US Intelligence
“Top US intelligence agencies” report that if American troops are removed from Iraq, the country will become increasingly unstable, perhaps drawing neighboring countries into a potentially ever-widening war.
But given past performance, how can we take that term, “US intelligence” as anything but an oxymoron, right up there with “jumbo shrimp,” “fuel-efficient automobile,” and “creative blogging?”
Moreover, it’s not at all obvious that if American troops stay, the above gruesome scenario won’t transpire anyway. In fact, I have little faith that the exact opposite of what those “top intelligence agencies” predict isn’t far more likely to occur—and by removing its troops, the US will actually contribute to the stability of the region.
Who are these “top intelligence agencies,” anyway? And how did they get to the top? Certainly not because of the fine job they’ve done in the past, I would say.
Are there “bottom intelligence agencies?” Should I picture an entire farm system or lower division that agencies graduate from into the big-time intelligence “show?”
Come to think of it, “intelligence agency” itself is an oxymoron; agencies, by their very nature tend not to be intelligent at all. “Confusion agency,” or “Obfuscation agency,” or even “Self-Perpetuating Myths, Misconceptions, and Misunderstandings Agency” I could buy.
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said something like “Intelligence is the ability to hold two competing ideas in the head at the same time.” If that’s right, then “US intelligence agencies” are anything but. Time and again of late we’ve gotten from them dogmatic, one-sided proclamations about the way things are and will be, no doubt about it.
I myself am not nearly intelligent enough to have any real suggestions for how to address the catastrophe that is contemporary Iraq. But at least my philosophy training has taught me this: Socrates was deemed by the oracle at Delphi to be the wisest man in Athens because he alone knew he wasn’t wise.
Intelligence agencies would likewise be smart to deny their intelligence.
But given past performance, how can we take that term, “US intelligence” as anything but an oxymoron, right up there with “jumbo shrimp,” “fuel-efficient automobile,” and “creative blogging?”
Moreover, it’s not at all obvious that if American troops stay, the above gruesome scenario won’t transpire anyway. In fact, I have little faith that the exact opposite of what those “top intelligence agencies” predict isn’t far more likely to occur—and by removing its troops, the US will actually contribute to the stability of the region.
Who are these “top intelligence agencies,” anyway? And how did they get to the top? Certainly not because of the fine job they’ve done in the past, I would say.
Are there “bottom intelligence agencies?” Should I picture an entire farm system or lower division that agencies graduate from into the big-time intelligence “show?”
Come to think of it, “intelligence agency” itself is an oxymoron; agencies, by their very nature tend not to be intelligent at all. “Confusion agency,” or “Obfuscation agency,” or even “Self-Perpetuating Myths, Misconceptions, and Misunderstandings Agency” I could buy.
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said something like “Intelligence is the ability to hold two competing ideas in the head at the same time.” If that’s right, then “US intelligence agencies” are anything but. Time and again of late we’ve gotten from them dogmatic, one-sided proclamations about the way things are and will be, no doubt about it.
I myself am not nearly intelligent enough to have any real suggestions for how to address the catastrophe that is contemporary Iraq. But at least my philosophy training has taught me this: Socrates was deemed by the oracle at Delphi to be the wisest man in Athens because he alone knew he wasn’t wise.
Intelligence agencies would likewise be smart to deny their intelligence.
posted by Professor Dave at 6:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home