| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dismantle the CIA's Station-Chief System |
| 2009-06-14 |
| The current battle between the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA over the antiquated station-chief system is one that the ODNI must win in order to protect Americans and our allies. All American intelligence officers — from the CIA’s own counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism divisions, the FBI, or the military — who seek to conduct operations abroad must first obtain permission from the CIA’s station chiefs. CIA station chiefs are talented and intelligent people, but the turf system burdens them falsely with a sense that they’ll be in trouble for anything that goes wrong, and that there will be little reward for success. For many, the solution is to block as much activity as possible. The cumbersome approvals process puts American intelligence officers at a disadvantage. Nuclear proliferators and terrorists don’t recognize the borders of nations and don’t have to check in with their own local bureaucrats in each country. In the open borders of the European Union today, for example, a terrorist barely slows down as he crosses the borders. But for a CIA officer tracking the terrorist, these borders represent real barriers which can be crossed only with the permission of each local CIA station chief. A look at a map of the world shows the weaknesses in the CIA’s station-chief system. There are no station chiefs at all in the countries that matter most — North Korea and Iran — because station chiefs exist only within embassies, and we don’t have embassies in those countries. During my active service in the CIA, I found that operations on targets from countries with no CIA station chiefs worked more smoothly because of fewer layers of bureaucracy. In countries with powerful domestic intelligence services such as China and Russia, the station chiefs are virtually confined within embassies, conducting few if any operations. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the CIA chief is just a layer of bureaucracy that the much larger and more effective American military presence must work through. Within the borders of close allies such as Britain and Canada, the US has formal agreements in place not to conduct espionage activities at all, making the station chief perform a purely liaison function. In the crossroads of western Europe, where terrorists and nuclear proliferators can be approached more easily, the CIA uses its station chief positions as pre-retirement posts for top bureaucrats. The CIA pays more to its employees assigned overseas, and CIA retirement pay is calculated using the last three years of pay, so CIA Headquarters bureaucrats use assignments in cushy western European cities at the end of their careers to maximize their pensions. At one time when I was working in the region, there were six former CIA division chiefs doing their pre-retirement tours in Europe. These people didn’t want anything to go wrong, and were tremendously risk-averse. Foreign governments know that leaning on a CIA station chief (or asking him to leave, as the French did in 1995) is an easy way to end all American intelligence activity in that country. If James Bond worked for the CIA, he’d never get out of a cubicle at Headquarters. Imagine the paperwork that would have to be done following a visit by Bond. No CIA station chief would ever permit a loose cannon like Bond to operate on his or her turf. In fact, station chiefs prefer as few people as possible on their turf, which is a reason why more than 90% of CIA officers now live and work entirely within the United States. The station-chief system is the heart of the CIA bureaucracy and the CIA will fight any threat to it. Like Soviet apparatchiks, CIA bureaucrats claim any lessening of their control will result in chaos. However, there is already a lengthy chain of command at Headquarters. Dismantling the station-chief system will bring greater speed, creativity, and maneuverability, precisely what Americans excel at and what we need to defeat our enemies. CIA bureaucrats claim that any changes will lead to problems with liaison relationships. But CIA officers need to get out of their embassies and collect intelligence, not sit back and process the carefully sifted feed material that is officially provided by foreign governments. It’s a shame to see the new CIA chief, Leon Panetta, fight to preserve the status quo at the CIA. This status quo threatens Americans living in the prime terrorist target cities of New York and Washington, as well as the success of Panetta’s boss, President Obama. Anything that can be done to break up the CIA’s station-chief system will lead to greater safety for Americans and our allies. — “Ishmael Jones” is a former deep-cover officer with the Central Intelligence Agency. He is author of The Human Factor: Inside the CIA’s Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture, published last year by Encounter Books. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #8 "Central Intelligence Agency... Now, there's a contradiction in terms." (The Hunt for Red October) |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2009-06-14 15:44 |
| #7 I agree. Devolve it completely and beside being a vet you have to have graduated from a school within 500 miles radius of Memphis or Des Moines. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2009-06-14 12:14 |
| #6 This type of entrenched bureaucracy allows control by a handful of carefully chosen people, whether easily duped or outright corrupt. It endangers the other agents, stifles the good ones, and allows moles to operate freely. Needs to go. |
| Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-06-14 11:48 |
| #5 What about these? United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence * Dianne Feinstein, Chairwoman, California * Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia * Ron Wyden, Oregon * Evan Bayh, Indiana * Barbara Mikulski, Maryland * Russ Feingold, Wisconsin * Bill Nelson, Florida * Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island * Kit Bond, Vice Chairman, Missouri * Saxby Chambliss, Georgia * Orrin Hatch, Utah * Olympia Snowe, Maine * Richard Burr, North Carolina * Tom Coburn, Oklahoma * Jim Risch, Idaho Ex officio * Carl Levin, Michigan * Harry Reid, Nevada * John McCain, Arizona * Mitch McConnell, Kentucky |
| Posted by: Willy 2009-06-14 10:29 |
| #4 -- who seek to conduct operations abroad must first obtain permission from the CIA's station chiefs It is a 'coordinating process' established by law and CIA Directive which permits all intelligence entities to be in the chop chain of proposed operations or activities and approve or disapprove. The difficulty is the Director of Central Intelligence sits at the top. He's the 'Sheriff' and is the final arbitor of the project approval process. Anyone in the Agency's coordinating process can request disapproval of a project or activity. The final arbiter can endorse disapproval or issue disapproval without cause. The services can conduct an intense amount of, let us say 'spade work' only to see the project go down in flames during the approval process. Of course all of this work is carefully noted by the Sheriff for his current or future use and credit. To say the process is parochial and politically risk averse is an understatment. The 'Sheriff' or Chief of Station (COS) keeps the Chief of Mission (COM) Amassador out of the privy in his low risk-no risk continuum, thus keeping the administration out of the privy and everyone lives happily ever after. Dismantling the Station-Chief System is a start, but the approval process and directives should also be rewritten to put the ODNI in the Sheriff's chair. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-06-14 08:12 |
| #3 Sounds like he's asking them to move from a Location Centric setup to a more "project" oriented approach. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-06-14 06:33 |
| #2 Dismantle it, replace with an agency which only employs veterans. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-06-14 03:16 |
| #1 well said. Been calling for reform of the CIA for years. Or even its complete demolition, and rebuilding into properly separated agencies that each specialize in a given INT area. This would re-invigorate HUMINT, as well as covert operations. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-06-14 02:00 |