| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| America does not need a Director of National Intelligence |
| 2020-03-28 |
| [Washington Times via Center for Security Policy] In response to recent complaints by former intelligence officials like James Clapper, John Brennan and others about President Trump’s current effort to reduce the bloat and politicization of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), it’s time to admit something they do not want to discuss: America does not need a director of national intelligence. Members of Congress who drafted the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) ‐ the law that created the DNI ‐ were convinced that a centralized director of the entire intelligence community could prevent another 9/11 by ensuring that intelligence agencies share vital information with one another, improve intelligence management, and address problems with security clearances. There also was a belief that the U.S. Intelligence Community had become too large and complex for the CIA Director to run the CIA and sixteen other intelligence entities. Congress created the ODNI because proponents took advantage of a crisis ‐ the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks ‐ to push through a bad idea that never would have been adopted in normal circumstances. Lawmakers knew the American people were demanding bold action in response to the terrorist attacks and were sold on the idea that creating a DNI represented such bold action and would be a panacea for the intelligence community’s shortcomings. Most did not understand ‐ or ignored ‐ warnings that creating a DNI likely would lead to a huge bureaucracy that would damage, not improve, American intelligence capabilities. Creating a DNI-like position had been debated in a bipartisan way for more than 20 years before the IRTPA passed. It was never implemented because of a consensus that it would be a bad idea because it would create a wasteful new layer of intelligence bureaucracy. For the CIA, the notion that the U.S. Intelligence Community was too large for the CIA Director to manage was seen as nothing more than a power grab by other intelligence agencies. Many asked that if the President can head the huge U.S. government bureaucracy, why can’t the CIA Director head all American intelligence agencies? Not all members of Congress favored creating the DNI. A notable exception was former House Intelligence Committee member Ray LaHood (R-Ill) who said when Congress passed the IRTPA in 2004, "I believe creating a national intelligence director is a huge mistake. . . . it’s another bureaucracy, it’s another layer of government. It would not have prevented 9/11 and it will not prevent another 9/11." Sixteen years later, we know Congressman LaHood was right: The record is clear that creating the DNI has made America less safe. Centralization of the intelligence community forced a surge in groupthink and risk-averse intelligence analysis. Bureaucratic culture and intellectual integrity fell victim to an enforced politicization and virtue-signaling. Intelligence professionals with different perspectives fell silent, were pushed aside or penalized, or retired early. According to a 2016 Heritage Foundation report, since the creation of the DNI position, intellectual and bureaucratic decay resulted in a series of intelligence failures. Those included failure to predict the Arab Spring, the resurgence of al-Qaeda, the adventurism of Putin, the aggressiveness of China, and a number of terrorist attacks on the U.S., from the Detroit "underwear bomber" to the San Bernardino massacre. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #2 If you look at the National Security Act of 1947, the CENTRAL Intelligence agency was created to be the place to consolidate the information and analysis of the federal government. That happened for a while, and then the bureaucracy ricebowl creep of ever expanding civil servant mentality infected the Agency, State and the Military branches, and we got the slow growth of 16-17 places, each with turf and career path issues... Ruthless pruning is long overdue if we have any hope of making it better! |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2020-03-28 16:32 |
| #1 A meaningless, titular position with no power. The Klingon's are not about relinquishing power or secret budget sharing. The entire notion was a 'cover your arse' cockup from the beginning. End it Monday morning. I assure you, no negative impact to intelligence analytic analysis and production or national security will result. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2020-03-28 04:57 |