Almost every day an intelligence community overview assessment is compiled, it’s called the Presidential Daily Briefing or PDB.
The PDB contains content primarily produced by the CIA. However, in the modern era, the PDB is assembled and enhanced by adding information from other intelligence agencies (silos). The Director of National Intelligence assembles it; the position Tulsi Gabbard has recently been nominated for.
The DNI (now Tulsi) compiles the information, then delivers the PDB to the President, the National Security Advisor (now Mike Waltz) and the list of people assigned by the President to review it.
The PDB is the Intelligence Community (IC) telling the Office of the President, this is what’s going on. The PDB frames the worldview of the CIA and other agencies.
However, if the CIA/IC wants to frame policy and action to their agenda – and not to the agenda of the president/administration per se’ – the CIA/IC can shape the PDB information toward their own individual objectives. In the past several decades the CIA manipulation of the PDB became obvious.
Because the PDB was no longer considered to be an “independent” finding of fact, and was/is, instead, more of a CIA tool to shape and control the president, it became increasingly useless.
President Obama saw the traps within the CIA/IC use of the PDB and started to ignore it. Obama gave the PDB to almost two-dozen administration officials daily, essentially saying, “here this is what the CIA say is going on – check it out.” Meanwhile Obama did what he wanted to do in shaping policy, often regardless of the PDB content.
With an incoming President Trump administration, the CIA/IC use of the PDB to manipulate outcomes will be even more on display. With that in mind, here’s one approach that might be worth considering.
Make the CIA/IC (now Ratcliffe/Tulsi) provide a footnote for every assertion of fact within the PDB.
Put the footnotes into a classified appendix that includes sources and methods and give the appendix only to the National Security Advisor, now Mike Waltz. [ie. ‘Review and return’]
Let NSA Mike Waltz then review the attributions of source material in the White House SCIF. Then, if any concerns are noted, Waltz can turn to the National Security Council with a generalized statement describing the concern saying, “check this out.”
The NSC can then dig into the granular details and return with their own independent assessment about the validity of the information.
The National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, can then go question the specific CIA/IC silo about any contradiction that might be at issue.
Do this enough times, and I predict the PDB will quickly change in both tone and content. The originators of the intelligence assessment, the CIA and other agencies, will be on notice that their homework is being checked by the National Security Council.
Just a thought.
It’ll be interesting to see how the PDB is changed based on feedback from the DNI and CIA Director. A lot of times these briefings go on autopilot and they add no value. The nice thing about having fresh eyes is that Gabbard and Ratcliffe can force a major overhaul in what goes into the PDB, the frequency of it, the level of certainty required, and the ability to call bullshit when major predictions do not come to pass.
A lot of people might have forgotten this, but there was a time in 2008 when the intelligence community was 100% convinced that India and Pakistan were not only going to go to war, but that it would be a nuclear war, and that Pakistan would not exist as a country in 10 years.
“in 10 years” was 6 years ago.
The same IC is now out there with DoD chomping at the bit for war with China by 2027. Time to start muzzling that kind of crazy talk and focusing on economic MAGA soft power. You can bet the PDB is LOADED with China/war propaganda.
-The *entire* point of intelligence analysis done right:
My entire life Iran has been days away from having the bomb. Lions, Tigers, Bears, Oh My! Just saying.
Iran has always been more bluster for 50 years since the stink of Carter and the hostage crisis. When they have ever tried to back something up since, they have had their asses handed to them. Biden/Obama continued to fund them. That is all over again………….
Hey, I have an idea….
Eliminate all the intel agencies run by civilians and put it back in the MILITARY where it belongs…
Just a thought from a crusty old Gunny
NO MERCY!
A role for a rehabilitated DIA, perhaps? – I’d think you’d probably not want to staff it with anyone higher than a Colonel, tho’…
There is a point when the value of decades of experience has great value, but considerations of your future can shade judgement. A case can be made for recently retired analysts, still versed in history and context, who willingly agree to do the job for a decent wage AND, will never be able to work elsewhere, by binding agreement, once they chose to leave . Once there can be no point in shading your analysis because it helps or harms someone in the IC, you just do the work for the pride that accuracy and insight gives as you serve your nation! Personal integrity matters.
Probably not a good idea.
There are historical reasons why intel authority has been split under different controlling authorities – traditional collection and analysis versus the spec ops type stuff.
Also, since when have the Services (wearing their corporate hats) ever worked collaboratively in the intel world?!!!! That was a known problem prior to WWII. The Services have different requirements for their respective intel specialists.
Not an intel guy, but in my day we had service-specific intel (like tracking ships around the world) but also input from “national” sources (NGA, NSO).
Ooh Rah!
You’ll have to purge the military of the Communists first. Trials and hangings…trials and hangings.
Accountability – Accountability -Accountability.
New name of the game. Trust, but verify, Old names of the game.
True!
Not possible in real time.
After the fact; damage has already been done.
You are bat crazy if you think trust/verify is old school.
Ever flown an a/c in combat and relied on link-16 for accurate, timely info? Doesn’t always happen. One nevertheless has to trust that system or some other trusted cross-check: not a good situation to be in when seconds matter.
Trust is always, always a key component of any system – and that includes the people operating within a system. Why, pray tell, do you think the DS/IC has lost so much respect and now sees the wolves gathering? They are no longer trusted.
Accountability is important, in fact essential; no argument there. Your assumption that it creates disincentives may or may not be true. Psychopaths and ideologues certainly have a different risk tolerance in that regard. In my mind, accountability matters otherwise the E2E linkage of policies, regs, laws, standards, etc., lose force as devices for control in the big picture sense of an organized society.
But trust is critical. It is a foundational component of all information, leadership, contracts, and on and on. In time sensitive environments, it supersedes accountability.
Perhaps you think “Trust in God” is an old school thought also?
No more — we can’t discuss this, because it is under investigation.
Replace with: We can’t pay you, because you have offered us nothing of value.
Perfect! I hope they do this. :-))
“We can’t pay you, because you have offered us nothing of value”
I like that.
👊👊
Can’t back it up, then taxpayers refuse to pay for shoddy work products. Period.
No more money down the deep state rathole.
Now we know why armories began to be funded for the IRS, among other gov’t depts.
They will game the “proof” too.
Nasty people.
-Colin Powell’s vial of ‘yellowcake’ at the UNSC comes to mind…
like they are listening??? SunDance has given more thought to this stuff than the whole Transistion Team.
A unit only does well what the boss checks.
Fantastic idea!
In order to be completely realistic the PDB should always start off with…
Once upon a time…
So you say it’s a fairy tail not a sea story Always wondered!
Tulsi can prepare for her DNI job by binge-watching old episodes of Columbo (Peter Falk.)
She can adopt Columbo’s signature technique of pretending to be uninformed and asking “dumb questions” often while pretending to be walking away… “oh, one more thing… Could you explain xyz?” She can get the notepad and stubby pencil too.
That will force the IC info-shapers/spinners to explain their methodologies, sources, assumptions. She can uncover all kinds of swamp mud.
SD, I like your approach about steering the PDB away from a particular agenda.
It’s almost like getting them to write their own barium letters.
I see value in nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as DNI…
January 22, 2013 – Gabbard unanimously elected to a four-year term as a vice chair of the DNC
September 2015 – Gabbard criticized chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s decision to hold only six debates during the 2016 Dem primaries
February 2016: Assange wrote on Wikileaks, “I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables.”
February 28, 2016 – DNC Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard resigns post to endorse Dem pres candidate Bernie Sanders, following months of rising tensions within the DNC group.
July 10, 2016 – Rich was shot and killed while walking home in early morning hours from bar
July 31, 2016 – Crossfire Hurricane “officially” launched
* Seth Rich began working for (DNC) in 2014, as the voter expansion data director. One task was the development of a computer application to help voters locate polling stations. Like Tulsi, Seth was Bernie supporter.
One could go even further: – Since DNI compiles the PDB, give a copy of the classified appendix to ODNI also. Tulsi would have her staff do their own follow-up as a check/balance/backstop on Waltz’s team, just to be sure… Even better have a third team (DIA?) get a copy too and do their own fact-checking/follow-up to provide for a tie-breaker/kind-of consensus.
Regarding the ‘third team’, a couple weeks back I mooted here the need for a brand-new, *totally* independent and, above all, *sub-rosa* intel outfit, firewalled from but otherwise *directly subordinate to* the WH – Something like a cross between Le Carre’s ‘Circus’ and ‘The Campus’ in Clancy’s later ‘Ryanverse’. This sub-rosa intel agency was mooted back then within the context of providing a ‘bodyguard’ and support to the foreign-facing ‘Emissary’ role, however it would also be perfectly feasible for it to serve the same function for the NSA and ODNI within the domestic-facing DC-labyrinth context. Within this context, fact-checking the PDB classified appendix would presumably also be a natural function of such an outfit.
Incidently, were such a sub-rosa intel shop to be created, I would suggest Ken Paxton being a perfect fit for Director.
What, exactly, are the claims here?
One. That relevant information/analysis is being left out for political reasons?
Two. That intentionally false information/manipulated analysis is being forwarded?
Three. That un-authoritative information/analysis is being forwarded?
Four. That analysis is not accurately annotated with confidence metrics?
Five. That questions specifically raised by the President are not being answered?
Six. That information/analysis is not received in a timely manner (relative to decision-making requirements)?
Seven. That information/analysis is not shared with all who have proper clearances and need to know?
I’m not countering Sundance’s overall assessment. This is un-believably dangerous.
Every place I ever worked with classified channels had feedback mechanisms. There are all kinds of intelligence and communications systems that I am confident the White House has at its disposal.
It seems to me the core issue here is the analysis. That’s a hard one to nail down – it can be abjectly wrong at times. Or, as noted, “massaged”.
One should also bear in mind: if it’s happening with the PDB, one can be *amn sure it’s happening in other sources and contexts. So the problem (i.e., impacts) is actually much more pervasive.
People only tell you what they want you to believe.
The point is that there are observed phenomena and then there is analysis. They are not the same.
I have no doubt that the IC acted on its own imperatives beyond what the President was demanding. None of this data/information collection, filtering, summarization and analysis happens by accident. Since the advent of “netcentric warfare” data/information has been at the center of the modern war fighting “paradigm”. A lotta resources go into defining information requirements that support “Commanders Intent.” There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the same exists for the PDB – it’s how the whole system is structured.
The structure has been in place to effect change. Obama chose not to. If change isn’t made following Presidential orders, you kick arse on the spot.
Intel analysis shows up everywhere, for example in requirements definitions for new weapons systems (as part of standardized acquisition processes) – e.g., someone projects what the future threat will be in some relevant timeframe. There is always some subjective, probability projections in this analysis. There is always uncertainty.
The point? Sundance knows from his sources that the analysis going to the President was subject to political filters that were not congruent to Presidential demands (or, the less precise, “needs”). Have a come to Jesus meeting with the providers – but understand that the analysis itself is inherently probabilistic. Don’t drift so far from center line that product only echoes what the provider believes the receiver wants to hear.
This whole thing boils down to trust. What Sundance is describing (the fix) is a necessity. But it is a huge resource drain over time. The filters help – as part of a phased solution. But it is restoration of trust that lies at the core. The system cannot function if the actors are not trustworthy.
Just to be clear, the structure I am speaking to is couched in a military/national security context. That structure assumes different language, different authorities, different process definitions in other contexts (e.g., diplomacy/foreign policy), but the essentials remain the same.
The problem is the politics. The Democrat Party is now wholly the Communist Party. They can NEVER be trusted. But then, if you fired every Democrat in the Intel Community then you yourself become the ‘political’ actor.
It is damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Our only hope is a Nation-wide outing of the Democrats as full on Marxists/Communists and the public shaming that these are Enemies of America with all of the attendant actions.
Until it’s cool to kill Commies again this nation will NEVER recover. That’s what we used to do. Now we elect them.
Don’t know if I would go the full communist route/descriptor. I do know the threat consists of more than just democrats.
To me, the DS/IC is more a group of elitists who believe they understand the commanding heights of science, morality, etc., better than the rest of us plebs. Their hubris leads them to believe this entitles them to be the ultimate decision-makers – freedom and individual natural rights (or whatever “sanctioned” value system one is staked to) be damned.
It’s a bunch of autocrats who use the memes of socialism and/or individualism whenever it suits their immediate objectives.
I expect he will be among those sitting on that review board that is going to assess (and recommend the firing of) all those woke flag officers.
And maybe other duties as assigned.
I’d rather NSA be Mike Benz, he knows the “blob” better than anyone. I hope Waltz is a temp.
watch the movie about Flynn. he was deeply offended when DJT publicly called him a liar.
It’s been observed here and elsewhere that the IC was permanently elevated and removed from all oversight by the Patriot Act.
You know, to keep us all safe, from entities such as the ones responsible for 9/11 – who only the IC really knows about:
ae911truth.org
(What entities could pull this off?)
Then the internet-connected surveillance grew and fused, feeding the untouchable, impenetrable, all-powerful IC.
And here we are.
… what is the article suggesting, given these facts?
Not quite accurate.
The claim has been that the system was set up such that information flow was controlled/silo’d at key nodes. The word salad way of putting is that the system has been engineered to control information flow to those with “need to know” with filters intended to shape awareness and, ultimately, decision-making. The complementary “price fixing” part of this is strategic placement of compromised (or ideologues) authorities in over-sight (legal, information management, IG, Monacos of the world orchestrators, etc.) roles.
A critical component of all of this is “shared awareness”. It’s not as though the system doesn’t have some variant of ground truth (insofar as that is achievable). It’s that the people controlling the system have inserted their priorities over those of leadership at the top of the pyramid.
Amending or even shedding the Patriot Act will have a big impact. But it won’t completely fix the bigger problem. The Patriot Act was a legacy instrument dusted off and updated from Roosevelt days. It’s intent following 9/11 was completely subverted. That doesn’t mean, however, that the problem it was purposed to solve – fused intelligence/information sharing in service of the security of the American people – was a chimera or simply disappears.
‘The claim has been that the system was set up such that information flow was controlled/silo’d at key nodes.’
This not the same thing as the 100% surveillance over the internet that the Patriot Act established, subject of Simpleton’s post. And it completely misses the 100% untouchable power and cover granted to the IC because “National Security”. Who made this claim?
‘The Patriot Act was a legacy instrument dusted off and updated from Roosevelt days. ‘
The surveillance possible in Roosevelt days doesn’t come close to comparing to the post-2000 internet surveillance kicked off by the Patriot Act. Red herring.
‘ It’s intent following 9/11 was completely subverted.’
You mean the stated intent, or the real intent as apparent now with the 100% surveillance of Americans by a completely opaque all-powerful Big Brother operating outside of the law in support of a de facto police/surveillance state framework being completed?
When a reply like the above from “phillip Jeffreys” appears, it seems that the original post may be over the target, and a standard MIL-spec counterintelligence response has been deployed to muddy the waters. There is no way to prevent counterintel operators from posting, is there?
👍
What a great idea!
Need to go further – performance needs to be graded on quality of work, not who can gaslight the best. These IC liars need to be demoted and fired – they add no value for America with their self-serving ways. Lying, smug. sheetheads like John Brennan should NEVER rise through the ranks.
An excellent thought Sundance.
Hopefully CIA and FBI are completely cleaned out of existing management… at least the first few tiers, so real fidelity, honesty, and integrity can be restored in those agencies (along with countless others), and the President can actually believe the information he’s being fed each day.
You’re right.
I would only add that at the end of the day (I hate putting it this way!) it also requires changing the culture. The virtues you speak to are individual traits – but they are definitely re-enforced by the culture the individual works and lives in: from top to bottom it has to be not only the expectation but also the definition of character.
….by the content of his character (MLK).
“Just a thought.” Great thought, Sundance. Thank you.
…then fire and prosecute the individuals responsible for the tainted information.
Someone needs to get Tulsi Sundance’s writings on the Silo phenomenon to make sure she knows what she’s up against.
No, but his brother just retired from the army as a 4-star (commander of US Army Pacific).