November 23, 2004
Staggering Failure
Remember 9/11? Remember how there were several points where the plot could have been thwarted had there been better communication between intelligence services? Three years later, that same gaping hole in our intelligence system remains.
One of the 9/11 Commission recommendations is to consolidate our intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, NGA, NRO, DIA, and elements of the FBI, State Dept., Treasury Dept., Energy Dept., Coast Guard, Homeland Security Dept., and several others). That recommendation has been fought tooth and nail by every agency director and Republican Congressperson who has a stake in that alphabet soup of budgetary largess.
Congress just tried to pass a bill implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendation for strengthening our Intelligence service to prevent future terrorist attacks. It was brought to a last minute screeching halt by Representatives Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), and J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.),
"Today, the House Republicans missed an opportunity to make the American people safer," said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader. "Their inability to overhaul our intelligence system is a staggering failure."
"Staggering", but not surprising given the resistance from the agencies involved and even from within the White House itself,
Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials have resisted provisions that would reduce their control over 80 percent of the estimated $40 billion annual intelligence budget."It's well-known that the secretary of defense wasn't enthusiastic about this loss of budget authority," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Remember, most of our fiercest debates in Washington comes down to who controls the money."
"There's been a lot of opposition to this from the first," [Senator Pat] Roberts [R-Kan.] said on "Fox News Sunday." "Some of it is from the Pentagon. Some of it, quite frankly, is from the White House, despite what the president has said."
This is absolutely irresponsible. The President and the Republican Congress have obstructed, watered down, and underfunded just about every measure proposed to make this country more secure. It's clear that Republicans are far more interested in gaining and maintaining power than in protecting their constituents.
Ridiculous, you say? Here's the kicker: The bill would have passed had Hastert allowed a vote. The bill had strong bipartisan support and the Democratic vote would have ensured it passed,
There, in a Capitol basement room, Hastert tried in vain to find enough votes to pass the bill without relying mainly on Democrats, a scenario too embarrassing for Republicans to endure.
Boo-hoo. Republicans rally 'round turf protectors and screw the public, because it would be too embarrassing to work with Democrats to protect this country. Pathetic. Stupid. And irresponsible. Send Hunter, Sensenbrunner, and Hastert an email and tell them so.
Posted by American Pundit at November 23, 2004 09:41 AMWow,
I have never imagined anyone blocking a vital bill because it had too much support. I guess the republicans now get to be the majority and obstructionist parties. It may be easier than I thought in ‘08
While I have not looked into this intelligence bill enough to know the details, I’ll attach an article that gives an alternate viewpoint to that of AP. Look at both sides of the issue, why the bill was not passed, and then make your own judgements:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110005931
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110005931
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 23, 2004 12:43 PMjoe:
The main problem I have with the analysis put forth by your source is that it implicitly assumes military and civilian intelligence to have seperate and incompatible goals. It assumes funding and manpower would be removed from the military and put to civilian use, rather than allowing the military to achieve its goals. In practice, however, aren’t both on the same side and working to achieve the same goals? Wouldn’t it be more likely that an intelligence czar would siphon the money to where it needed to go at a particular time… where it would do the most good… and not be committed to either military or civilian solutions so much as to simply getting the job done?
Posted by: Jarandhel at November 23, 2004 01:58 PMJoe,
Your linked article had one major premise, that the reform bill would emphasize the CIA and intelligence gathering over the military, and several minor premises, which I will discuss first.
the article said
The Founders designed the House of Representatives to be the arm of the federal government closest and most responsive to the people. This weekend, the brilliance of this design was clear when the House all but killed plans to revamp the nation’s 15 intelligence agencies and create a national intelligence director.
By my understanding, the house would have voted for the bill had it survived the committee process. That’s not the people talking, that’s a couple of guys feeling self-important.
The intelligence czar, who was expected to occupy office space within the CIA, would likely end up draining intelligence resources away from the military to meet the needs of the CIA, FBI and other civilian spy agencies.The term “Draining away” implies that these resources are going to be squandered. Since the war on terror is currently our major conflict, what is wrong with using the resources of the military to bolster those of the CIA, etc? The information exchange will likely go both ways, strengthening our military and better directing its efforts with a flow of information from the spy agencies.
To use a current example, if this was already in place, soldiers fighting in Fallujah might not have had the satellite linkups they needed to study the changing battlefield.I highly doubt that the intelligence director would divert resources away from an ongoing offensive for trivial reasons. Diverting satelites is a pretty high-level thing to do, it’s not like the military commanders on the ground get to make tasking decisions. Satelite data has always been shared, I really don’t see how this changes anything.
More disturbing was the proposal to give the intelligence czar the ability to move personnel out of combat support units. Not only would that break into the military’s chain of command; it’s the kind of bureaucratic micromanagement that is likely to cause operations to fail and maybe get soldiers killed—a concern Mr. Hunter expressed to me.I think that this kind of bureaucratic micromanagement could also happen with the secretary of defense holding the strings. Just because there is a new director doesn’t mean he/she is going to be an incompetent medeller. The job of the intelligence director would be to view the intelligence picture as a whole. Although that may mean reassigning some intelligence personell, if it meant shortening the overall conflict or having the ability to take advantage of major opportunities to damage the enemy, I think that is a good thing.
The overall tone of the article is that the war on terror is primarily military and needs to stay that way. Although the military needs to be an integral part of the war on terror, I for one think that intelligence is much more important, especially when it comes to defending ourselves against terrorism. The military option is best when used in a focused manner against actual terrorists.
The point of the intelligence director, in my opinion, is to integrate the military efforts with those of the intelligence community. Will the military have to share a little? Probably. Will the integration of information and capacity benefit both the military and the country in the long run? I would say definitely. The article you cite seems to exemplify the problem I see currently; basically, the military doesn’t want to share. The CIA doesn’t want to share, the NSA doesn’t want to share, and the FBI doesn’t want to share. If we are going to win this war, they all need to share.
I’m not exactly sure what happened, but it appears that your link has been deactivated.
I just thought people would like to know that when I clicked on it I was taken to domain.com..
However, if you just copy and paste the link, it still works.
jbod, do you really want to throw out an opinion piece like that? Miniter writes about the legislative action like it’s a partisan issue, then makes all the same arguments the bureaucratic empire builders made when the Department of Defense was being formed.
This isn’t a stampede. It’s three years in the making. And it’s not a partisan issue. The President wants it, the Vice President (says he) wants it, Reps & Dems in the senate want it, and all but a few in the House want it. Hell, the Republicans wrote it.
For Hastert to let a Defense Dept. shill block a measure that could have stopped 9/11 is just irresponsible. This is a turf war; parts of the government are acting in their own interests and against the best interests of the nation - and Hastert is helping them.
AP;
There are two sides to this issue. I’m in agreement that we need to overhaul intelligence, in order to avoid the mistakes that have happened over the past years. Yet I’m not convinced this bill does that.
By the way, if the bill passes in its present form, but doesnt work, we all know you will be on the front lines castigating the Republicans for it. You’ll have conveniently “forgotten” your words now in support of the bill. Life is just easier that way, isnt it.
Here is an editorial from the Washington Times that talks a bit more in detail about it, and suggests and alternate bill being offered by Duncan Hunter.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041123-080537-1837r.htm
For the record, I’m not advocating either side at this point, since I havent done enough homework on it to know the issues in depth. What intrigues me though, is why two guys like Hunter and Sensenbrenner would fight this fight. They know the President wants the bill to pass, so they have no political reason to fight it. It’s a Republican sponsored bill, so no partisan reason to fight it.
Sensenbrenner, from what I see, really just wants to strengthen the bill regarding immigrants getting drivers licenses and such.
So it makes me wonder what’s in it for them to fight this fight. In looking at it this way, I wonder if maybe they arent on to something, and perhaps delaying these changes might not be the best alternative. They do have a lot of support, though it seems to be from the military chain of command, which makes me also suspect it a bit.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 24, 2004 09:27 AMBy the way, if the bill passes in its present form, but doesnt work, we all know you will be on the front lines castigating the Republicans for it.
jbod, that’s just ridiculous and borders on trolling. Why don’t you stick to what I actually do, rather than making ass umptions.
I’m sure both those guys think they’re doing the right thing, but Hunter is acting as a mouthpiece for the Defense Dept’s cut of the $40 billion/yr. pie, and Sensenbrunner ought to just put his plan in another bill.
The editorial you cite says,
It is essential that there be a well-functioning chain of command between the American troops on the ground, the Defense Department and the people who operate the satellites.
But I don’t see any reason to assume that wouldn’t continue to be the case. No one is talking about dismantling the Defense intelligence agencies or placing anything in the chain of command, just creating a unity of purpose by placing all the agencies under the control of a single directorate.
Joe,
No one is talking about dismantling the Defense intelligence agencies or placing anything in the chain of command, just creating a unity of purpose by placing all the agencies under the control of a single directorate.
AP has a point here. I, like you, am too much of a neophyte on this issue to make any conclusions, but from what I have taken from the little I have read on this issue, it seems clear to me that nobody is advocating the things these Republicans claim will be the case. The interest is in an overdue neccessity to coordinate resources. It is foolish for us to think this “war” isn’t being fought on two fronts. We need to be as efficient as possible when dealing with our new threats. This requires communication and cooperation from all divisions involved (from the military to the cops and firemen; from the CIA to the DOD). That may mean compromising some power in exchange for adhering to the common utilitarian goal of keeping people safe.
I will agree to your assumption that this proposal may not work. We are not perfect, so therefore neither is our legislation. I would abnegate my right to point fingers if the bill fails to solve the problems.
By the way, if the bill passes in its present form, but doesnt work, we all know you will be on the front lines castigating the Republicans for it.I fail to see where you have precedence to substantiate this claim (and if you try to use the No Child Left Behind Act as an example, let me preempt you by noting that Democrat’s major complaint wasn’t with the bill itself, but its lack of adequate funding).
I don’t like it that you put words into our mouths just because we identify with a group of people that you view as being “hypocritics and complainers”. Most of us on the left who consistantly post things of substance on these boards strive very hard to be non-hypocritical in our approaches. We don’t deny that there are those people in the Democratic party who are guilty of the things you imply, but don’t assume that we agree with them simply because we tend to identify with them. I don’t associate you or any of the other conservative bloggers with people like Rush or Coulter; I expect the same courtesy from you.
Posted by: Nick at November 24, 2004 05:11 PMNick:
I did NOT put words into your mouths. I was writing directly to AP, and to AP only. I based my statement on what I have seen from AP’s writing over the past year or so. AP has consistently taken a negative viewpoint to virtually any and every Republican based action. To assume that this leopard would change its spots in the future would be to ignore its history.
I’ll agree that many in here do try not to be hypocritical. But there are of course those who fail. When I am included in that group, I expect to be held accountable, and I feel comfortable holding others to the same standards to which I am held.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 26, 2004 09:24 AMI was writing directly to AP, and to AP only.
Haha! Dude! Thousands of people visit this site daily. If you want to write directly to me, send me an email, americanpundit@yahoo.com
Nick’s right, jbod. If one of us is ever guilty of hypocrasy like you tried to slander me with, THEN say so. Until then, keep it in your pocket.
How about getting back to the topic. When this important bill was killed by a couple Republicans, Bush said he was going to come back from APEC and whack Congress in the head until they passed it. Well, he’s back…
I hope Bush doesn’t work hard on strengthening our intelligence services the same way he worked hard to get the assault rifle ban extended.
[Deleted for critiquing the messenger]
I think its fair to see if what Sensenbrenner etc say has merit. I expect Bush to move forward to get this bill, or some version of it, passed. As with most bills, there is a bit of give and take. I only hope that the tug of war produces a bill that helps further our intelligence goals.
I’m halfway through Senator Graham’s “Intelligence Matters”. It’s interesting that there were twelve instances where, had there been better communication between intelligence agencies, 9/11 could have been stopped.
Obviously some of it is hindsight, but there only needed to be one single instance of the cooperation that this bill addresses to foil the plot.
These problems were known about three years ago, despite the President’s stonewalling on an investigation. Each day we wait for intelligence reform is another chance for a new 9/11.
AP:
I’m not sure what I wrote that the Watchblog editor found offensive. I mostly cut and pasted from our earlier exchange in order to show that I was focused on YOUR words, as opposed to anyone else who might read the words.
In that regard, I attempted to say that I don’t like to be held accountable to words that are not my own, nor do I hold others accountable to words that are not their own.
In other words, I didnt impugn Nick at all by my statement to you, since my comment was based solely on what YOU said, and had no bearing on Nick. My intent was to discuss YOUR viewpoints, not a liberal or “left” viewpoint in general.
I think I focused on what you wrote, as opposed to who you are, and in that effort, I dont think I critiqued the messenger. I did critique the messenger’s message.
If I crossed the line, my apologies to you.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 28, 2004 12:23 PMBrian, in your post your emphasized my concern for the wording and “direction” of this bill. You said “diverting satellites is a pretty high-level thing to do, it’s not like the military commanders on the ground get to make taskings decisions”. Actually, ground commanders can and do make ‘real time’ tasking requests and depending on mission priority, are approved and acted on. This Bill could lead to the situation you describe where a ground commander would have to wade through and “stand by” for his request to go to and through high levels to be acted on. It’s not just intel I’m worried about but our units depended on SATCOM communication for status and SITREP links. Those could be disrupted also if someone in D.C. wanted to divert a satellite.
Posted by: Sgtmac at November 28, 2004 12:56 PMSgtmac, those are valid concerns. But again, the way I understand the bill (Senate version S.2845 and House version H.R.5223), that shouldn’t be an issue.
The Director’s responsibility will be to coordinate and modernize all of our intelligence branches much the same way the Department of Defense has done with the different branches of our military. The bill doesn’t interfere with the communication between ground commanders and the military intelligence services.
