Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

September 20th, 2005

Tags

Comments

5 Comments so far.
Add yours.

No American pastime for you Komrade!

From Best Truth: Intelligence in the Information Age, Ch. 4: The Problem of Analysis in the New Era:

Most of the methods used in intelligence analysis today were developed during the Cold War. Some were ingenious. For example, U.S. imagery analysts developed an entire science of recognition, association, and inference to extract intelligence from satellite photography. One famous technique, dubbed “cratology,” linked shipping containers of a given size and shape with specific weapons they were known to contain. Using this approach, an analyst could, for example, estimate Soviet military shipments to client states even when there was little data from firsthand sources. Imagery analysts also estimated the production capacity of a factory by measuring its floorspace, or its throughput by looking for chokepoints in its layout. In one famous case, analysts determined a military base was Soviet rather than Cuban on the basis of its having a soccer field rather than a baseball diamond.

Comments to this entry

mark safranski
September 20, 2005
3:13 am
Hi YH,

First, a brief request: I'd be keenly interested in a follow up if you hit any good parts on the problems of counterintelligence worth passing on.

As for this post:

The author, I think, is quite correct. The USSR was a extremely secretive and intentionally opaque adversary. That being said, the maniacal centralization of decision-making and procedure made Soviet behavioral patterns notoriously conspicuous and thus, not so hard to read when something " secret" was going on and the " secret" thing's relative importance.

Our current foe is ultra-decentralized and adept at hiding in plain sight and while lacking in resources, he is also far more difficult to penetrate. It's far more likely that al qaida has a plant inside the DIA or CIA than the reverse.
Younghusband
September 21, 2005
2:54 pm
Mark,

The rest of that chapter mainly discusses the difference between Cold War intel and post-Cold War intel, highlighting the problems that we currently face. Some of the things it compares are:

* Indications and warning
* Support to arms control
* Political analysis
* Economic analysis
* Intel support to mil forces
* LIC-COIN
* Threat comparison (conventional, traditional terror, CW/BW)

It compares each of these in a table format. It is by no means comprehensive, but simply illustrates just the beginning of problems.

Basically it breaks down to this: before, all we had to do was watch the big old Soviet Union plunder along in a predictable manner. Now all hell has broken loose.
lirelou
September 22, 2005
12:29 am
Look's like an interesting book. I'll abuse this post to throw out an idea related to counterintellgience. The French were masters of recruiting locals into their public security and combat efforts. These units were usually termed "partisans" or "suppletifs". It reached its height in Indochina (with the Commando forces, see Pissardy's "Commandos Nord Vietnam") and Algeria, where virtually every unit recruited and trained a partisan or commando unit, often from among captured ALN fighters. The British also used similar methods in Kenya (the "countergangs"), as did the Rhodesians within the Selous Scouts. The American Army has tried such methods, but appears to lack a doctrine for their recruitment, organization, training, and employment, other than the general special forces mission of "unconventional warfare". The War on Terror would appear to offer ample opportunity for the employment of such methods and units. I wonder if they are being tried?
Younghusband
September 22, 2005
1:25 am
Very interesting points Lirelou. I have no idea if there is any thought on that. Will look into it.
mark safranski
September 22, 2005
3:43 am
This book sounds more and more like a future purchase ;o)

The French were good at that tactic overseas because they were first good at it at home - recall the employment of " The Mobiles" against French civilians ?