20060508
    The World Watch Preview is a post that takes a look at news items that are currently making their way through the never ending 24-hour news cycle. The Preview calls attention to and provides a quick commentary on some of those events. This week: ‘Is Mocking al-Zarqawi Mocking Ourselves’ and ‘Military Intelligence?’.
Is Mocking al-Zarqawi Mocking Ourselves
    The recent release of a video showing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi struggling to operate an M-249 is designed to shower bad propaganda on the public voice of al-Qaeda in Iraq and give the international public a sense that the insurgency, at leas the foreign fighter portion of it, is led by a bunch of buffoons.
    However, the question raised by such an attempt is actually, ‘If these guys are that bad, why are they not all dead or captured?’ Unfortunately, that is a question that will not likely be answered soon by either the military or the government.
    There is no doubt that the 140,000+ men and women of the US Military, in addition to their Coalition counterparts, are doing an outstanding job in Iraq, especially in those areas where they are directly doing the jobs they are trained, organized, and equipped to do, but the reality is that the insurgency and sectarian violence continue to hinder both US and Iraqi objectives in the country, and this reality is due in large part to terrorists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
    The fact that this asymmetric warfare has been so relatively successful speaks not to the inability of the troops on the ground, but rather to the continued misorganization and misapplication of the forces to which they belong. The military force being used in Iraq is still built after the Cold War model of fighting a standing army, and while that force has remarkably adapted, the structure of the force creates unbreachable limitations.
    The truth is that talk about transformation within the military has resulted, for the most part, in just that: talk. Instead of developing and deploying new training, organization, and technology to the field in an expedient and purposeful manner, the same tired methods of change are being eployed now as they have been since World War Two.
    The result is that bumbling terrorists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi continue to be an effective foil to the most powerful military on the planet, and our forces are constantly hampered from putting an end to him because of a lack of the consequential changes in training, organization, and equipment that are necessary to fight a new war against a new enemy.
    In the mean time, our brave men and women of the US Military will continue to do the best job they can with what they have been given. The greatest hope is that these men and women, when they find themselves in leadership positions in the future military, will remember the lessons learned in places like Iraq, and will help the military transform into a force that can truly defeat the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi without the effort it is currently taking.
Military Intelligence?
    There will undoubtedly be quite a bit of speculation over the next several weeks as to the nature of the resignation of Porter Goss as CIA director and over President Bush’s selection of Air Force Lt General Michael Hayden as Goss’ replacement. One vein of speculation will be the exact nature of a civilian intelligence agency headed by a member of the US Military. Such speculation will range widely from the Constitutionality of such a selection to its ulterior motives.
    One might argue, however, that General Hayden’s selection for the post of CIA director speaks to a reality within the intelligence community that was not completely resolved by the establishment of the Director of National Intelligence and the ‘unification’ of the intelligence directorates. This reality is the ongoing question as to who gathers the intelligence and what the intelligence is being gathered for.
    There is no doubt that foreign intelligence gathering serves a variety of purposes, including economic, diplomatic, and political, but there is also no doubt that the largest consumer of international intelligence is likely the Department of Defense and the component services of the US Military.
    Seen in that light, the appointment of a military Director of the CIA speaks to the reality of the post 9-11 world. The collection of international intelligence is a function directly tied to the ongoing War on Terror, and that war is being primarily fought by the US Military. Easing the connection between the CIA and the DoD will inevitably increase the effectiveness of the intelligence being provided to the warfighters.
    Of course, such an argument is completely circumstantial given that the nature of Porter Goss’ resignation is still unknown, but the nomination of a military member is consistent with the ongoing focus and direction of the current administration.
DLH
