When is intelligence really intelligence, and when is it merely "atmospherics"? It may sound abstract, but it goes to the heart of a New York Times scoop about a defense official who apparently set up an off-the-books intelligence operation in Afghanistan.
On Monday, the Times ran a story about Michael Furlong, the Defense Department official being investigated over an ad hoc spy ring. The piece raised more questions than it answered, and Washington Post intelligence columnist David Ignatius is now filling in some of the blanks.
In a column today, Ignatius distills the story. "Under the heading of 'information operations' or 'force protection,' he writes, "the military has launched intelligence activities that, were they conducted by the CIA, might require a presidential finding and notification of Congress. And by using contractors who operate 'outside the wire' in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the military has gotten information that is sometimes better than what the CIA is offering."
Ignatius also unpacks some of the curious semantics around this, noting that reports by contractor (and CIA veteran) Duane "Dewey" Clarridge were labeled "force protection atmospherics," not intelligence, and that sources were called "cooperators." It's a key distinction: By avoiding the vocabulary of intelligence collection, Clarridge's network evidently tried to avoid crossing the line into Title 50 activities (i.e., covert action).
I've beaten up on Ignatius for parroting the CIA line before, but he's also plugged in with the intel community. This time he delivers. In particular, he offers some tantalizing details on what services, exactly, Clarridge was providing, and the size of his operation.
But he also points to a broader problem, which we've highlighted before. The military has been frustrated by a general lack of understanding about the social and cultural landscape of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And in its quest for ground truth, it has turned to nontraditional sources to fill in the gaps on cultural knowledge and the local scene.
The Times report touched on the role of AfPax Insider, a newsgathering-type operation founded by former CNN executive Eason Jordan and author/adventurer Robert Young Pelton (who has provided commentary for Danger Room). General David McKiernan, the former top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, greenlighted AfPax Insider to help provide open-source assessments of the local situation in areas where coalition forces were operating. It was part of an effort to improve information flow -- as well as respond to reports of civilian casualties, among other things.
"What we were providing was what Alexander the Great probably had when he was in Afghanistan -- someone at your elbow to tell you what is going on," Pelton tells Danger Room. "We were a 'reach forward': When something happened we went to that spot or reached out to people who lived there."
But the controversy doesn't mean the military is stepping back from efforts to hoover up more information, and hiring contractors to do it. A new job ad posted by contractor Centra Technology on Monster.com is looking for "all-source intelligence analysts" willing to work for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan. The ad states that the analysts would be responsible for "analysis, reporting, data-basing and dissemination of Afghanistan measures of stability which include security, governance and development, Human Terrain Analysis, preparation of Campaign and Mission Analysis briefings and annexes, High Value Individual Targeting products, Extremist and Regional Threat Network Nodal Analysis, Preparation of Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance Assessment Metrics which include daily IMINT, SIGINT and HUMINT products to gauge the effectiveness of collection operations, 24/7 Indications & Warning and all-source exploitation of documents and media from detainees."
[PHOTO: U.S. Department of Defense]
