I think everyone's flaws in intel are mostly driven by management. My friend got told to add something in a report the other day, even though the analysis didn't support what the manager wanted him to put in. It seems be a worldwide problem.
US intelligence Budget
- Thread starter mike_cos
- Start date
Scotth
Verified Military
Quantifying ROI on intelligence spending is, at least from the outsider looking in, more opinion than anything. Not being priveledged to the information makes it difficult. In the computer field that I work in it easy to layout the returns in terms of cost versus things like network security, added efficiencies, bells and whistles on upgrade software etc.
I think the biggest problem for intelligences is effectively analyzing the data we are able to collect. I think only a fraction of the data we are able to collect gets analyized in a timely manner. But unanalyized intell may still be useful in the future so the collection is still important.
At the end of the day the simplest measure for the outsider looking in, we haven't had a major attack in the US since 9/11. People are working hard each an everyday to ensure that so I think that is a pretty good investment.
I will echo what Mara has already said, that number is for the entire intelligence community, not just military intelligence. We know about all of the intelligence failures but there are successes every day that no one will ever hear about. Without getting into OPSEC, keep in mind that there are a lot of technical collection means that cost money to develop and sustain. Also, the intel community is an bureaucracy like any other and even the CIA has to hire secretaries and janitors. Guess what, non-sexy but vital jobs like that janitor's payroll is probably part of that budget.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
Yeah? Well the FBI wasn't too good at intel or rules of engagement at Ruby Ridge from what I remember...
Dame
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,316
Huh. My DHS badge doesn't have that effect. Must be doing it wrong.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
Don't really care about something that happened 20 years ago. It's not really relevant since presumably we're talking about national security intelligence here, not criminal intelligence.
Maybe you're an ugly lesbian?
I am not attempting to take any glory away from the Intel community as a whole, but when it costs just over $209 million per a day (24 hour period) I tend to think there is some mega waste going on…
Dame
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,316
As the amazing voice of experience you are, I can only surmise you are passing along nuggets of wisdom that someone gave you in your quest for answers while you were Chasing Amy.
US intel is the biggest over the world,but actually not the best, for me there is something to improve.
http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/julian-paul-assange.8154/
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,767
I think people forget just how big the US Intelligence Community are..would they be over 10,000? I'd say so. Apart from the few here who are within that circle no one can say it is a waste of money.. I'm sure a lot of that money is for paid informants from all over the world. Equipment is expensive to run and update ., I would also guess monies is used to develop new UAV's and stuff like that.. That is all big bucks.. I know it doesn't add up to the amount above but i'm sure it would add to quite a lot.
Fair enough questions. I'll start by saying it's very, very hard to quantify "intel successes," especially in an unclassified forum, so I won't even try to justify return on investment (ROI) when it comes to intel; either you believe it's worth it or you don't. Moreover, I'm not a budget expert. In fact, intel budget issues confuse me so much that I'm taking a class on intel budgeting and accountability right now for my master's. Unfortunately it just started so I'm not an expert... and even more unfortunately given the way class is going I'll never be,
but that's not important for this post.That said, yes I do think the budget is proportional. Given the importance of intel, what would you think an appropriate expenditure ratio would be between intel and the rest of the operational budge, 25%, 10%, 5%? When considering the MIP ($27 billion in 2010) against the budget of the DoD ($533.7 billion baseline plus $130 supplemental in 2010 = ~$663 billion), it works out to under 4% $27 billion divided by $663 billion). Simply put, when you compare the overall MIP to the overall DoD budget, it works out that the MIP is 4% of the DoD budget. I think that's pretty good.
The above is not an exact apples-to-apples comparison but I think it's good enough to show how "small" the military intelligence budget is compared to the overall DoD budget. Moreover, even if you use the entire $75 billion figure, you've got to spread that out through all sixteen members of the intel community, which includes organizations you'd expect but probably some you didn't, like the Department of Energy, DEA, and State Department.
I've heard the "$1 million to deploy a Soldier" figure before, but I wasn't able to find it in anything I consider credible during a quick online search. I ascribe it to the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" school of journalism (an excellent example of which was on display on the front page of the Washington Post earlier this week). In short, I think what happened was someone figured that the war cost XXX billion a year, that there were YYY personnel deployed, so therefore it "cost" ZZZ per Soldier. That is misleading because it overlooks some very conspicuous and costly expenses, such as infrastructure, rebuilding, etc. that are not directly related to the true cost of deploying an individual Soldier. Moreover, I'm not sure that the cost per Soldier is really relevant in a discussion about the intel budget; no matter how much it costs to get those Soldiers cost to deploy, someone has to figure out where they need to go, and who they need to fight once they get there, right?
$75 billion is A LOT of money, no doubt. But when considered against what the intel community accomplishes compared to the cost of what happens when the security structure fails, I think the investment is worth it.
According to Wikipedia, it's a little bit bigger than that ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,767
Let's watch what happens in Libya. French and British smash ADA sites, then our intel is pretty spot on. French and British lose a bunch of planes; then the intel was weak.
Very good points Mara.
mmmh...in recent years this figure are not so clear... 'couse strategy is not clear... for example:"The Minister of Defense Robert Gates announced in Washington a temporary increase of 22 thousand units' in the overall U.S. military strength. The increase will allow 'the Pentagon to ease the staffing problems caused by the need' to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The temporary increase will bring '547.000 from a total of 569 000 of the U.S. military." (Source DoD july 2009)
And in 2011 january :"The U.S. defense secretary, Robert Gates, announced cuts of 78 billion dollars in the U.S. defense budget by 2015 and a reduction of staff in the army and the marines. The cuts announced will be added to one hundred billion it expects to save over the next five years in areas already 'identified by Army, Navy and Air Force and then reallocate them to other military programs. Gates's plan calls for a reduction of 15-20 thousand units 'in the Marine Corps, of 27 thousand in the army personnel reduction is in addition to that already 'planned for 22 thousand units', for a total of less 49mila military. These measures will not enter into force before 2015. "One of the main targets - said Gates - in addition to the savings and 'Department to make this less cumbersome more' agile and effective in 'execution of its responsibilities'." "I hope that the result of these changes correspond in time to move from a culture of money without limits, where costs are rarely taken into account to a culture of savings and containment," said the head of the Defense, quoted the American media. Sitting next to Gates during a briefing at the Pentagon, the 'Admiral Mike Mullen, chief of the Joint Chiefs, dismissing early criticism of the reduction of troops, and spoke of "modest changes" and compatible with the commitments of the country in particular "compared to where we should be in Afghanistan in 2015." "My message to allies and friends," echoed Gates "is that the president understands and accepts our global responsibilities and will continue to invest in defense so that it can support our military strength and
fulfill our global commitments. " (Source: DoD)
Now I discover that 845.000 people are involved in intel community.... but, what is the ratio between intel and military in terms of units? It seems a little bit unbalanced towards intel... or not? (with reference also to other countries)
P.S. I agree with Mara: it's imbossible to calculate intel ROI... (intel it's not investment... but simply a security cost... )
And in 2011 january :"The U.S. defense secretary, Robert Gates, announced cuts of 78 billion dollars in the U.S. defense budget by 2015 and a reduction of staff in the army and the marines. The cuts announced will be added to one hundred billion it expects to save over the next five years in areas already 'identified by Army, Navy and Air Force and then reallocate them to other military programs. Gates's plan calls for a reduction of 15-20 thousand units 'in the Marine Corps, of 27 thousand in the army personnel reduction is in addition to that already 'planned for 22 thousand units', for a total of less 49mila military. These measures will not enter into force before 2015. "One of the main targets - said Gates - in addition to the savings and 'Department to make this less cumbersome more' agile and effective in 'execution of its responsibilities'." "I hope that the result of these changes correspond in time to move from a culture of money without limits, where costs are rarely taken into account to a culture of savings and containment," said the head of the Defense, quoted the American media. Sitting next to Gates during a briefing at the Pentagon, the 'Admiral Mike Mullen, chief of the Joint Chiefs, dismissing early criticism of the reduction of troops, and spoke of "modest changes" and compatible with the commitments of the country in particular "compared to where we should be in Afghanistan in 2015." "My message to allies and friends," echoed Gates "is that the president understands and accepts our global responsibilities and will continue to invest in defense so that it can support our military strength and
fulfill our global commitments. " (Source: DoD)
Now I discover that 845.000 people are involved in intel community.... but, what is the ratio between intel and military in terms of units? It seems a little bit unbalanced towards intel... or not? (with reference also to other countries)
P.S. I agree with Mara: it's imbossible to calculate intel ROI... (intel it's not investment... but simply a security cost... )
Similar threads
