LOUSYINT

A justifiable complaint of our intelligence structure prior to 9/11 has been that it relied too much on technical means like satellites and signals intercepts and slighted human intelligence (HUMINT) that relies on actual recruited or infiltrated agents. We need to balance these approaches to gain an accurate picture of the threats out there.

While we have moved to balance our assets by improving HUMINT, we seem to be "improving" the imbalance between the two sides by bollixing up our satellite capabilities:

America has become so lousy at building spy satellites that "the United States is losing its preeminence in space," a Congressional intelligence report declares. What's worse, this decline comes as "emerging space powers such as Russia, India and China" are getting better and better at snooping from above.

Perhaps we've been fooled by the success of Google Earth to believe everyone's satellite capabilities are increasing. We seem to be in danger of losing the high ground.

And this report makes me question our human intelligence. We need our spy agencies to tell us the obvious now? I think our NIEs do more harm than good these days. Good grief, of course we could still fail in Iraq. That's why war supporters have urged us to remain focused even as we defeat our most recent battlefield enemies. Really, what success is ever truly permanent? I'm happy if we can keep the flow of problems down to a manageable level.

Let's get the Air Force aimed high, shall we?