vara bungas: Publikai būtu jāsaprot, ka izlūkošanas profesionālis brīfējot komandierim vai prezidentam savas prognozes vai secinājumus NEKAD neteiks kategoriski “būs tā” vai “būs šitā”, iespējamības tiks raksturotas varbūtības pakāpēs, jo pilnīga pārliecība objektīvi var būt tikai par to, ka mēs visi kādreiz mirsim, visos citos gadījumos ir iespējami varianti daži no kuriem ir ticamāki par pārējiem. Attiecīgi lēmēja (komandiera, prezidenta) loma ir uzklausīt argumentus, kas pamato izlūkošanas secinājumus un balstoties uz tiem izdarīt atbildīgu izvēli par labu optimālam course of actions. Ja šī izvēle izrādīsies pareiza par izlūku tulīt aizmirsīs un likumsakarīgi slavēs lēmēja ģēniju, ja nepareiza, sāksies runas par intelligence failure. Kabulas krišana ir tam spilgts piemērs.
[..] A senior congressional official who asked not to be named in order to discuss sensitive briefings told ABC News that intelligence officers had warned the U.S. leaders about a swift and total victory by the fundamentalist Taliban militants who had held power in Kabul during the late 1990s up until after the Sept. 11 attacks. “The intelligence community assessment has always been accurate; they just disregarded it,” the official told ABC News, speaking about the Biden administration. [..]
[..] Some U.S. officials privately said it had been a mistake for Presidents Biden and Trump to announce the military’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, believing that it emboldened the Taliban to launch its offensive. “What is happening in Afghanistan is not the result of an intelligence failure,” former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell tweeted on Sunday. “It is the result of numerous policy failures by multiple administrations. Of all the players over the years, the Intelligence Community by far has seen the situation in Afghanistan most accurately.”[..]
UPD1 Douglas London retired from the CIA in 2019 after 34 years as a Senior Operations Officer, Chief of Station and CIA’s Counterterrorism Chief for South and Southwest Asia.:
[..] there was no intelligence failure by the agency in warning either Trump or Biden as to how events would play out. Operating in the shadows and “supporting the White House” will prevent the intelligence community from publicly defending itself. But the failure was not due to any lack of warning, but rather the hubris and political risk calculus of decision makers whose choices are too often made in their personal and political interest or with pre-committed policy choices, rather than influenced by (sometimes inconvenient) intelligence assessments and the full interests of the country.[..] avots