An intelligence "czar" is a non-solution for two reasons. We already have a czar, and that is the DCI. If you don't trust your DCI, replace him with someone you do trust. Don't create another level and another filter between the president and his intel people.
Secondly, a czar has and will have the effect of giving more conformity and more consensus to the subject matter, making it more difficult yet for competing ideas to bubble to the surface. Our problem before 9/11 wasn't a lack of consensus, it was too much consensus. To get competing analysis, Bush had to turn to the Brits. Putting all of our intel capability under one man will make that problem worse, not better.
The best answer is for us to put a competent man in the DCI's chair and make him anonymous. He should answer only to the president and his senate oversight committee, and he should never speak in public, never be questioned in public. The politicization of intelligence has to be reversed, and making a "czar" who is a political creature is exactly the worst thing we can do.
I think many are missing the big picture. It is given that no intelligence can be perfect. Saddam bluffed that he has WMDs with the cards still not completely known. The reaction of ALL involved was essentially the same as it was 100% certainty that he had WMDs (ALL include Russia, France and mideast neighbors). That leads to conclusion that the deterrent value of WMDs may be achieved with phantom WMDs IF the bluff is not called.
We can't allow anybody to even entertain the idea of bluffing with WMDs again. It should be totally irrelevant if the claim proves to be right or wrong: you play the high stakes poker with WMDs' bluff in the situation when the perfect intelligence is impossible - you are going to be destroyed. Period. There is no other way: otherwise we are opening ourselves to a possibility of catastrophic attacks when we under-react or react too late.
One of my favorite writers Lee Harris said back in 2003 I think that it would be better that Saddam's WMDs are proved to be never existed: 1st as to disillusion the enemy that they can actually construct WMDs, no they are incapable of doing it; and 2nd - we prove our willingness to destroy them anyway if only they start claiming having WMDs.
Don't play with fire kids.
the intelligence czar is a good move.
He'd get information from different agencies, each agency employing different operatives and different analysts, to draw his own unbiased picture of the whole situation.
The CIA and other directors would get to work to deliver the goals, while the intelligence czar could set the visions and goals for them.
The intelligence czar could be like your CEO, setting the vision, with the directors as task oriented general managers with many project managers working for them.
it frees the directors to be more vigoroous in pursuing their goals, while it lets a person, who isn't bothered with operational matters or fighting deadlines to chalk out the vision and requirements for them.
However the core of any intelligence re-organization should include american linguists to replace islamic transaltors, so that we can take a look inside the islamic world with our own eyes, instead of the muslims painting us a picture with their lies.
operational teams should have an american majority driving an islamic minority. americans like latinos and africans, people who could blend easily into the region could work along with local islamic guides from the region. With americans in majority and the muslims isolated from each other, they wouldn't be in a position to lie or commandeer the teams to serve their islamic agendas.