Using common sense analysis, it appears that the recently released unclassified 19-page version of a congressionally-requested report by the CIA's Inspector General overlooks one major issue in developing its conclusion: Intelligence findings may have been colored, conditioned or reported based on domestic political considerations.
Clinton-appointee, George Tenet, as the Director of Central Intelligence, was to a large degree culpable for the failure to capture or kill bin Laden (and apparent lack of departmental leadership) as was his pal and fellow Clinton-appointee Sandy "the burglar" Berger; infamous for deliberately stealing classified documents linked to 9/11 from a secure facility.
For those not used to reading government reports: OIG refers to the "Office of the Inspector General" of the CIA, and "IC" denotes the intelligence community. UBL is Usama (Osama) bin Laden.
However, since leadership is one of the most easily changed elements of an ongoing Agency, it is of little relevance.
Although the following quote is referring to a specific action, I believe that it contains the very essence of the report's findings: that many individuals were guilty of errors of judgement, not following established procedures or of not following through on their findings as to cause a systemic breakdown leading to a disastrous consequence.
However, in my humble opinion, the biggest problem facing the intelligence community today is not one of leadership, personnel, infrastructure enhancements, or data sharing, although these are significant problems in and of themselves, it is the Administration's (past and present) consideration and handling of intelligence based on party-line political or public relations considerations. Making policy or taking action based on how it would make the party leadership appear to the voting public and the ever-present, ever-vocal media.
There is no doubt that the intelligence community desperately needs competent leadership, funding to pay for technological refreshes, additional skilled personnel such as translators and a host of other items which shall remain in the realm of black ops. But the biggest problem remains the politicalization of the intelligence apparatus and the inter-agency infighting this produces.
The problems, as I see them are:
Politicalization:
We are witnessing an increased politicalization of all Administration agencies. This is especially damaging to intelligence operations as everybody scrambles to shoe-horn intelligence items into the agenda of the current administration. This is not only stupid -- but is potentially deadly to the citizens of the United States. Intelligence should be about fact-finding, probabilities, estimates and contingency planning. The military should be about winning an actual war -- not a war fought by armchair generals and media pundits.
Political Infighting:
As a result of increasing politicalization, we have agency infighting in order to obtain their fair share of budgeted resources. The process where certain legislators have to be stroked and certain intelligence findings managed needs to be eliminated totally. This infighting only leads to the lack of intra- and inter-agency information sharing -- and potentially to disasters on the magnitude of 9/11.
The Administration's fix, building a massive comprehensive command and control structure by implementing a new cabinet-level agency, the Department of Homeland Security, is not working. It is appear to be, at least from the outside, a huge behemoth that cannot get out of its own way. The politicalization of this agency has agency head Michael Chertoff mounting press relations operations with Commerce Secretary Gutierrez in favor the the Administration's SHAMnesty policy rather than attending to his sworn duties of fixing his ailing agency before the next disaster occurs.
Leadership:
Intelligence organizations should be headed by competent and aggressive leaders who do not judge their every move by looking in the political mirror. While our agencies are headed by civilian appointees, there is no rational reason why these people cannot be competent in something other than political gamesmanship. Appointing lawyers to these positions is counterproductive as it produces nothing but endless debate and the false assumption that both intelligence activities abroad and military activities must be filtered through the lens of a civilian judiciary system.
Infrastructure and Technology:
In spite of their large budgets, published reports indicate that there is a need to revamp aging infrastructure and to continue to employ cutting-edge technology. This should be a priority in these perilous times.
Outsourcing:
Again, relying on published reports, it appears that the powers that be within the Administration are considering the outsourcing of some intelligence gathering activities. Whether for reasons of plausible deniability or simply political patronage, it seems, at least to me, that a private concern's vulnerability to compromise rises drastically when key intelligence gathering functions are handed over to civilian contractors. Not to mention the loss of institutional memory as civilian employees leave for better economic opportunities.
Administration-designated "Friends:"
Intelligence operations should be conducted as if we have no friends in the world and that all information filtered through these sources should be assigned a probability level commensurate with the judgement of skilled non-political analysts. Because of the home-grown aspect of terrorism in many friendly nations and the potential compromise of their institutions by evildoers -- we can not longer rely on the information produced by our "friends." I personally believe that both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should be considered "friendly hostiles." Both of these countries play a dangerous "tightrope" game balancing their desire to stay in power domestically with what needs to be done by rooting out insurgents and others within their own government.
What can YOU do?
First, elect representatives who are honest and intelligent enough to serve on intelligence oversight committees. If any candidate fails this test, they should not be elected to any office: local, state or federal.
Second, remember those politicians and others who refuse to support our troops and their operations in this dangerous world. Do not support or re-elect individuals who are, or seem to be, less committed to the safety, security and sovereignty of the United States than they do to regaining or retaining political power.
Remember, any person who raises their hand against any American soldier is an "enemy combatant" and if not killed, should be tried by a Military Tribunal using the Uniform Code of Military Justice. According these people access to civilian courts, decidedly anti-American counsel, and citizenship rights granted by our Constitution is decidedly wrong.
No matter what you think of President Bush, he is our Commander-in-Chief -- whose decisions will be judged by the public as to their effectiveness in preserving the safety and security of the United States and by history as to his value to America in these historic times. Bush may not be perfect, but judged against the best of the Democrats (with the sole exception of Joseph Lieberman), he was clearly the best choice for the office. Especially when measured against anti-American candidates like John Kerry or know-nothing blowhards like Al Gore.
Vote to protect yourself, your family, your friends, and your community. Vote for someone who is intelligent, honest and someone who is somewhat immune from the influence of party politics and special interests which created much of today's political corruption and chaos.
-- steve
A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
Research:
CIA Statement "Statement to Employees by Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, General Michael V. Hayden on the Release of the 9/11 IG Report Executive Summary"
Comments