WikiLeaks logo
The Global Intelligence Files,
files released so far...

The Global Intelligence Files

The Global Intelligence Files

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

Re: [alpha] Musings on The Outfit

Released on 2012-02-27 15:00 GMT

Email-ID 1977338
Date 2011-07-06 17:46:21
I know. Kid needs backup

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


From: Reva Bhalla
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:36:18 -0500 (CDT)
To: Alpha List
ReplyTo: Alpha List
Subject: Re: [alpha] Musings on The Outfit
I think that was his point.


From: "George Friedman"
To: "Alpha List"
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 10:35:24 AM
Subject: Re: [alpha] Musings on The Outfit

Actually byu grads do try that. And die.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


From: Marko Papic
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:30:37 -0500 (CDT)
To: Alpha List
ReplyTo: Alpha List
Subject: Re: [alpha] Musings on The Outfit
I disagree... It's not a small percentage of field-jobs and it is not
always about the right skills in the right places. This goes beyond gender
discrimination. It has to also deal with cultural understandings,
experience, etc. Let's forget that the thread is about women. It would be
like putting a BYU grad with 6 weeks of Serbo-Croatian training to
negotiate with Red Berets in 1999. Good luck with that.

I think one could use this thread as an S-weekly topic.

On 7/6/11 10:24 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

Like I said, its a question of how resources are put to use. Some skills
come naturally, some skills come with training (and that enhances the
former category) and a few others are based on gender, such as
conversing with a male islamist. But look how specific that last example
is- whether its interrogation or recruiting, that's a very small
percentage of jobs.

Put the people with the right skills in the right places.


From: Karen Hooper
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:11:56 -0500 (CDT)
To: Alpha List
ReplyTo: Alpha List
Subject: Re: [alpha] Musings on The Outfit
Gender discrimination is appropriate in many circumstances. My only
objection is to the assumption that women cannot be trained to react
appropriately in a given situation. Clearly Khost was a fuck up. It was
not a fuck up because she was a woman, but because she mishandled the
situation. It sounds like her boss compounded the problem by failing to
oversee the operation. Given that he was a white male and not a muslim
detainee, I don't think we can excuse him from having done his job as a
supervisor because she was a woman.

There many be institutional pressures for him to fail at his job and for
her to be poorly trained, but that's clearly an institutional problem.
Your daughter had the grace and intelligence to put men in jobs where
men should be. That should be the standard, and it should be clearly
articulated. I don't think we're disagreeing on that.

On 7/6/11 10:03 AM, George Friedman wrote:

Gender does matter. Sending a woman to interrogate a Muslim creates
vast problems for example. These are different cultures, different
views of gender and human lives are at stake. Using women in
societies that hold them in contempt might be satisfying to American
ideals and principles, but they can get people killed. My daughter
was ran an interrogation center in Iraq where the result of failure
was death to many Americans. She couldn't be effective in that
environment and had the grace to know it, so she did not do her job
but handed off to men. Iraqi men who would talk to American men would
possibly be willing to die rather than talk to women.

We talk about multi-culturalism and we talk about gender and the fact
is that there are cultures in which women cannot be effect in doing
intelligence. Placing women in jobs where the culture will make them
fail is irresponsible and women demanding those jobs because of
ideology is criminal. It's a big world out there and the way others
live isn't the way we live. Intelligence is not about reforming the
world but getting information. There are places I wouldn't send a man
and places I wouldn't send a woman. Pretending that gender isn't a
determining factor gets people killed. I sometimes think that some of
the gender fanatics are less concerned with that than with pretending
that men and women can get all jobs done equally well. They just

My problem with the number of women in field positions is that they
are going to fail because they are in that culture and they are women
and people will die as a result.

The policy of using women in posts where they will do more harm than
good in order to push American ideology regardless of consequences is
what the Agency is doing and it is one of the reasons, among others,
that we experience intelligence failures.

On 07/06/11 09:52 , Karen Hooper wrote:

100 percent on board with that, and those are all things we've
discussed quite a bit.

I just want to make sure we're talking about crappy management and
training, not gender.

On 7/6/11 9:10 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

She also arranged "in the field" for the 16 (yes 16) greeters to
meet the GID asset and aQ double-agent like it was a Stratfor
happy hour.

Sources are never met that way. Its a 1x1 business.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for her being there in the first
place, but boneheaded mistakes by dumb assed bosses get people

On 7/6/2011 9:03 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

Career analyst w/out field ops experience.

The internal Agency report took the management team to the
woodshed for sending her there without ops training.

On 7/6/2011 8:59 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

.... because she was a woman?

On 7/6/11 8:39 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

The base chief woman (analyst) who died in Khost had been a
reports officer in London, prior to Khost. Simply not
qualified for the field job.

On 7/6/2011 8:26 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

women are also arguably better at recruiting assets. Then
number is not at all a bad thing, it's more a question of
how resources are put to use.
On 7/6/11 7:44 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

Baer advised the CIA is now 50% women. The "gender political
correctness" is causing the outfit to ship women to places they
shouldn't be operating in the field (such as Khost.) The bulk of the
Agency have been hired post 9-11 with FNG's also in places they
shouldn't be. As a result, the Agency is re-hiring annuitants
(retirees) for base chief jobs. The influx of the women has created a
can of worms with many wanting to be Station Chief's in places they also
should not be. The old white males can't say anything about assignments
for fear of blow-back and lawsuits.


Sean Noonan

Tactical Analyst

Office: +1 512-279-9479

Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

Strategic Forecasting, Inc.


George Friedman

Founder and CEO


221 West 6th Street

Suite 400

Austin, Texas 78701

Phone: 512-744-4319

Fax: 512-744-4334

Marko Papic
Senior Analyst
+ 1-512-744-4094 (O)
+ 1-512-905-3091 (C)
221 W. 6th St., 400
Austin, TX 78701 - USA