The problem is that the real conflict the US faces is whether it should let its foreign policy be run by facts, or whether the intelligence agencies are simply there to manufacture consent for whatever the ruling party has decided to invade next. In the latter case the intelligence on the ground doesn't actually matter, so there's no political pressure to make sure it's done well.

From my working life perspective smaller teams of talented people are often more impactful than significantly larger teams. E.g. Large teams create bureaucracy. And 'weak links' become harder to spot and typically allowed to remain.

I know nothing about this area so take my comment as curiosity only, but I wonder what USA gets/achieves for this $50-100bn intelligence budget? And what would they get at a $2bn funded group utilising a much smaller group of the best employees within the existing orgs.

His functioning program was scrapped for a billion dollar program that didn't protect Americans privacy and that didn't work because all it did was make the haystack so big finding the needle became neigh impossible.

That is a clear example of the good ol boy kickback system being allowed to take over and actually reduced national security. There is a reason that since 9/11, multiple counties in VA have the most growth of millionaires in the country.

As for the CIA, most sources I listen to (Ray McGovern, John Kirakou, Bob Bear, etc) indicate they have been getting rid of analysts who speak "truth to power" due to the over politicalization of intelligence, so combine that with good ol boy kickback cruft, it's no wonder incompetence is allowed to abound.

This is only a part of the reason the military Intel community has tended to have an adversarial attitude to the company.

So where a simple and cost effective solution would work, the US Military/Spy Agencies would want a platinum-plated solution that would give them total dominance in the situation at hand, which would spiral the costs and complexity to the point that the solution doesn't work at all. Contractors are never going to be a brake in that situation because it makes them filthy rich. And any employees who object get swept aside because the powers that be want to pursue the most aggressive and ambitious solution possible.

Here's his appearance on Infowars.. where he explains to Alex Jones how the "deep state" is setting up Donald Trump by scapegoating the Russians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5XE96G5kN0

Employee breakdown is as follows:

1/6 extremely capable and dedicated high performers

1/6 extremely capable and dedicated but go home at 5pm

1/3 average (not going to screw things up massively, but also never going to make a large contribution)

1/3 shocking (as in where do you even find people this useless and disagreeable - if you’re lucky their managers put them in an office and don’t let them touch anything, if not, they wreak havoc)

And why the differentiation between folks who leave after 8 hours of work and those that don't?

You literally work inside a room with no windows, poor ventilation, and sound dampening. Anyone who doesn't go home after 8 hours has something wrong with them.

At the margin, in corporate america salaried professionals have a focus on deadlines and deliverables (because a. If the company goes under They’re out of a job and b. If they consistently miss deadlines they’re out of a job), so if that means the occasional late night, or an an expectation around a 10 hr work day - ok. On the federal government side the attitude CAN be “if it’s late, it’s late - what are they going to do, fire me?” Without some sense of urgency (however that is inspired) productivity is bad and tends to get worse.

It's part of the whole charade of smaller government. The number of actual government employees is reduced but then the government pays contracting companies 2x or 3x (or more) for contractors and ends up with same number of butts in seats.

That's my point. They have the money, but something-something..."policy"...something-something.... It goes to corporations instead of people.

Please keep personal swipes out of HN comments. Your post would be fine without the first sentence.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

However, some agencies have gotten special permission from Congress to use another pay scale which was designed to allow agencies to pay for performance rather than guaranteed raises over time. Though I’ve heard that it doesn’t always work the way it was intended. I was actually initially offered a lot lower salary at another agency that used the pay for performance than my current agency that uses the General Schedule scale.

For general reference: GS-7: B.A./B.S. and GS-9: Master’s.

For all intelligence positions, you are required to pass and maintain a Top Secret/Special Compartmented Information clearance which takes about a year these days due to backlog. This hinders the agencies ability to recruit top talent. I recommend checking out the SF-86 Questionnaire for National Security Positions if you want to see what all is asked.

Right now, I could switch to the private sector and make a lot more than I am making now. But I stay because I believe in the mission and work of my agency. I get to do things that I would never get to do in the private sector. Maybe one day I will switch but for right now I am staying.

Personal attacks aren't welcome here.

The government has the money. As evidenced by their defense budget.

The government does not pay the money to their employees. As evidenced by NSA employees making less than high-grade truck drivers.

The government does pay billions to corporations such as Lockheed or Booz, etc.

SO let's recap: they have the money, they just choose not to pay it to their employees. But instead it inexplicably gets rerouted to rent-seeking gatekeepers.

"The government" is not a gigantic neolithic behemoth doing whatever it wants whenever it wants. You might be surprised to learn that there are in fact three branches of government in the United States. Congress has passed more than one law detailing the manner in which federal employees can be paid, and limiting how much each given position may be paid.[0] Similarly, Congress sets the budget for the Executive agencies. Because the Pentagon get billions of dollars does not mean that it's trivial to raise the salary of everyone at the Food & Drug Administration.

USG employees make significantly less than their private sector counterparts (usually) because they get quite a few benefits unavailable to the private sector:

* Generous paid leave in the form of sick time, vacation time, comp time, and scheduled holidays

* Accrued paid leave is paid out when you leave government employment

* Government pension Ignoring the completely nonsensical "rent-seeking gatekeepers" comment, Lockheed and BAH receive government contracts through open bid procurement processes. You'll get no argument from me that often times these bids are written so only 1-3 firms in the world even qualify, but that's sort of the nature of the beast when the bid is to develop a new missile or something.

[0] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...

It's attacking the person, not the central point. Thus making it ad-hominem.

> You might be surprised to learn that there are in fact three branches of government in the United States

See above comment.

Computer security VERY MUCH cares about offense vs. defense.

The attacker only has to win once and he wins. The defender has to win every single time or he loses.

a hot conflict entirely dependent on satellites and other means of communications. The war can end right after the first shot is fired.

I think personally it's pretty likely that they're in our systems, and we're in theirs, for almost any major nation - ally or not.

It's just MAD all over again.

Today, there is much more (potential) room for confusion and false flag attacks.

Relevant pop culture reference:

https://www.imdb.com/videoplayer/vi4020353817?playlistId=tt5...