That was pretty much my first reaction to this story:
WASHINGTON – President Bush (news – web sites) urged creation of a national intelligence director Monday to coordinate the war on terrorism but without the sweeping powers for hiring, firing and spending at the CIA (news – web sites), FBI (news – web sites) and other agencies as recommended by the Sept. 11 commission.
“We’re a nation in danger,” Bush said in a White House Rose Garden appearance where he announced his support for a national intelligence chief and the establishment of a national center to plan counterterror operations in the United States and abroad. “We’re doing everything we can in our power to confront the danger.”
Generally speaking, while I’m not as hardcore about hacking back the government as some of the fine folks hanging around Redstate, I don’t really think that creating yet another government agency and giving it oversight is going to help much. It’d be a different story if the administration decided that we were going to take all of the existing counterterrorism groups away from their parent organizations and combine them (into no more than two groups; one civilian and one military); right now, things are a tangled mess, possibly even a Gordian Knot. But that wasn’t what was being recommended, and I don’t think that it’ll work the way that the Commission expected it to.
On the other hand – and, thankfully – this new agency is more than likely to be toothless:
Bush rejected the panel’s recommendation that the director control all intelligence budgets, and have the authority to choose who would lead the CIA, FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies. The president also turned aside the commission’s idea for placing both the counterterrorism center and the director within the White House.
Yes, I said ‘thankfully’. The Commission’s recommendation went either too far, or not far enough, depending how you look at it. If they wanted one intelligence agency, they should have come out and recommended point-blank that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the rest of the TLAs be abolished and their staffs absorbed. If they weren’t prepared to face the fallout of that – and there would have been fallout – then they should have come up with a proposal that didn’t deny basic bureaucratic reality. Making the funding of umpteen different intelligence agencies the decision of one person – while allowing those agencies to retain their unique, pseudo-tribal identities – is a bad idea. “Factional bureaucratic warfare in the halls of power” bad, in fact.
So, all in all, good thing that we’re not going to have that, huh?
Moe
PS: Yes, folks, it really would have happened that way if the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation was fully implemented. Read up on the rivalry between FBI/CIA, FBI/USSS, FBI/DEA, CIA/DIA, NSA/everybody else… take your pick; none of them are pretty pictures.
Now imagine them with an opportunity to mess with one another’s funding.
Someone needs to remind Bush that the National Security Act was passed (1947) after WW II had ended. Not in the middle of the damn conflict.
I’m confused — Drezner gives this Bush quote from the transcript of the press conference:
So what does that mean in the context of his having specifically rejected the idea that the NID control the intelligence budgets?
Someone needs to remind Bush that the National Security Act was passed (1947) after WW II had ended. Not in the middle of the damn conflict.
But even if you accept the rosiest view possible of the situation, we’re still in the middle of a conflict that will probably stretch over the next 20 to 30 years. Given that, and given that it should be pretty clear at this point that the country’s intelligence apparatus needs to be reformed, what do you propose? That we simply limp along with what we have now?
“That we simply limp along with what we have now?”
Until somebody comes up with a magic spell that causes bureaucrats to not defend their turf when it’s in danger of being taken over… yup, that’s pretty much it. Like it or not, the current situation is what we have to work with: significant reforms to our intelligence structure (and I don’t consider the proposal made by the 9/11 Commission to be a reform) is not going to happen until either the situation goes back to pre-9/11 circumstances, or things get much, much worse.
“That we simply limp along with what we have now?”
Actually the Patriot Act (the tearing down of the wall) was the most significant improvement. Now we need to build an intelligence network which won’t happen overnight and hold the managers to the clear objective of sharing information.
While the details on the NID are not yet available, another layer, a bottleneck at the very top (the seventeen or so agencies stop their efforts, until they receive their marching orders and compete for dollars), is counterproductive.
But I hope you now feel much safer.
Actually the Patriot Act (the tearing down of the wall) was the most significant improvement. Now we need to build an intelligence network which won’t happen overnight and hold the managers to the clear objective of sharing information.
I have to admit, I have no idea what your second sentence is supposed to mean.
While the details on the NID are not yet available, another layer, a bottleneck at the very top (the seventeen or so agencies stop their efforts, until they receive their marching orders and compete for dollars), is counterproductive.
Who said the agencies were supposed to stop their efforts?
The Bush administration just needs another person to play “connect the dots on the wagging dog” with Spotty, the DHS ready.gov mascot.
They’ll spend countless millions for a Terrorism Czar and then still be shocked when a 25-year-old in Pakistan uses hotmail or yahoo (OMG! You mean those bad, scary men don’t all live in caves and spiderholes?) that they want to raise the terror alert level. If this administration is not wagging the dog, then they are totally clueless, incompetent and out of touch. Either way, I think my government could use some new leadership.