The Threat of Threat Assessments
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-threat-of-threat-assessments/ar-BBSZVEU?OCID=HPDHP
On Tuesday, the intelligence community published its “Worldwide Threat Assessment,” which concluded—in sober, measured tones—that President Donald Trump is lying: North Korea is not abandoning its nuclear weapons, Iran has not violated the nuclear deal it signed under President Barack Obama, and America’s southern border does not pose a national-security crisis. Trump responded by ranting, “They are wrong! … Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!” And America’s top newspapers covered the melee as yet another round in the battle between Trump and Washington’s grown-ups.
So far, so familiar. But lost in the ruckus is a deeper problem: the threat assessment itself, which epitomizes much of what’s wrong with the way Beltway grown-ups discuss foreign policy. For all his lies and crimes (CRIMES? …. mine) , Trump over the past several years has asked some legitimate questions about America’s expansive role.
In his crude and ugly way, Trump argued for defining American interests more narrowly. The men and women who write documents like the “Worldwide Threat Assessment” generally disagree, but they do so obliquely, without grounding their assessment of threats in an argument about the interests of ordinary Americans. And thus, they fail to answer Trump’s challenge.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
Is the "Intelligence" community actually "Intelligent" ?
"Trump has an answer to these questions: The Saudis boost the American economy by buying American weapons. It’s ugly, but at least it’s an answer. The threat assessment offers none."
Correction, I now see your tiny link at the top. I guess I was looking for a "seed" bar. But Peter Beinarts opinions really don't hold much weight. They are just more whiny defense and deflection of a feckless President who is in over his head.
Assessment is Assessment....right !
Should Trump shut his mouth instead of "Questioning" Intelligence? reports at times ?
Should he just take these assessments with a "Grain of Salt " ?
Should he stop being a leader and become the usual "Lemming" of the Political world ?
They gave Trump the facts on the ground. Those facts dispute Trumps attempted spin and self congratulatory back slapping for things Trump has claimed victory for yet are far from resolved. The assessment was never supposed to be a "Here's what you are supposed to do on Iran" or "This is how you're supposed to act towards North Korea". It's simply the intelligence communities best assessment of where we stand right now on the global stage. Trump has made claims that differ greatly from their assessment of the facts and has based US policy on his version, his "alternative facts", and that's why he's so frustrated with them. He sees them as undermining his plans where he had a narrative, regardless of how factual it was, that he wanted to pursue and a policy based on that narrative.
For example, Trump wants the narrative that there is a crisis on the border, that hordes of drug dealers, rapists and criminals are just pouring over the border like some Mexican zombie film. That narrative will help him enact the policy of spending billions on a wall he promised to a xenophobic base who might turn on him if he doesn't deliver. So when there is no wall mentioned being needed, no zombie horde coming across the southern border warned about, well that pisses Trump off because they aren't playing his game, they aren't backing up his false narrative to get what he wants. Now if he calls it an emergency and takes money allocated for other things to build it he won't look credible, and it's all those damn intelligence officials fault who just wouldn't lie for him, they wouldn't play ball, they're not "loyal" to the President which he takes as near treasonous behavior because he is such a worthless narcissist.
None of the "Assessors" are "On the Ground" !
They are desk jokers at best !
Didn't you ever see/read the REAL "On the Ground Troops" saying they had to call in before taking someone OUT during a war ?
So, in your mind, what is the real "Threat" to America you have read about !
Going towards the "Southern Wall", what so-called" professional Desk Joker that Democrats want, are better than the ones that we have seen on the "Ground", saying "a wall would be appreciated" and "Much Needed" !
Here is what a threat assessment should be:
1) It should define what the system or interests of an entity is.
2) It should determine what threats exist that could affect that system or entity.
3) It should determine which threats are the highest priority to defend against.
3a) It should determine how damaging a threat would be to the system or entity.
3b) It should determine how soon any such threat could be made to the system or entity.
3c) From 3a and 3b, it should use a matrix to determine which threats are both most damaging and most possible in the short term.
4) It should then propose methods of combating such threats.
And, that folks is what a real threat assessment needs to have to be useful in combating threats.
Generalizations are the "In" thing these days. Trump is questioning that. Liberals "Hate" questions.
It is me, the blogs are meant for original articles only. All seeds either go into the main forum or a group. This has been moved to the main forum.
Okeydokey !
"When you read the threat assessments year after year, you notice that every year, the threats grow."
But it doesn't seem to ever be a growing concern on the "Southern Border".
Wierd !
And, every year more and more new techniques and technologies are created to combat those threats; but never do they suggest eliminating an older technique of fighting a threat. That is because, the older threats are still threats and the older techniques are still effective. The sad part is that the Democrats decry walls as being ancient and ineffective now despite the fact they still deter, redirect, and delay people effectively and when coupled with technology actually can create nearly impregnable defenses. But, no, we can't have a wall because the technology is enough, despite the fact that without any real physical barrier nothing gets stopped long enough for patrols to catch them. That's like saying we can plug swiss cheese with just milk.