Recently, the CIA has won a long-standing battle of "intelligence turf warfare" against the Director of National Intelligence or Intelligence Czar. In a published article (Newsweek.com, 11/12/09, by Mark Hosenball); "In every country where U.S. intelligence agencies operate, the CIA's station chief will continue to be the most senior U.S. intelligence officer." This was according to a White House ruling.
It was understood, that as a result of the investigation of the 9/11 Commission the establishment of a 'National Director' for Intelligence was suppose to eliminate any and all confusions as it pertains to so-called 'turf warfare,' sharing of intelligence and information amongst the various agencies. NOW, comes the subject matter of "who's in charge" as top U.S. intelligence representatives in foreign countries. Did the 9/11 Commission miss this? Was this subject for analysis ever discussed? Apparently not, this has been such a long-standing feud of sorts between the CIA, its' Director and the Director for National Intelligence that it first began to take root during the Bush Administration. Was this not the same administration who claimed to have, "taken care of all that?" NOT! Apparently, this time, President Obama and his advisers can say in all honesty that it was left on their doorstep when he (they) took office. The previous CIA Director (Michael Hayden) argued that CIA station chiefs should remain "paramount" everywhere they operate. The new Intel Czar (Dennis Blair) locked horns with the new CIA Director (Leon Panetta) for a resolution in this matter. They could not reach a mutual settlement on this issue. It was then sent to National Security Adviser Jim Jones. He could not broker a solution and the matter was then referred to Vice President Biden. Biden indicated that; "The status quo should remain...that CIA station chiefs should always be the top U.S. spies overseas." Again, according to the article; "One consolation for the intelligence czar; CIA station chiefs will be encouraged to bill themselves as "DNI representatives."
More and more we hear about how the 9/11 Commission with all its' analysis and investigations found serious flaws in intelligence system and community. The creation of the position as DNI was to remedy all matters as it related to the discovery of, gathering, processing, compiling and formulation of intelligence (along with the sharing of info amongst various agencies) so as to not create any further problems for the U.S. The Director of National Intelligence was overruled in favor of the CIA Director on who's turf is the 'top spy' as station chief, a 'single point-of-contact' (intel rep) for our ambassadors in foreign countries.
ANALYSIS: A new commission ought to be sanctioned by the President for reinvestigation and provide recommendations on how the worthiness, relevance and importance of need for the position of Director of National Intelligence. The Director of the CIA has always been (and should always be) the 'chief intel' officer and 'national director.' A dual role which also would include the responsibility to brief the President on intelligence. Whatever department or apparatus the DNI has, this bureaucracy ought to be eliminated.The DCI ought to be the 'chief overseer' of all intelligence gathered (regardless of department or agency). The DCI must once again assume this role. Cohesion IS the answer in resolving these kinds of situations; continuity.
WD
No comments:
Post a Comment