|
February 8, 2006
Career professionals are bailing out at the CIA in droves since
Porter Goss became Director, claiming he was committed to “restructuring
an American spy network tarnished by 9/11 failings and the inability
to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
Robert Grenier,
who spent most of his career undercover overseas and took charge
of the Counterterrorism Center about a year ago is Goss’ latest
firing.
This whole ‘restructuring’ game that's
afoot in the intelligence community has put our national security
in a
dark
room with a
blanket thrown over its head. Goss is merely one guy, screwing
up one agency, but since 9-11 the current administration has
panicked itself into
- Goss’ messing with the clandestine structure at CIA
- The
nearly total demolition of a once orderly FBI
- Creation of
something called the Homeland Security Agency, that
made paper chains-of-command and further compounded
the confusion surrounding a blizzard of cross-purposed
agencies, including
o Director of National Intelligence
o National Intelligence Council [NIC]
o National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)
o National Counterintelligence Executive [NCIX]
o Central Intelligence Agency
o National Security Agency
o National Reconnaissance Office
o National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (formerly NIMA)
o Defense Intelligence Agency
o Federal Bureau of Investigation
o Assistant to the Defense Secretary for Intelligence Oversight
o Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
o Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
o Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration
o Defense Information Systems Agency
o Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence
o Intelligence and Security Command
o Office of Naval Intelligence
o Air Intelligence Agency
o National Security Council
o President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
o Office of Intelligence
o Justice Intelligence Coordinating Council
o OIPR - Office of Intelligence Policy and Review
o DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration
o NDIC - National Drug Intelligence Center
o INR - Bureau of Intelligence & Research
o INL - Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
o CT - Counterterrorism Office
o DS - Bureau of Diplomatic Security
o Office of Intelligence Support
o FINCEN - Financial Crimes Enforcement
o Information Security Oversight Office
A random peek at just one of these 33 duplicative fiefdoms,
the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (under the direction
of the Counsel for Intelligence Policy), if you’re not
already confused, is
“responsible for advising the Attorney General
on all matters relating to the national security activities
of the
United States. The Office prepares and files all applications
for electronic
surveillance and physical search under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, assists Government agencies by
providing legal advice on matters of national security law
and policy,
and represents the Department of Justice on variety of interagency
committees such as the National Counterintelligence Policy
Board. The Office also comments on and coordinates other agencies'
views
regarding proposed legislation affecting intelligence matters.
The Office serves as adviser to the Attorney General and
various client agencies, including the Central Intelligence
Agency, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Defense and State
Departments, concerning questions of law, regulation, and guidelines
as well
as the legality of domestic and overseas intelligence operations.”
Uh, huh. I thought that was what the National Intelligence
Council did. Well, they do, but they also provide the President and senior
policymakers with analyses of foreign policy issues that have
been reviewed and coordinated throughout the Intelligence Community.
You see they report to the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI) and the Office of
Intelligence Policy and Review reports to the Counsel
for Intelligence Policy. Are you clear on that?
Good.
Who's on first, What's on second and I Don't Know is on third.
John Negroponte has the whole ball of wax under
his steady hand, plus he has to show up in front of this or that
Senate committee whose chairman may feel the need of a little
press. One of John’s Senate confirmation-hearing requirements
was to be able to recite all the thirty-plus agencies under his
aegis in order and in one breath.
So, it’s small wonder career professionals are bailing
in record numbers. The director of FEMA, who couldn’t get
the director of Homeland Security on the phone during Katrina
is but one example of too many numbers on speed-dial.
Enough already. Congress would have much more time to spend
our money and agencies and embassies could do some serious work
if only presidents would stop appointing.
Organizations charged with the responsibility for collecting
information and then acting on it in a meaningful way are organic,
their growth far more a result of Darwinian principles than political
whim. The same is perhaps even more true of Embassies. And whim
it’s been, from Mel Sembler (Ambassador to Italy) to Mike
Brown (FEMA).
Confusing activity for progress and mistaking proliferation
for security, the neocons have savaged agency after agency.
Hoover’s
iron-fisted FBI, problematic as it may have been, is a shambles
compared to its old, honorable, tommy-gun-toting self after the
revolving-door directorships of Gray, Ruckleshaus, Kelley, Adams,
Webster, Otto,
Sessions, Clarke, Freeh, Pickard and the current Bob Mueller.
How can an agency possibly have a contiguous vision of its duties
and responsibilities with eleven directors politically thrust
upon it in 34 years?
Back at CIA, Porter Goss has demoralized that agency, accelerating
the losses of clandestine personnel that began with a misguided
reliance on satellite spying at the end of the Cold War.
Of his eighteen predecessors since ‘Wild Bill’ Donovan’s
OSS, none has so thoroughly wrecked what took decades to build.
It smells of Dick Cheney and political payback for the Iraq disaster
but, smelly or not, CIA is being busted up at a time we desperately
need coherence.
Let Darwin prevail; ambassadors selected from within the State
Department, who speak the language and know the history and territory;
agency directors who rise to the top of their agencies on merit.
If we insist upon Senatorial ‘advice and consent,’ then
let the agencies and State Department propose and the Senate
confirm or deny.
Get out of the Archives and read what Jim's writing
today |