Is our Middle East intellgence as bad as 9/11/2001?

After 9/11 happened, we were told one of the first things to be fixed were the weaknesses in our Mideast intelligence. We were told that lack of information sharing and lack of human intelligence had allowed Osama Bin Laden to operate freely, and large below the radar. Thus was born the "Department of Homeland Security". Ten years later, reasonable people are asking if anything has really changed, since all of the Jasmine Revolutions took us by surprise.

Did we have adequate intelligence of what was about to happen? The obvious answer is "no," across the board. The ensuing debate about why we were caught so flatfooted will undoubtedly reverberate over the next several months. We are not looking for predictions, but for more information for policy makers and less reliance on foreign intelligence services. Our dearth of human sources in the Middle East has been a problem for decades during many administrations. And what we need now are more resources and operations, not fewer.

If it turns out that after 10 years and multiple billions of dollars have been spent that we have no better understanding of the Middle East, then we have been deceived and a special prosecutor may be needed. At the very least, the Bush Administration needs to be called out for not delivering an effective intelligence apparatus to President Obama.

Why is the United States so quiet on the Jasmine Revolutions?

Well, the so-called Jasmine Revolutions are still rolling through the Middle East, and are lapping at the shores of Asia. Tunisia and Egypt have thrown off their decades-long dictators, and countries like Bahrain and Libya are struggling to do the same. Even Iran and Yemen are seeing mass demonstrations against tyranny. And yet, the United States has remained relatively silent. We have engaged the conflicts only after the victors are clear or the attacks on demonstrators are so monstrous that they can not be ignored. How is it that the country that regards Freedom and Liberty more highly than any other, has so little to say?

My best guess is that or leaders - primarily President Obama - is thinking one of these thoughts:
1. We're hated in the Middle East, so our support may hurt more than it helps.
2. We've supported too many Middle East Tyrants to credibly support democracy.
3. We can't afford to send money or troops, so we won't support with words.
4. These revolutions have nothing to do with America.

Unfortunately, all of these thoughts are incredibly cynical. Especially when we're lead by a man who campaigned on "Hope" and "Change". Hope and Change are coming to the Middle East. I'd rather we go down in history as standing with them, than standing on the sidelines.