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

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

2009-04-17T15:01:56Z

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.

Comment from Samantha West on 2009-04-18

2009-04-18T22:16:25Z

I see something a bit insidious in the DHS release. Oh yes, just posing the possibility that a veteran may be courted by extremist groups in and of itself seems harmless enough, but it is not. Well placed innuendo is used by ad agencies every day to provoke the response they want.

Ms Napolitano intended to shine a light on veterans, proponents of right to life, and those concerned about the failure to enforce immigration laws. She knows that those who side with her view of how things should be will naturally place more suspicion on her list of possible trouble makers now that the powerful Homeland Security has tagged them.

Naturally since her report was not scathing in any way, she can always claim she made no "accusation" but was just voicing concern. It's a bit like voicing concern that a rock could break a window so we must be suspicious of all rocks.

No. Napolitan's INTENT was to cast doubt on her list of "possible" troublemakers. Plain and simple.

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-18

2009-04-18T09:20:06Z

That it is, olga, that it is.

Comment from olga on 2009-04-17

2009-04-18T01:32:42Z

BillT,
that's really f##ked up..

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-17

2009-04-18T00:06:24Z

May be more serious than we think. And sooner.

Comment from JimC on 2009-04-17

2009-04-17T23:32:28Z

Bill, Hackers are the only threat on the left. No mention of anything like MS-13 or terrorists. We are in serious trouble.

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-17

2009-04-17T22:00:39Z

What's been the reaction on the Lib Side to the flip side of the coin -- the report on Left Wing radicalism that DHS says was released in January?

Comment from JimC on 2009-04-17

2009-04-17T21:37:17Z

I heard from a talking head on the radio yesterday that the unclassified compromised (?) FOUO document is actually the summary of a much larger classified document. If this is true, then classified report is what has me concerned.

Comment from XBradTC on 2009-04-17

2009-04-17T15:42:42Z

Sadly, as a Life Member of the VFW, I too may have to reconsider my support for what has usually been a worthy organization. Apparently the Commander in Chief of the VFW is afraid of losing access to the councils of government. But how can the VFW strive toward its stated goals by abandoning its bedrock prinicples?