The intelligence community reform and its effects on national security

Intelligence Community Reform

Since the 911 terrorist attacks, most people assumed the U.S. intelligence community was undergoing a series of different reforms, to help gather and more effectively utilize intelligence. Part of the reason for this, is because of a series of blown opportunities the U.S. intelligence community had in the events leading up to September 11, 2001. A good example of this can be seen with the CIA admitting they knew of the whereabouts for one of the September 11th hijackers in January 2000. When a meeting would take place between the would be hijacker (Khalid Al Mihdar) and Osama Bin Laden in Malaysia in January. During the meeting, the CIA would photograph and identify Al Midhar as person of interest associated with Al Quida. However, they would not place him on any kind of terrorist watch list or share any of this information with other intelligence agencies. At which point, Al Midhar was able to obtain an entry visa into the United States (which allowed him to conduct terrorist activities for Al Quida). (Zeagart, 2007, pp. 1 -- 14) This is problematic, because it would highlight how the U.S. intelligence community had become increasingly dysfunctional. As the various agencies would have rivalries and turf wars with each other, over areas of influence as well as intelligence sharing. After September 11th, there was more of an emphasis on forcing the different agencies to work together, to prevent another major intelligence disaster. (Zeagart, 2007, pp. 1 -- 14) Yet, nearly ten years after the September 11th, the U.S. intelligence community is still highly dysfunctional and unable to accept responsibility; for their bungling of many different cases (with severe national security implications). A good example of this can be seen with the release over 400 thousand pages of secret documents relating to the Iraq War by the website Wiki Leaks. The fact the U.S. intelligence community was unable to stop this, much less detect that someone was stealing 400 pages of secret documents shows how they are in a state of denial. ("Five Bombshells from Wiki Leaks Iraq War Documents," 2010) as a result, unless some kind of radical reform is implemented, the country could be facing similar challenges down the road (which could have similar implications on the nation as September 11th). This means, that there must be some kind of emphasis on changing the overall culture and focus of the U.S. intelligence community. To achieve this objective we will examine: the recent successes, failures and how various reforms can be implemented. This will be accomplished through: introducing a hypothesis, creating a purpose statement, examining the theoretical framework, looking at the background, analyzing the results and providing a final conclusion. Together, these different elements will provide the greatest insights as to how to effectively reform the U.S. intelligence community.

Hypothesis

The obvious failures in the U.S. intelligence community over the last several years, is highlighting how various reforms after September 11th are ineffective. This is because they failed to address the culture, inside these organizations themselves. This leads to the hypothesis of:

Effective intelligence reform will require changing the process of oversight and giving intelligence agencies greater flexibility.

One of the reasons for this hypothesis is because: many current and former intelligence officials have often complained that they have the ability to effectively perform their jobs. The problem is that many bureaucrats and politicians will often second guess the decisions of intelligence officials after the fact. This is troubling, because it forces many intelligence operatives, to not use creativity and flexibility when addressing national security issues. Once this takes place, you will see a similar situation as to what occurred in the events prior to the September 11th attacks in Malaysia. Where, officials knew that Al Quida was planning an imminent attack. However, they failed to grasp the severity of the situation, because they did not have any kind of concrete proof other than the meeting that took place. (Zeagart, 2007, pp. 1 -- 14) This is challenging, because many politicians demand that U.S. intelligence agencies have mountains of evidence, before conducting any kind of counter terrorism operations. A good example of this prevailing attitude in Washington can be seen with comments from Senator Diane Feinstein. Who said, "It is clear that the overall spending on intelligence has blossomed to an unacceptable level in the past decade." ("Overall U.S. Intelligence Budget Tops $80 Billion," 2010)This is problematic, because politicians (like Feinstein) are attempting to micro manage U.S. intelligence operations around the world. The fact that these talking heads can state that spending is to high, without considering the fact the U.S. forces are fighting a war terrorism is foolishly naive (to say the least). As a result, this underscores a part of the problem that all U.S. intelligence reforms face (a culture of demanding to know all of their activities). Given the fact that many of these operations are secret; means that the constant amounts of disclosures will increase. At which point, the odds improve that various pieces of covert information will be disclosed to the general public. When you put this in the backdrop of the Wiki Leaks disclosure, one could argue that this is the biggest problem facing the U.S. intelligence community. Therefore, this leads to the hypothesis that that any kind of effective intelligence reform; will require changing the process of oversight and giving intelligence agencies greater flexibility.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this discussion is to examine the impact of various intelligence reforms of: the past and how they contributed to the culture that currently exists in the U.S. intelligence community. To achieve this objective requires studying: the recent successes, failures and how various reforms can be implemented. These different elements are important, because they help to focus the discussion in corroborating or refuting the hypothesis that was presented earlier. This will provide the greatest insights as to the possible opportunities and challenges surrounding U.S. intelligence reform.

Theoretical Framework

The perspective that will be taken is from the viewpoint of an outsider looking in and with the intention of having these agencies, effectively addressing the underlying threats that they are facing. This will be accomplished through conducting qualitative research and analysis. This is when you are examining the underlying pieces of information, to make assessments as to how the problem can fixed based upon observation. ("Qualitative Research," 2010) This will provide the most balanced approach as to what factors could be hindering possible intelligence reforms and how they can be mitigated.

Background

Successes of the U.S. Intelligence Community

Despite the negative publicity the U.S. intelligence community received over the last few years, there have been a number of different successes. The most obvious would be the fact, that they were able to foil a number of different plots intended to attack American target around the world. At the same time, the various reforms (such as the Patriot Act) have allowed intelligence officials to set up sting operations and go after those individuals who engage in the support of terrorism or various related activities. A recent example of this can be seen with the extradition of Viktor Bout. He is a major Russian arms dealer, who was arrested in 2008 on terrorism charges. Where, he was trying to sell weapons to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARQ). They are designated as a terrorist organization, due to the activities that they engage in against the government of Columbia and the fact that they are actively involved in drug smuggling. During the meeting Bout, offered to sell federal agents the weapons they required for a new round of fighting. His arrest was a major victory for U.S. intelligence. Who had been tracking the activities of Bout, when he began selling arms to Charles Taylor of Liberia during the 1990's. This would help to fuel the bloody civil war that would take place in Sierra Leon. As a result, Bout's arrest and deportation to the U.S. is a major victory for the intelligence community. This is because the actions of Bout and his associates have made the war on terrorism more difficult, as they are one of the major suppliers of weapons to these organizations. ("Suspected Arms Dealer Arrives in U.S.," 2010) What this shows, is that the U.S. intelligence community and their agents are able to effectively conduct different operations around the world.

Failures of the U.S. Intelligence Community

The problem with the various successes in U.S. intelligence is that they are never fully disclosed to the world, for national security reasons. Instead, there has been a continuing emphasis on the constant failures of the U.S. intelligence community. Where, every single operation that is not a success is carefully scrutinized in the press by the different talking heads. At the same time, various political operatives will attempt to score political points, by slamming the U.S. intelligence community as a bunch of inept fools. A good example of this can be seen with the issue of water boarding. This is where interrogators will pretend that an actual event took place, in order to force the suspect to begin talking. After September 11th, President Bush authorized the use of water boarding, as a way to gain knowledge of terrorist groups and their activities. The problem is that many of the civil rights-based groups believe that this is in violation of American law. When the people, who are interrogated (terrorists), are not American citizens and they want to do as much harm to the country as possible. Given the fact that these individuals, are more than likely hard core terrorists and posses knowledge about imminent terrorist activities, meant that the this technique would be utilized to obtain information. Even though this was successful and was used on limited number of people, the press and Congress continued to debate the issue. (Froomkin, 2010) This is troubling, because it undermines the activities of U.S. intelligence officials (who are trying to protect the nation). As they are inserted into a game of political chicken, because the different talking heads in the media and in Washington want to make a name for themselves. Once this occurs, it will cause many intelligence officials to not fully do their jobs. As they feel that the constant meddling is not helping the situation. Instead, it is only making their jobs harder, with them having fight a war on terrorism and public relations battle at the same time. While some of these criticisms are accurate (to certain extent), the reality is that they do not help to advance the national security interests of the country by having a public debate about recent events. This is problematic, because it can cause many intelligence officials to become hesitant in their activities. As they feel that they could become the scapegoats in a political witch hunt. At which point, you will begin to see a host of intelligence failures, with no one wanting to go the extra mile because Congress is micro managing intelligence operations.

What all of this shows, is that the culture inside Washington and the media is helping to increase the number of intelligence failures. This is because these events are a distraction (for officials) from achieving their intended objectives. At which point, many talented agents and counter terrorism officials will become frustrated with the political infighting. Once this occurs, it means that these agencies will lose key personnel (who are essential in helping them achieve their objectives). As a result, one could easily argue that the contentious atmosphere in politics and the media is helping to contribute the various failures of the U.S. intelligence community. This is because the constant oversight and accusations are creating a bureaucracy in the agencies that are failing to respond to the most imminent threats.

Analysis

How Can New Reforms can be Implemented?

To reform the intelligence community, it is imperative that all strategies take into account the changing realities of the world. This means that everyone must be prepared, to adapt to new threats that could be emerging. Where, an intelligence agency must have a tremendous amount of flexibility and foresight. This is problematic for U.S. intelligence, because the existing bureaucratic structure of the government will ensure that certain procedures are in place for proper oversight. Evidence of this can be seen by looking at the overall levels of oversight inside a typical U.S. intelligence agency to include: The President's Foreign Intelligence Board, Intelligence Oversight Board, Office of Management & Budget, the National Security Council, the Senate Select Committees on Intelligence and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Bruneau, 2007, pp. 25 -- 54) When you put these different elements together, this highlights that how the oversight of these agencies creates a sense of fragmentation and divisiveness. At which point, the various agencies will become inward looking, by keeping key intelligence and other information to itself. Over the course of time, this reduces the ability of many different agencies to be able to anticipate and respond to various threats that are occurring. At which point, it is possible for intelligence failures to occur, as everyone is focused on the overall nature of one threat in particular. While another threat, could be equally as dangerous and quickly approaching. Once this occurs, it means that various surprises could happen that are similar to what took place in the events leading to: the run up of the September 11th attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor. (Johnson, 2006)

To address these challenges, one possible strategy could be to: reduce the oversight of these committees and the information that they are allowed to disclose to them. Where, certain committees would have the authority to review the activities of the various agencies. At the same time, Congress must look at closing the loopholes that many media sources will use to corroborate facts for news stories. As a host of news organizations will often rely on the use of anonymous sources, to uncover wrongdoing. This is problematic, because it is encouraging government employees to disclose classified information to the general public. Over the course of time, this creates an atmosphere of the media reporting stories based on rumors and half truths. If Congress prohibited the use of anonymous sources and required all news organizations to disclose them, this would help to prevent the severe amounts of leaked information. A good example of how perverse the situation has become can be seen with the case involving Specialist Bradley Manning. What happened was Manning provided the website Wiki Leaks, with 150 thousand secret cables between Washington and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. To make matters worse, the only way that Manning was discovered was through a former computer hacker, who had numerous conversations with him online. Only after realizing what was taking place, this individual would turn Manning in. The reason why, is because he felt that Manning's actions could place the lives of American forces in jeopardy. (Grear, 2010) This is significant, because it shows how the use of anonymous sources has allowed many intelligence agencies to have moles working inside their organizations. When you look at the situation from a larger point-of-view, one could easily compare the actions of these anonymous sources with those of leaches that are slowly stealing classified documents from the government. If Congress can close down this loop hole, it could prevent the large disclosures of classified documents to anonymous sources. At which point, different embarrassments such as the Wiki Leaks disclosures would be something of the past.