Comments on: US-UK Intelligence Sharing http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/us-uk_intelligence_sharing/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:39:15 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: ibejo http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/us-uk_intelligence_sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-19970 ibejo Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6739#comment-19970 The British have always shown themselves to be far better at running successful humint programs than we are. I do agree with the article's suggestion that we "own" the sigint and elint domains. But I personally feel that in today's world, the importance of good humint cannot be overvalued. The British have always shown themselves to be far better at running successful humint programs than we are. I do agree with the article's suggestion that we "own" the sigint and elint domains. But I personally feel that in today's world, the importance of good humint cannot be overvalued.

]]> By: DC Loser http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/us-uk_intelligence_sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-19971 DC Loser Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6739#comment-19971 Each country has both good and bad parts of its intelligence capabilities. The Brits are better in some geographic areas than we and vice versa. The SIGINT piece is not competitive as there is pretty much a division of labor between the US and commonwealth services (i.e., the British GCHQ, Canadian CSE, and the Australians). Read Bamford's book for more details. As always, the problem with HUMINT is that it is single source and much of it cannot be corroborated, and most of it is not actionable intelligence. Each country has both good and bad parts of its intelligence capabilities. The Brits are better in some geographic areas than we and vice versa. The SIGINT piece is not competitive as there is pretty much a division of labor between the US and commonwealth services (i.e., the British GCHQ, Canadian CSE, and the Australians). Read Bamford's book for more details. As always, the problem with HUMINT is that it is single source and much of it cannot be corroborated, and most of it is not actionable intelligence.

]]> By: ibejo http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/us-uk_intelligence_sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-19972 ibejo Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6739#comment-19972 True - signit is a highly shared capability between us and the UK. I would strongly argue, however, that US humint has been our weakest link for perhaps the past 40 years. Most major inside sources within the Soviet Union were British, not US. We may "play well" in the banana republics, but major threat sources we have been fairly weak. I wouldn't put too much stock in the Puzzle Palace and other JB books. He is not very well received within the intel community. True - signit is a highly shared capability between us and the UK. I would strongly argue, however, that US humint has been our weakest link for perhaps the past 40 years. Most major inside sources within the Soviet Union were British, not US. We may "play well" in the banana republics, but major threat sources we have been fairly weak. I wouldn't put too much stock in the Puzzle Palace and other JB books. He is not very well received within the intel community.

]]> By: DC Loser http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/us-uk_intelligence_sharing/comment-page-1/#comment-19973 DC Loser Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=6739#comment-19973 I'm not sure what you mean by "not well received within the IC?" Maybe you meant the CIA? Perhaps, but he's pretty well thought of inside NSA. Some have it out for him for his view regarding Israel, but that's how he calls them. --- I'm not sure what you mean by "not well received within the IC?" Maybe you meant the CIA? Perhaps, but he's pretty well thought of inside NSA. Some have it out for him for his view regarding Israel, but that's how he calls them.

---

]]>