Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="JJ sloan, post: 74847"]
I like some of the points MG Flynn asserts.  I agree that the upper level intelligence shops are clueless when it comes to population data and atmospherics.  The reason for this, in my humble opinion, is that there is a lack of respect for the ground level intelligence collectors.  I am appauled that anyone would suggest that they would be better served by reading a newspaper rather than intelligence reports.  If this is the attitude of policymakers then it is no wonder that we are losing in such dramatic fashion.  Maybe these policymakers need to go where the ground truth exists, rather than visiting Bagram and Kabul, later claiming that they have been to Afghanistan and know the situation. The idea that "some civilian analysts who deploy to Afghanistan will be empowered to move between field elements in order to personally visit the collectors of information at the grassroots level and carry that information back with them" could be the answer to engaging the populace.  It remains to be seen if the analysts that are sent to gather the "grassroots level intelligence" are worth their salt, but if they are then the problem of gathering information from the news media should be mitigated.  I like the fact that MG Flynn recognizes the need for F3EAD in order to destroy the enemy and disrupt the networks while shifting some of the focus to collecting on the populace.  Overall, I thought the paper was well written and has a legitimate focus.  I am curious to see if it works, or if it is even implicated.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

How many letters are in "ShadowSpear?"