Trump: Dislikes Intelligence Community Reporting; the PDB; or Things Against His Gut Feeling

Example of Failure to Trust Advisors and Lead

(re: Virus Early Warning in the PDB)

Major opinion piece from a former CIA highly-seasoned and expert intelligence analyst here from The Hill (via MSN) it is worth reading without any doubt.

Highlights follow that supplement my original posts on this subject here and with many updates:

“Russian Bounty Payments to the Taliban and Other Militants for American Lives in Afghanistan”

Introduction from the Author of the Article: “In Russian bounty debate, once again this administration lacks intelligence.”

“Let's lay aside for a moment the question about whether President Trump was or wasn't informed about the U.S. intelligence assessment that Russian military intelligence – the GRU – paid bounties to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan to kill Americans.

“As a former career intelligence officer who helped produce the President's Daily Brief (PDB) it's hard to envision any plausible scenario in which a president should not be briefed on such a matter.

“But this president, as we know, is different.”

Key Parts from the Article:

I've spoken with former White House officials who confirm that the president does not like to hear information that is inconvenient or uncomfortable for him. 

So perhaps he really wasn't told about this intelligence suggesting Russian complicity in the deaths of at least some of the 20 Americans killed in Afghanistan in the past year.

Most disturbing is the argument from senior administration officials that President Trump should not have been briefed on these latest Russian allegations because the intelligence “was not conclusive.”

We hear this in various guises from national security advisor Robert O'Brien and from new DNI John Ratcliffe.

Meanwhile, a White House spokesman indicated recently that the intelligence did not go to the president because there was “some dissent about its veracity.” 

These officials apparently think that intelligence, before it goes to the president, must be substantiated beyond doubt. To use a cliché, they want “smoking guns.” Intelligence does not work that way.

We've seen this misunderstanding before in this administration, an apparently willful ignorance of intelligence and how it operates.

Consider the October 2018 murder of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. The CIA's analysis in February 2019 concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman probably ordered the killing.

However, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – a former CIA director, no less – issued a sophomoric dismissal of the Agency's assessment, saying that there was no direct reporting linking the murder to the crown prince. 

Again, the elusive search for the “smoking gun,” which betrays a dismaying denial of what intelligence assessments are all about and how intelligence analysts arrive at them.

Someone very brave and senior in the U.S. Intelligence Community needs to inform these senior Trump officials: “We have intelligence when we don't have a smoking gun.”

Intelligence by necessity makes judgments about what is not known conclusively, because smoking guns are rare. Almost all intelligence questions have two or more sides to them. Information is often contradictory.

Intelligence analysts try to sort it all out, not aiming for an ironclad, unassailable conclusion (though that does happen, rarely), but to arrive at what has been called “best truth” – the most complete assessment of the situation that the evidence supports.

What is missing from the debate over the Russian GRU bounties is the key question of analytic confidence.

Don’t Report Anything on Putin or Russia

(Or suffer the wrath of Don)

In the aftermath of the intelligence failure over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction more than 15 years ago, the Intelligence Community instituted a process of asking analysts how confident they were in their own judgments, based on the intelligence sources available. 

It is now routine for key intelligence assessments to be accompanied with expressions of “confidence levels.” What do these confidence levels mean?

A rare explanation comes from former CIA director Michael Hayden, who in 2007 briefed the White House about a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor. 

CIA at the time made “high confidence” judgments that the Syrians had a nuclear reactor and that they were involved in nuclear cooperation with North Korea for years because these things were directly observable. 

The judgment that the North Koreans had built the reactor was made with only “medium confidence” (despite it being exclusively a North Korean design) because the CIA had no “eyes on” North Koreans actually constructing the site.

In other words, intelligence can be good - even very good - without its being “conclusive.”

This fine story continues from here.

My 2 cents: Why does Trump have a constant war with the intelligence community practically since day-one?

I think because of the word “intelligence” is used and sad to say Mr. Trump lacks that across so many lines it’s hard to keep track, but the current virus pandemic and his actions and inactions help illustrate what I mean – case in point:

Trump as everyone knows and he says and he always reminds us about is that he goes with his “gut instinct, mood swings, or just a hunch or some hair brain idea” rather than the best medical advice and opinions from renowned experts around him. 

That is except for those around him that he has chosen for jobs or from a close family member like Kushner who recently called a genius and is now running the medical responses rather than the daily task force or the CDC or Dr. Fauci. That tells us who Trump is.

To put it simply: Donald J. Trump is a clear and present danger to our national interests and national sanity. The proof is all around us – sadly who is listening?

Those close to him are scared to death to stand up to him, challenge him, or offer advice that they know in advance he hates such as seldom mentioning Russia doing bad deed anywhere in the world.

He will not believe or trust that kind of advice and believes he has a handle on events vis-à-vis Putin – events clearly show he does not.

Thanks for stopping by.