What is Intelligence, Anyway?

 

 

Tulsi Gabbard was confirmed for Director of National Intelligence and sworn in and we're just going to see about that, aren't we? 

Does it sound like I have issues with this? Well, yeah. I was a little surprised that Sen. McConnell was the only Republican who voted against her, but it seems that the Senate GOP have decided that they aren't picking these fights with Trump and are just going to let him have what he wants. I do not think they are being honest with themselves about what he wants or what the results will be of giving it to him. 

The position of DNI was created in response to intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. The point of the office was to coordinate our various intelligence agencies and correlate the information into more cohesive overviews. But intelligence is only as useful as the people looking at the products. 

And I simply don't have faith in Tulsi Gabbard's judgment. 

It's nothing to do with her military service or her political career or her face-turn from nominal Democrat to MAGA. I don't think she's a secret Russian agent. Being an agent suggests actually working for Russia. I doubt it. 

I think Tulsi Gabbard is working for Tulsi Gabbard. That's the problem. That makes her a potential asset--a quite different thing. 

If it suits the president to downplay foreign influence or counterintelligence for SOME REASON, well, that's her job, Boss. I think she may be more liable to produce politically-skewed product, with briefings more along the lines of "slam-dunk case for Iraq WMD" than "Bin Laden determined to strike" because she already demonstrated that kind of poor judgment in spreading Assadist and Putinist propaganda. 

I think this kind of judgment will also only compound already-existing issues our allies will have with Trump himself with respects to intelligence-sharing. If their feel that their assets will be compromised, or that their intelligence will be shared with bad actors, and no longer can count on our discretion and cooperation--why bother with us? 

The problems I have with Tulsi Gabbard are rather like the problems I have with Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon, who just vocally gave away rather a lot in what we were willing to bargain with Russia about to end the war in Ukraine. (Did he not seem to undermine our hand in any negotiation?) And it's the obvious problem with Trump himself, who picked these people. (And who I consider a pro-Russia, self-interested, degenerate piece of treasonous shit. For many longstanding and excruciatingly documented reasons.) 

Are they clear on what is in the national security interest of the United States? Do they know when to speak and when to stay silent? Are they just going to do whatever Trump wants? Without foresight or concern regarding his motives? 

Can they tell him when he's wrong?

And I don't think so, and neither could the GOP senators who confirmed them. They may have even seen or sense the problem with rubber-stamping Trump, but eventually just said "Why not? What have we got to lose?" 

That's a real intelligence problem for you, right there.