Oddly, this bill was highly popular. I didn't expect anything to be done about it, as all sides endorsed the idea of an "Intel Czar" during the campaign. I thought and still think that centralizing intelligence is a bad idea, because it will encourage rather than diminish the problem of stovepiping. If you've got a central authority over all intel agencies, all intel agencies will be wanting to tell him what he wants to hear. At least now, having both a DCI and a SECDEF, you get two independent pictures instead of just one.
In addition, there are different notions of how to go about intel. We had this discussion during the elections, as re: the person of retired Admiral Stansfield Turner, who very strongly favors SIGINT over HUMINT. He caused a great deal of damage at CIA through that prejudice; but at least we had a DIA that was still serving the needs of the military, and the country.
But Congress seemed sure to follow the principle Dogbert advocated to prospective management consultants -- centralize everything that is decentralized "to improve efficiency"; then, when the new system breaks, decentralize all those centralized functions "to remove bottlenecks." I'm pleased and impressed to read this in today's paper:
Hunter said he opposed the bill because Senate conferees had removed a White House-drafted section ensuring that tactical or battlefield intelligence agencies would still be primarily directed by the secretary of defense, even as they reported to the new national intelligence director. The compromise called for the president to issue "guidelines" on the respective authorities of the director of national intelligence and defense secretary, which Hunter said, "was elevating for the DNI but detrimental to the defense secretary . . . a change that would make war fighters not sure to whom they report and translate into confusion on the battlefield."Partisan wrangling aside, this looks like a win to me. Not "a win for conservatives," though that is how the Post is billing it; but a win for a thoughtful and needed reform of American intelligence. This was a move to set aside campaign rhetoric, and take the time to think things through in an quieter environment.
Collins called Hunter's argument "utterly without merit," saying the measure actually would improve the real-time satellite intelligence that troops receive in combat. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), another key negotiator, said: "The commander in chief, in the middle of a war, said he needed this bill" to keep the American people and military safe.
Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a House conferee on the legislation, said, "Clearly, House Republicans never really wanted this bill. . . . Sadly, there are those who are so wedded to the Department of Defense that they, ultimately, ensured the bill's demise."
No comments:
Post a Comment