Thread by @BryanDeanWright

Former CIA guy here.

I’m seeing lots of reports saying “US intelligence says,” and related frothy assessments on Ukraine & Russia.

Here’s why you should be skeptical, and ask questions.

First, where’s the raw intel from?

If human (HUMINT), is it just one person? Multiple people? When did they get the info? Where? How? Have they been vetted? If so, to what extent?

Don’t just assume the CIA / IC knows all this.

Look up “CURVEBALL” and you’ll understand why.

If signals (SIGINT), is it one stream (email) or many (phone, text, etc)? Did native speakers do the translation? Has the info been corroborated by other sources of intel?

Are the targets aware they’re likely being monitored?

Disinformation must be ruled out.

This raw intel then goes to analysts. They create assessments.

But be careful!

Ask what degree of confidence they have in their findings: low, medium, or high.

But still. Even this is deceiving.

Why deceiving? Two reasons.

First, analysts didn’t collect the raw intel. Ops Officers do, for example, for CIA HUMINT.

Because analysts don’t really understand ops, they often don’t know what questions to ask.

They try. Sometimes. But they mostly just assume.

Very dangerous.

The second reason assessments can be deceiving: Analysts can be biased. Esp senior officers.

In my experience, they bury or downplay stuff they don’t like.

Personal politics can also come into play.

Ex: Current Biden State Dept spokesman? Fmr CIA analyst. Total partisan hack.

Bottom line: Don’t blindly trust raw intel or intel assessments. Consider them, but don’t trust them wholesale.

History is full of reasons why, like the CURVEBALL case.

So ask hard questions. Use your own judgement. Discern.

Be skeptical, America. 🇺🇸