the tipping point between debate-generating critique and

the tipping point between debate-generating critique and “if they had only listened to me” pontification is easy to cross, and I had hoped to avoid the latter by simply refraining from attempts at the former

It is creativity, judgment and the ability to reach a goal on time that are hard to teach.

But for God's sake, don't hire these people, Brown advised. Make them temps. Otherwise, they'll just turn into more of the brown-nosing bureaucrats the agency is already infected with.

So Ok now I enter the critique with this insight: That there is an ability to hold two core psyche beliefs that are at conflict. As an example as Americans we believe that "all men are created equal" and the "rags to riches" where we are free to unlimited self-actualization.

In a similar way the Military and CIA have two counter beliefs, and they are similar. The military and CIA has a plebe system, similar to West Point or Annapolis where the belief is that all plebes are equal, where all personal character attributes are gone, same haircut, same beliefs, and in the extreme cases of boot camp, power over sleep and food, stressful positions, think military boot camp and the US Marines. (At this point we have a psyche that was supposed to be rebuilt into pride and can-do attitutude) but has a liability.. it has lost some of it's individuality and...

It is creativity, judgment and the ability to reach a goal on time that are hard to teach.

So while the goal at CIA, DIA, FBI, and other large organizations is to be spontaneous and creative, that core psyche belief.. that a round peg can be put through a square hole, that with enough marines you take hamburger hill, and the hubris that one can lose a battle but not the war.. (institutioal beliefs) peculiar to boot camp mentality... well some simply are not 'brainwashed' or institutionalized the same way.

I mean I find it interesting that many of the same techniques at Gitmo are boot camp techniques.

The point I make is an observation, is that in Intel if the 4-star general states, lets not allow facts to stand in the way of our convictions, or.. we need product to support WMD evidence in Iraqi, or if you torture enough you'll find it, or enough motivated troops will take that hill... I mean the high priority of soviet agriculture planning was the planning and not the produce.

The real point is that the thinking is not reiterative. You know by the scars on your managers hand if he puts his hand on the same hot stove more than once that he is stupid... and in a closed society.. risk aversion is... not getting your hand burnt... Might not produce anything more than showing up and not getting burnt.. might not imply anything more than pavlovian response

A tool-and-die engineer (designer) has more creatvity than most INTEL folks. I mean to say that problem solving is not a static process. But the dangerous part of the trend in thinking is the 'boot camp' mentality, where with enough "will" that the round peg will go through the square hole.. fine with me.. just make sure that your're not the red round peg.

The military has to have that psyche.. has to have the we don't leave our dead behind mentality, has to have the we might have lost the battle but will not lose the war mentality..

Spooks should not have to... but politics require the product to be what is ordered.

Bottom line, if you do not like somebody telling you what to believe, what is truth irrespective of facts.. (if politics at a regular job a civilian job irritate you) then intel is a poor career choice with the additional caveat that these people are not as smart as you might presume and that association has risks.

Military Intelligence is almost an oxymorron. In a critical circumstance your judgement can be subordinated to an idiot.. you might find yourself say Shineski saying no to Rumsfeld, or Peter Pace disagreeing with Rumsfeld over an issue. Only difference is that in a vacumn, in the shadows disagreements do not have the protection of say throwing a shoe at somebody in public offers........

I think that the intelligence agencies hire and retain what they want and that the people want to be there.. and that civillians in these positions is a bad idea. In fact I would say that bringing a civilian in close is bad for all if that person is either "prescient or intelligent."

And, more insidiously, wounded institutional pride at the C.I.A. could generate bureaucratic knife-fighting by employees who would rather see the quest fail than give credit to “amateur” operators. The safe bet is that none of this will ever happen.

What is stated above is the belief that it would be better to send another platoon up hamburger hill than call in an air strike if somebody else suggested it first.

That is the danger of mixing these folks... that right there.. and if you are really intelligent why you should consider prior to any thoughts of hanging around them.

Now I love the opening sentence: the tipping point between debate-generating critique and “if they had only listened to me” pontification is easy to cross, and I had hoped to avoid the latter by simply refraining from attempts at the former.

But Dee Illuminati don't play that shit.. if your really intelligent when the task is done,, beware. Similar to say Oppenheimer.. informed and intelligent isn't the same.