The DHS intel assessment, reaction to, fallout therefrom [Updated]

It's poorly written, badly done, and hardly qualifies as analysis, in that it provides no useful detail or scope, perspective, much less likely intent and capability - which is what *intelligence* is supposed to be, vice information, vice data.  It paints with a brush so broad that it could be characterized as a map of Red America, with the annotation, "Here be dragons."

I'm not quite as exercised about it as others are.  I'm more offended by the lack of professionalism (and what that portends for DHS decision-making and downstream consumers of their "intel analysis") in the paper and the cluelessness of yet another Cabinet official, in this case Ms. Napolitano.

I'm a member of the American Legion, and our National Commander, David Rehbein, got exercised, and helped focus Ms. Napolitano a bit. 

Now, one of the other big players in the veteran advocacy business (and their national headquarters is here in Kansas City) is the VFW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars.  Their boss, Glen Gardner, Jr, took a different tack from Mr. Rehbein:

Glen M. Gardner Jr., national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, disputed claims that Homeland Security analysts were describing veterans as terror threats.

"The report should have been worded differently, but it made no blanket accusation that every soldier was capable of being a traitor like Benedict Arnold, or every veteran could be a lone wolf, homegrown terrorist like Timothy McVeigh," said Gardner, a Marine veteran from Round Rock, Texas. " It was just an assessment about possibilities that could take place."

Homeland Security says the assessments are part of a series published "to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States."

That generated at least one email to the VFW national HQ, which I was cc'd on:

Please see linked article [that's the link above - the Armorer]. I could not find Gardner's e-mail address, so please forward to national office. I DEMAND an explanation of his cowering statement and implicit acceptance of Secretary Napolitano's assessment and report. If it does not happen, I will terminate my membership and start an e-mail campaign for others to follow suit.
 

There's some annoyed veterans of foreign wars out there.  I eat lunch with one of them.

Update: The quotes in the above are lifted directly from this statement published on the VFW main website.  I for one like the last paragraph, which never seemed to make it into the MSM reports:

The VFW national commander hopes DHS tones down the disgruntled military veteran angle in its next edition, and includes other professionals who have paramilitary training, such as the police, Secret Service, FBI, and DHS' own Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

As I noted (and took some grief for) I'm more bothered by the poor quality of the document than I am the rhetoric... of course, intelligence analysis shouldn't *be* rhetoric... 

That said, the VFW should be glad Eileen Sullivan (who wrote the AP report I linked to in the first part of the post) simply took the words that were in the VFW press release and ran with them, and didn't provide "analysis" of the quality that Mr. Maze of the Military Times did - you can read that bit in Jonn Lilyea's post at This Ain't Hell.

H/t, a local contact at the VFW and frequent commenter and a member of the Sugarbuttons Brigade, Ms. Sainted.