for what it's worth i think we should put ALL intelligence operations under the NSA and make that a cabinet position
Posted on 08/22/2004 12:04:52 PM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans proposed removing the nation's largest intelligence gathering operations from the CIA and the Pentagon and putting them directly under a new national intelligence director.
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., the committee chairman, unveiled on Sunday the most sweeping intelligence reorganization proposal offered by anyone since the Sept. ll commission called for major changes. In an appearance on CBS'"Face the Nation," Roberts acknowledged that full details had yet to be shared with either the White House or with Senate Democrats.
"We didn't pay attention to turf or agencies or boxes" but rather to "what are the national security threats that face this country today," Roberts said of the proposals supported by eight GOP members of the intelligence committee. "I'm trying to build a consensus around something that's very different and very bold."
But he immediately ran into some resistance from a Democrat on his own committee. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said that before appearing with Roberts on the CBS show neither he nor the committee's ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, had seen the full proposal.
"I think it would be better to start on a bipartisan basis," Levin said. "I think it's a mistake to begin with a partisan bill no matter what is in it."
The commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks called for a powerful national intelligence director who could force the nation's many agencies to cooperate.
Up to now the debate has focused on how much power to give that official rather than on retooling agencies. Most Democrats have supported the commission's proposal that the new director have authority over hiring and spending by the intelligence agencies. President Bush has endorsed creating the position but has not reached a final decision on what powers the office should have.
Roberts said his aides had spoken with White House officials and would share the details of his proposal with them on Monday.
Roberts' plan would put the CIA's three main directorates - Operations, which runs intelligence collection and covert actions; Intelligence, which analyzes intelligence reports; and Science and Technology - into three new, separate and renamed agencies, each reporting to a separate assistant national intelligence director. It also would remove three of the largest intelligence agencies from the Pentagon.
Although the measure would essentially dismantle the CIA, Roberts said in a paper he released: "We are not abolishing the CIA. We are reordering and renaming its three major elements."
"No one agency, no matter how distinguished its history, is more important than U.S. national security," the paper said.
A congressional aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there would be no CIA director, and the agency's parts would have new names under a new management structure.
Despite Roberts' assertion that he wouldn't abolish the CIA, some intelligence officials think that sounds exactly like what he is trying to do.
Some intelligence officials think Roberts' proposal is "unworkable and could hamper the nation's intelligence efforts at a critical time," said one, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the debate. This official added that rather than eliminating barriers between agencies and bringing functions together, "it smashes them apart."
Last week, acting CIA Director John McLaughlin, a career agency employee, urged Congress to move carefully and argued that there had been dramatic improvement since Sept. 11 in the sharing of information by various intelligence agencies.
Equally drastic changes were proposed at the Pentagon.
The nation's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency, which intercepts electronic signals around the world, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes satellite pictures, would be removed from the Pentagon and put under direct control of an assistant national intelligence director for collection.
The Defense Intelligence Agency's human intelligence collection activity would become a separate agency, like the former CIA directorate of operations.
Both would report to the same assistant national intelligence director for collection. This official also would have direct line control over the FBI's counterintelligence and counterterrorism units, although they would continue to operate within the FBI administratively and would still be subject to attorney general guidelines.
The Pentagon's huge National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites, would work under an assistant national intelligence director for Research, Development and Acquisition. That same assistant would also run the CIA's former directorate of science and technology as an independent agency called the Office of Technical Support.
In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld advised moving cautiously in restructuring the intelligence community.
"If we move unwisely and get it wrong, the penalty would be great," Rumsfeld said. "We would not want to place new barriers or filters between military combatant commanders and those agencies when they perform as combat-support agencies."
Perhaps mindful of that warning, Roberts' plan would create a separate assistant national intelligence director for military support and a four-star director of military intelligence who would run Defense Department tactical intelligence units and report directly to the defense secretary.
I think the competition between the intelligence agencies is a good thing. Combining them would be more efficient, but will it be more effective?
I seriously doubt it will be.
I think as long as they are permitted to share data and have ample budgets, the way it is now is fine. But the 'Rats continue to strip the budgets and erect barriers to information exchange.
Damn there go all of my Tom Clancy books!!!!
These people keep debating on whether the changes should happen fast or slow....IMHO, I dont care how fast or slow they take place, just so long as the changes work. Considering how our government sometimes screws things up, I am a bit wary of this entire process.....
Great point. It just seems like another version of changing the deck chairs while changing nothing.
"Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans proposed removing the nation's largest intelligence gathering operations from the CIA and the Pentagon and putting them directly under a new national intelligence director."
Just one more example helping form my opinion that all incumbents on both sides of the aisle must go. We no longer longer have anyone in Congress with the ability for rational thought (or they are hiding it in favor of politics of the moment and polls)and I can not tell the difference between republicans and the Rat party anymore. This will solve absolutley nothing at all and if our current lot of politicians are served up as example, it will make everything worse by having one person at the whim of the current administration and majority party in congress. I for one want my intelligence people to distrust all politicians and not have to fear their wrath. We don't need an intelligence czar and one stop shopping for the intelligence community either. We need a variety of approaches and unique capabilites of each organization that is currently involved in the process. Each organization should not fear external meddling or pressure from some "czar". What needs to happen is that the current agencies need the freedom to do their jobs within the scope of the law without worrying about being politically correct and an atmosphere of constant sharing, collating, and dissemination of information must be fostered between the CIA, NSA, FBI, HLS, and the Pentagon. If they are to become formidable intelligence sources again, they need to rebuild their humint capabilites and that means working with some unsavory characters no matter who it offends. Another solution to this problem that I have seen scant mention of is that we need to reign the State Department back in and remind them that their sole job is to further the interests of the United States and not act as a liason to further the interests of the countries they are posted to. I have the suspision that numerous intelligence failures can be blamed squarely on the State Department as they worked hard to hinder intelligence operations as it might cause some consternation with their host countries and probably feared not getting invites to the next wine tasting or cocktail social.
In other words, the want to rename the CIA.
for what it's worth i think we should put ALL intelligence operations under the NSA and make that a cabinet position
I wonder how much of this is in reaction to the developments in Iran. I suspect the war was segmented such that Iran was to be a CIA op. The mullahs are still there, and either they have the bomb already, or are very close.
I think the competition between the intelligence agencies is a good thing.
Competition is the apparent cause of our current problems. Even now, they want to leave the FBI CI and CT units under FBI control.
We need "all source" control and coordination, otherwise we will be unable to connect the dots quickly enough to do the job. In other words, all resources currently directed against the WOT must be under one roof. Big challenge, big responsibility.
It wasn't competition that caused the problems. It was the legal impediments to data sharing.
I think reorganizing the defense apparatus into a single chain of command runs the risk of even more massive mistakes of the kind we suffered in 2001-2003.
The military needs to have its own intelligence subject to its commanders, and the director of intelligence can facilitate the coordination of ops and information sharing between the agencies.
A competitive culture that leads to extensive multiple intel networks throughout the world, with various emphasis based on the culture and philosophy of the agency running it, stands to be the most flexible and reliable for gathering and cross checking intel.
The director can have and run a combined Intelligence Command Center, where analysts from every agency are based, and which coordinates threat watches, and prioritization.
I just really hate the idea of a powerful Intelligence Directorate operating domestically with the power of the FBI for law enforcement. Gestapo keeps on popping into my head.
There were NO legal impediments to data sharing when Hoover was in charge...and yet there was little or no data sharing.
You can have all the small, independent intel collectors you want, but if we don't have someone to put their little pieces together, we are back to square one.
Now, if you give the intel czar the power to hire and fire the directors of these small services, then I might agree with you. But that's the only way he's going to get their attention and make sure they share the intel they collect. Any other arrangement is, as they say, reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I agree, he should have the power to hire and fire the heads of the different agencies, but how much power over the purse should he have? I think he should get a grant fund, but the other agencies should have their budgets handled as they are now.
The grant pool that the director has can be applied to any of the departments under his control, at his discretion. At the end of a budget cycle, he has to report and explain his spending, but that's only normal.
So the agencies are funded as they are now, and they get supplemental funding for special task/mission oriented projects from the director of intelligence. They can also apply to him/her for additional funding, or they can go through their normal methods for funding. It just depends on how fast they need the money. The director can disburse money faster than the legislator, etc.
Oh, there are different schemes...
But the Director of Intelligence should have the power to hire and fire the directors of the agencies under him/her. They'll still have to justify the decision later, and any hires could go through the current nomination and approval process in the senate. Etc, etc.
Ideas only... But I think an interesting starting point.
We have the information, we just have to use it wisely. Reorganizing departments and shuffling personnel is something managers do when they don't know the right thing to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.