asia, and parts of south and southeast Asia, Central America and the Andean region.

Meanwhile, states with poor governance; ethnic, cultural, or religious tensions; weak economies; and porous borders will be prime breeding grounds for terrorism. In such states, domestic groups will challenge the entrenched government, and transnational networks seeking safehavens.


The United States and other developed countries will face asymmetric threats in which state and nonstate adversaries avoid direct engagement with military forces but devise strategies, tactics, and weapons to exploit perceived weaknesses. Increasing reliance on computer networks make developed countries critical infrastructures more attractive as targets. Computer network operations today offer adversaries new options for anonymous attacks. We do not know how quickly or effectively such adversaries as terrorists or disaffected states will develop the tradecraft to use cyber warfare tools and technology, or, in fact, whether cyber warfare will ever evolve into a decisive combat arm.

Clearly, we all need to collaborate in defining and responding to the cyber threat. It is a classic transnational issue. Rapid and encouraging advances and diffusion of biotechnology, nanotechnology, and the materials sciences, moreover, will add to the capabilities of adversaries to engage in biological warfare or bio-terrorism. Such asymmetric approaches—whether undertaken by states or nonstate actors—will become the dominant characteristic of most threats to the US homeland and to US allies. So, looking at the world of 2015 as a whole, what are the implications for governments and their intelligence services?

I suggest four conclusions for nation-states:
First, national policies will matter. To prosper in the global economy of 2015, governments will have to invest more in technology, in market-oriented reforms, in public education, and in broader participation in government to include increasingly influential nonstate actors. They also will have to control corruption, which, especially among emerging democracies, weakens the state, slows progress toward democracy and civil society, and betrays citizens who have endured economic hardship and political oppression in the hope of a better life for their children.

Second, the United States and other developed countries will be challenged to lead the fast-paced technological revolution while, at the same time, maintaining military, diplomatic, and intelligence capabilities to deal with traditional problems and threats from low-technology countries and groups. The Palestinian rock thrower will continue to engage us, while the adversary with the capability to use a laser to damage our satellites will present a new challenge. The United States and its partners will have little choice but to engage leading actors and confront problems on both sides of the widening economic and digital divides in the world of 2015, when globalizations benefits will be far from global.

Third, international or multilateral organizations increasingly will be called upon in 2015 to deal with growing transnational problems from economic and financial volatility; to legal and illegal migration; to competition for scarce natural resources such as water; to humanitarian, refugee, and environmental crises; to terrorism, narcotrafficking, and weapons proliferation; and to regional conflicts, to information operatives, and cyber threats. National actors will still matter—of course, as partners and sometimes competitors in this future: China, Japan, India, Mexico, Brazil, EU, and Russia.

Fourth, to deal with a transnational agenda and an interconnected world, governments will have to develop greater communication and collaboration between national security and domestic policy agencies and across government agencies in general. Interagency cooperation will be essential to understanding transnational threats, including regional conflict, and to developing interdisciplinary strategies to counter them.

Let me conclude with three corollaries for the intelligence business, which, hopefully, will provoke some useful discussion among us.

First, intelligence services stand or fall on the basis of how useful they are—and are perceived to be—to top national leaders. We will need to provide our different governments with a clear value added, both in what we collect clandestinely and how we integrate this with the best open source information on issues that matter the most to our consumers. We will have to pursue—or have a partner who pursues—technological breakthroughs in collection to help keep pace with the science and technology revolution and the adversaries who will take advantage of it.

Second, while regional international cooperation will grow in intelligence and law enformcement, intelligence will continue to serve the nation-state first, bilateral relationships second, and multilateral or international organizations on an ad hoc basis. The nation-state will endure, according to our study. In my view, so will our professional obligations as intelligence officers to protect clandestine sources and methods and to maintain an appropriate sharing policy with foreign partners that is based firmly on reciprocation.

Third, we will be challenged to exploit critical information from open—but sometimes hard to penetrate—sources.

Today's open source environment challenges us to provide desktop Internet access to all of our analysts to help them develop contacts in the commercial sector with open source companies; and to incentive their contact with outside experts who have much information and expertise to share.

Mastering open source information will be an imperative, not an option, for the intelligence business because it will increasingly contain the answers to critical national security questions.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
The following speech was given in April of 2001 by the Central Intelligence Agency. It says that electronic threats are "limited". This of course limited scrutiny with the Stephens/Mossad/Saudi funded PTECH component of the 9/11 terrorists attacks. Remember that PTECH and MITRE (CIA well aware of all MITRE activity) were in the basement of the FAA for two years before 9/11/2001. This means that the CIA who knew about MITRE and PTECH were guiding other agencies, namely, in this specific speech...

The National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Committee,

away from being alert to any electronic crimes prior to the 9/11 false flag. They likely did the same speech to other agencies like the FAA, etc. But, the NSTISSC (created by George HW Bush in 1990) had accountabilities to the systems in use at all government agencies (FAA, SS, FBI, WH, etc.) for PTECH to run wild during the 9/11 event with limited scrutiny thanks to the CIA's internal propaganda!

"Ptech was with MITRE Corporation in the basement of the FAA for two years prior to 9/11"

Indira Singh & P-Tech

Indira Singh on Mitre and Ptech - Pt. 1

Indira Singh on Mitre and Ptech - Pt. 2


Anti_Illuminati for dummies. The ultimate study guide for the layman.

Developing Cybernetic dictatorship based on Nazi, Soviet & Stasi BETA-TESTS

Address by John C. Gannon
Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production
The National Security Telecommunications
Information Systems Security Committee

3 April 2001

Thank you.  It is a special pleasure to be among such distinguished speakers today to address such an important organization as the NSTISSC.  Your conference organizers asked me to share our perspective on the cyberthreat, over the next several years. I’ll be happy to do that this morning.  To assist in my discussion of this important topic, I will draw from the work the National Intelligence Council has done on Global Trends 2015, with which I hope you are familiar, and on other estimative work undertaken by the NIC over the past year, especially by our National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology, Larry Gershwin.  It is useful, I think, to put the cyber threat into the context of a major S&T revolution over the next fifteen years.  In Global Trends 2015 we anticipate that the world will almost certainly experience quantum leaps in information technology (IT) and in other areas of science and technology.  The continuing diffusion of  IT and new applications of biotechnology will be at the crest of the wave.  Information Technology will be the major building block for international commerce and for empowering nonstate actors.  Most experts agree that the IT revolution represents the most significant global transformation since the Industrial Revolution beginning in the mid-eighteenth century.
The integration--or fusion--of continuing revolutions in information technology, biotechnology, materials science, and nanotechnology will generate dramatic increases in technology investments, which will further stimulate innovation in the more advanced countries. Older technologies will continue lateral “sidewise development” into new markets and applications through 2015, benefiting US allies and adversaries around the world who are interested in acquiring early generation ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) technologies. Biotechnology will generate medical breakthroughs that will enable the world’s wealthiest people to improve their health and increase their longevity dramatically.  At the same time, genetically modified crops will offer the potential to improve nutrition among the billions of malnourished people in the world. Breakthroughs in materials technology will generate widely available products that are multi-functional,environmentally safe, longer lasting, and easily adapted to particular consumer requirements. On the downside, disaffected states, terrorists, proliferators, narcotraffickers, and organized criminals will take advantage of the new high-speed information environment and other advances in technology to integrate their illegal activities and compound their threat to stability and security around the world.


The networked global economy will be driven by rapid and largely unrestricted flows of information, ideas, cultural values, capital, goods and services, and people:  that is, globalization.  This globalized economy will be a net contributor to increased political stability in the world in 2015, although its reach and benefits will not be universal.  In contrast to the Industrial Revolution, the process and timelines of globalization will be more compressed.  Its evolution will be rocky, marked by chronic financial volatility and a widening economic divide.
Regions, countries, and groups left behind will face deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation.  These entities will foster political, ethnic, ideological, and religious extremism, along with the violence that often accompanies these phenomena .   These disaffected entities will force the United States and other developed countries to remain focused on “old-world” challenges while simultaneously concentrating on the implications of “new-world” technologies.

GT2015 “Bottom Line”

We do make an effort in GT2015 to cut through the scary scenarios to a broad judgment about the cyber threat:
Increasing reliance on computer networks is making critical US infrastructures more attractive as targets.  Computer network operations today offer new options for attacking the United States within its traditional continental sanctuary—potentially anonymously and with selective effects.  Nevertheless, we do not know how quickly or effectively adversaries such as terrorists, proliferators, narcotraffickers or disaffected states will develop the tradecraft to use cyber warfare tools and technology, or, in fact, whether cyber warfare will ever evolve into a decisive combat arm. We need, therefore, to assess carefully the capabilities of these varied groups in a continuing integrated threat assessment rather than panic and run.  The cyber threat is a call to action—collaborative and concerted action across NSTISSIC agencies—not a cry to surrender.  For those nations with a decisive technological advantage, like the United States, we need to remind ourselves that keeping that technological advantage will be our best line of both defense and offense. Which is to say, we need to do a lot more work on this and to keep you all in the loop as we go along.

[NOTE: This is contrary to all ideas of freedom and the rights of man. The CIA proposes to have more central control rather than more localized control such that we are protected by millions of people grounded in the traditions of America. They are saying that as threats get greater and greater, any attempt at sovereignty is a sign of weakness, a sign of panic, a sign of surrender. The CIA is saying that the only way to show America is powerful is by destroying the constitution and all sovereignty. Allen Dulles had the exact same mentality and that is why JFK fired his ass!]

Perspective from 2001

Let’s jump back from 2015 for a few moments and talk more concretely about the threats we face today.  Hostile cyber activity today is ballooning.  The number of FBI computer network intrusion cases has doubled during each of the past two years.  Meanwhile, several highly publicized intrusions and computer virus incidents since 1998 have fed a public—and perhaps foreign government—perception that the networks upon which US national security and economic well-being depend are vulnerable to attack by almost anyone with a computer, a modem, and a modicum of skill.  This impression, of course, overstates the case.

US Networks as Targets

It is true that information from industry security experts suggests that US national information networks have become more vulnerable—and therefore more attractive as a target of foreign cyber attack. The growing connectivity among secure and insecure networks creates new opportunities for unauthorized intrusions into sensitive or proprietary computer systems within critical US infrastructures, such as the nation’s telephone system. The complexity of computer networks is growing faster than the ability to understand and protect them by identifying critical nodes, verifying security, and monitoring activity.  The prospects for a cascade of failures across US infrastructures are largely known and understood. Business firms are dedicating growing, but still insufficient, resources to the defense of critical US infrastructures against foreign cyber attack—a low likelihood threat compared to routine disruptions such as accidental damage to telecommunications lines.

Nonetheless, mainstream commercial software—whose vulnerabilities are widely known—is replacing relatively secure proprietary network systems by US telecommunications providers and other operators of critical infrastructure. US government and defense networks similarly are increasing their reliance on commercial software.  Such commercial software includes imported products that provide opportunities for foreign implantation of exploitation or attack tools. Finally, opportunities for foreign placement or recruitment of insiders have become legion.  As part of an unprecedented churning of the global information technology work force, US firms are drawing on pools of computer expertise that reside in a number of potential threat countries, such as Russia. Access to US proprietary networks by subcontractors of foreign partners is creating “virtual” insiders whose identity and nationality often remain unknown to US network operators. Despite these growing vulnerabilities, however, the most important US targets remain difficult to compromise.  Compromising such targets requires more advanced tools and tradecraft, such as recruiting an insider.
Foreign or US insiders were responsible for 71 percent of the unauthorized entries into US corporate computer networks reported to an FBI-sponsored survey last year.
Despite the growing interconnectivity I’ve stressed this morning, control networks-whose compromise could disrupt critical US infrastructures such as power or transportation—are designed to be less accessible from outside networks, according to industry experts.  In addition, many control networks use unique, proprietary, or archaic programming languages thought to be--and clearly intended to be--poorly understood by hackers.

Growing Foreign Capabilities

Advanced technologies and tools for computer network operations are becoming more widely available, resulting in a basic, but operationally significant, technical cyber capability for US adversaries.
Most US adversaries have access to the technology needed to pursue computer network operations.  Computers are almost globally available, and Internet connectivity is both widespread and increasing.  Both the technology and access to the Internet are inexpensive, relative to traditional weapons, and require no large industrial infrastructure.
The tradecraft needed to employ information technology and tools effectively however—particularly against more difficult targets such as classified networks or critical infrastructures—remains an important limiting factor for many of our adversaries.

Hackers since the mid-1990s have shared increasingly sophisticated and easy-to-use software on the Internet, providing tools that any computer-literate adversary could obtain and use for computer network reconnaissance, probing, penetration, exploitation, or attack.  Moreover, programming aids are making it possible to develop sophisticated tools with only basic programming skills.
Globally available tools are particularly effective against the mechanisms of the Internet, but specialized tools would be needed against more difficult targets, such as  the networks that control many critical infrastructures.

Even with technology and tools, considerable tradecraft also is required to penetrate network security perimeters and defeat intrusion detection systems—particularly against defensive reactions by network security administrators.  Tradecraft also will determine how well an adversary can achieve a targeted and reliable outcome, and how likely the perpetrator is to remain anonymous.  Attackers must tailor strategies to specific target networks—requiring advanced and continued reconnaissance to characterize targets and ensure that exploitation tools remain effective in the face of subtle changes to computer systems and networks.
Cyber attacks against less well defended military networks, such as logistics for example, still would require prior identification of critical nodes and a preplanned campaign, if the attacks were to achieve a strategic impact such as delaying a US force deployment.

Potential Actors and Threats

Let me talk about some of the groups that will challenge us on the cyber front:


Although the most numerous and publicized cyber intrusions and other incidents are ascribed to lone computer-hacking hobbyists, such hackers pose a negligible threat of widespread, long-duration damage to national-level infrastructures.  The large majority of hackers do not have the requisite tradecraft to threaten difficult targets such as critical US networks—and even fewer would have a motive to do so.  Nevertheless, the large worldwide population of hackers poses a relatively high threat of an isolated or brief disruption causing serious damage, including extensive property damage or loss of life.  As the hacker population grows, so does the likelihood of an exceptionally skilled and malicious hacker attempting and succeeding in such an attack. In addition, the huge worldwide volume of relatively less skilled hacking activity raises the possibility of inadvertent disruption of a critical infrastructure.


A smaller foreign population of politically active hackers—which includes individuals and groups with anti-US motives—poses a medium-level threat of carrying out an isolated but damaging attack.  Most international hacktivist groups appear bent on propaganda rather than damage to critical infrastructures.  Pro-Beijing Chinese hackers over the past two years have conducted mass cyber protests in response to events such as the 1999 NATO bombing of China’s embassy in Belgrade. Pro-Serbian hacktivists attacked a NATO Website during Operation Allied Force.  Similar hacktivism accompanied the rise in Israeli-Palestinian clashes last year.

Hackers for Hire

Government and criminal organizations have the resources to recruit hacker talent and the motivation to guide that technical talent with sophisticated tradecraft in order to turn it toward long-term objectives that could threaten the United States.

Industrial Spies and Organized Crime Groups

International corporate spies and organized crime organizations pose a medium-level threat to the United States through their ability to conduct industrial espionage and large-scale monetary theft, respectively, and through their ability to hire or develop hacker talent. Japanese syndicates used Russian hackers to gain access to law enforcement databases, evidently to monitor police investigations of their operations and members, according to a press report last year. According to press reports, a Mafia-led syndicate last year used banking and telecommunications insiders to break into an Italian bank’s computer network.  The syndicate diverted the equivalent of $115 million in European Union aid to Mafia-controlled bank accounts overseas before Italian authorities detected the activity.

Foreign corporations also could use computer intrusions to tamper with competitors’ business proposals, in order to defeat competing bids. Computer network espionage or sabotage can affect US economic competitiveness and result in technology transfer--directly through product sales, or indirectly-to US adversaries. Because cyber criminals’ central objectives are to steal, and to do so with as little attention from law enforcement as possible, they are not apt to undertake operations leading to high-profile network disruptions, such as damage to US critical infrastructures. Major drug trafficking groups, however, could turn to computer network attacks in an attempt to disrupt US law enforcement or local government counternarcotics efforts. Organized crime groups with cyber capabilities conceivably could threaten attacks against critical infrastructure for purposes of extortion. Moreover, rampant criminal access to critical financial databases and networks could undermine the public trust essential to the commercial health of US banking institutions and to the operation of the financial infrastructure itself.  In addition, criminal computer network exploitation could inadvertently disrupt other infrastructures.


Traditional terrorist adversaries of the United States, despite their intentions to damage US interests, are less developed in their computer network capabilities and propensity to pursue cyber means than are other types of adversaries.  They are likely, therefore, to pose only a limited cyber threat.   In the near term, terrorists are likely to stay focused on traditional attack methods. (Nonetheless, we will be on the alert for new information that could alter this judgment. We anticipate that more substantial cyber threats are possible in the future as a more technically competent generation enters the ranks.

National Governments

National cyber warfare programs are unique in posing a threat along the entire spectrum of objectives that might harm US interests.  Among the array of cyber threats, as we see them today, only government-sponsored programs are developing capabilities with the prospect of causing widespread, long-duration damage to US critical infrastructures.  China (to name just one example) is expanding cyber related military training and is already incorporating cyber warfare into military exercises, according to press reporting.  President Jiang last year stated that wars were passing from the stage of “mechanized warfare” to that of “information warfare.” A Chinese presidential decree last year established a military university whose mission includes training soldiers in information warfare, among other communications-related fields, according to a Chinese press report.

Future Tools and Technology

New cyber tools and technologies are on the way for both the offense and defense.  For example, because networks-and their vulnerabilities-are evolving so rapidly, new tools for network mapping, scanning, and probing will become increasingly critical to both attackers and defenders.  Either side could apply research in autonomous software “agents”-intelligent, mobile, and self-replicating software intended to roam a network gathering data or to reconnoiter other computer network operations. For defenders, incremental deployment of new or improved security tools will help protect against both remote and inside threats.  Technologies include better intrusion detection systems, better methods for correlating data from multiple defensive tools, automated deployment of security patches, biometric user authentication, wider use of encryption, and public key infrastructures to assure the authenticity and integrity of e-mail, electronic documents, and downloaded software.  For attackers, viruses and worms are likely to become more controllable, precise, and predictable-making them more suitable for weaponization.  Advanced modeling and simulation technologies are likely to assist in identifying critical nodes for an attack and conducting battle damage assessments afterward.  Other capabilities likely by 2005 include self-modification to defeat signature recognition, remote control, stealthy propagation, and the ability of a single tool to affect multiple, mainstream operating systems.
In addition, tools for distributed hacking or denial of service-the coordinated use of multiple, compromised computers or of independent and mobile software agents-will mature as network connectivity and bandwidth increase.  The rapid pace of change in information technology suggests that the appearance of new and unforeseen computer and network technologies and tools could  provide advantages in cyber warfare  to either the defender or the attacker.  Wildcards for the years beyond 2005 include the possibility of fundamental shifts in the nature of computers and networking, driven, for example, by emerging optical technologies.  These changes could improve processing power, information storage, and bandwidth enough to make possible application of advanced software technologies-such as artificial intelligence-to cyber warfare. Such technologies could provide the defender with improved capabilities for detecting and attributing subtle malicious activity, or could enable computer networks to respond to attacks automatically.
They could provide the attacker with planning aids to develop an optimal strategy against a potential target and to more accurately predict effects.


Despite the fundamental and global impact of the information revolution, the reliance of critical US activities on computer networks, and the attention being devoted to information operations, uncertainty remains whether computer network operations will evolve into a decisive military weapon for US adversaries.  To a degree that we cannot estimate, emergency measures to compensate for computer network disruptions will be available to maintain some basic level of services-as demonstrated during the Y2K rollover.  Adversaries, therefore, may never overcome the planning uncertainties that derive from a US potential to work around even severe degradations in network performance.  Let us hope I am right in this judgment. Whether or not foreign computer network operations mature into a major combat arm, however, they will offer an increasing number of adversaries new options for exerting leverage over the United States-including selection of either nonlethal or lethal damage and the prospect of anonymity.  Adversaries will be able to use cyber attacks to attempt to deny the United States its traditional continental sanctuary with attacks on critical infrastructures. They could exploit US legal and conceptual controversies relating to defending privately operated networks with US Government resources and the separation of the US domestic and foreign security establishments. Adversaries also could use cyber attacks to attempt to slow or disrupt the mobilization, deployment, combat operations, or resupply of US military forces.  Attacks on logistic and other defense networks would be likely to exploit heightened network vulnerabilities during US deployment operations-complicating US power projection in an era of decreasing permanent US military presence abroad.

Implications for Intelligence

Whatever direction the cyberthreat takes, the United States Government will be confronting an increasingly interconnected world in the years ahead.  This is the core message of GT2015.  We will have to develop, in response, greater communications and collaboration across the agencies of our own Government, with other governments, and with the corporate world.  Interagency cooperation will be essential to understanding the cyberthreat, as well as other transnational threats that will crowd our agenda, and to responding effectively with interdisciplinary strategies.  Consequence management of a major attack on a critical US infrastructure would involve virtually all agencies of the Federal Government, State, and local governments, foreign governments, law enforcement, the military, the medical community, and the media.  NSTISSC and the Intelligence Community clearly have a lot of work to do if we are to understand this evolving threat and to be prepared to deal with it.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline plankeye912

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
I realize I'm only a farmer and don't have an important job like head of the CIA but , if I sucked at my job I don't think my boss would give me another important position (defense sec.) to screw up.  But, I guess anything to keep the war mongering alive.  
The best way to protest a corrupt system is to not participate

Offline chrisfromchi

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,179
Panetta to Pentagon, Petraeus to CIA -
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2011, 09:02:49 am »
AP sources: Panetta to Pentagon, Petraeus to CIA

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama plans to name CIA Director Leon Panetta as the next secretary of defense and move Gen. David Petraeus, now running the war in Afghanistan, into the CIA chief's job in a major shuffle of the nation's national security leadership, administration and other sources said Wednesday.

All sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the changes haven't been announced by the president.

The changes would probably take effect this summer. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already said he will leave this year, and the White House wants to schedule Senate confirmation hearings in the coming months.

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,626
So, does that confirm that INTELLIGENCE is controlling the destabilization in the Middle East and these wars. Thought so!  ::)

Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,789
Gen. D. Petrasus to be given directorship-CIA
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2011, 01:33:51 pm »
All in the family or what?

National Public Radio is reporting that Gen. David Petraeus, who is currently running the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater of operations, will be asked by President Obama to head up the Central Intelligence Agency.

Current CIA Director Leon Panetta is widely believed to be moving over to the Pentagon, to replace the outgoing Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, who is retiring from public life.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Admiral Fallon:
"General Petraeus is an ass-kissing little chickenshit"
"There will be no war with Iran, not on my watch!"
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Sep 12, 2007 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting. Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.  That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.  The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".  Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.  The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.  In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia - the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.  The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."  By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.  lans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.  Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to achieve results "as soon as possible". The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter. 

Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "  One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" - a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.  Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely. 

During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the U.S. mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the U.S. troop strength by the end of 2009. 

The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.  Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus's recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus's role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.  Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.  Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the source.  Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

God Bless Admiral Fallon!

God Bless the true American Soldier!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
The Ass Kissing Little Chickenshit Fainting During Congressional Testimony
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately