13 Comments

Geez - what do they want? First they’re calling for reform at CIA, and then the next thing we’re hearing about grownups whining about being forced out because Goss sees a problem with their work (which may well have included keeping track of OBL back in the 90s … we all know very well how this turned out). Time to suck up and put the safety of the United States ahead of the safety of their fiefdom and careers.

Regarding LA Times, come this Feburary, I will not be renewing it. ’bout the only readable section in it is the Sports, and even that’s slipping.

I believe Ms. Harmon was one of the few who also voted against the 87 billion for the troops. Brit Hume had an interesting interview with her back then, getting her to admit that although her vote was purely symbolic (she “knew” it wouldn’t pass), had the vote against actually have gone through, the troops wouldn’t have gotten what they needed. It was yet another amazing display of partisan myopia. She lost all of my respect right there.

Good hair, though.

Funny, when John Deutch came to CIA to replace Woolsey, he brought not just Tenet as his deputy but a slew of other Hill staffers as well. He had so many staffers to place there weren’t enough senior places available, so he even created a new one (executive director) for the predecessor of Goss’s House committee staff director who’s getting his name in the paper these days. So some things about this chapter aren’t new.

What is new of course is the suggestion that changes are being made. I’m a bit puzzled that the operations directorate is getting all the ink. Not that I have any way to judge the need for change there (Bob Baer’s book rather suggests a huge problem, true) — but the more visible problems with politicization and quality have been on the intelligence or analytical side. The “Anonymous” affair was an egregious irregularity without precedent that I’m aware of. The endless sniping on policy matters has been surprising from the start, even more surprising has been that it goes on and on with no evidence that there are consequences.

As troubling as the procedural questions of apolitical discipline by career employees have been the insights into the agency’s substantive grasp of issues provided by the leaks. The leaks have, in general, reflected a rather clueless bunch of analysts. My favorite (and this was a joint State INR/CIA “leak”, even better) was the hilariously silly “warning” some time after the toppling of Saddam that the coalition had a finite time in which to make everyone happy, after which even the Shi’a would turn on their liberators. Of course the reality was the Shi’a, if anything, turned on those of their own who found IRGC and VEVAK money sufficient motivation to launch their clumsy and futile “rebellion” under Sadr’s banner. If this reflected the quality of analysis on important topics, right there was a scandal all by itself.

The agency has vast responsibilities and there’s no reason to think that most of them aren’t discharged competently. But judging only by intermittent exposure to their analytical products and personnel over the last 20 years, I have found myself far from uniformly impressed. The famous “leaks” over the last two years have, if anything, made them look pretty stupid.

Just to muddy the waters, let me assert that the “failures” WRT to Iraqi WMD were by no means a sign of incompetence or structural problems. The Senate report on this is thoroughly unpersuasive. The only mistake in that arena was the unwillingness of the recently departed director to grasp the nettle of educating the public and helping move the debate onto adult ground, where the insurmountable limits to the clarity of our intelligence are recognized as driving the pre-emption option, not foreclosing it.

I’m not sure how you “clean house” in such a way that common sense is infused into your employees — normal non-political behavior, of course, is another thing. The 9/11 Commission structural “fixes” represented the opposite of dealing with the problem.

Yes Lola but shockingly, when the dems cry for reform in the intelligence commnunity, they mean “boot out the aggressive conservatives who are slowly creeping into the CIA”. After all, conservatives are not known for their nuance and ability to fight that sensitive war on terror. And what the US needs now is nuance.

All kidding aside, this is a step in the right direction. First, the CIA, then the State Department (one can dream).

Back from a weeklong TDY…

My immediate boss, who is a former CIA guy, said recently that the only thing lacking at Langley was a 20 foot high Kerry-Edwards sign on the front lawn of the Old Headquarters Building. The CIA leadership was making plans to send off Porter Goss on the 3 of November after a Kerry victory. Everbody in the building, the Pentagon and the Defense agencies was well aware of it. So was the President and Porter Goss. Looks like some folks are going to making some retirement plans a little early.

Reading all this reminds me of a recent book about how Reagan ends Communism. When Reagan took office in 1981, he appoints William Casey as the Director of CIA, who promptly send a memo to all analysis and case officer to forward him any information that can bring about the end of Soviet Union. Little bits of information that isolated analysists and case officers have bee hording (because their superior don’t want them) about the genuine economical problem that Soviet Union has actually began to flow towards Casey and Reagan. That reverses decades of information hording. This confirms to Reagan what he suspect all alone, that Soviet Union is a hollow shell that would implode if we help.

What we’re seeing right now is another version of the Casey memo, and Goss is right on track to clear anyone who’s not on the program.

This is just further proof that the Democrats are determined to learn nothing from the last election. When CIA reform was deemed embarassing to Bush, they howled for it from the rooftops. Now that it’s happening, on Bush’s order, they how against it. Once again, they prove that they are a party with no principle save reflexive obstruction. Time to start sanding the 2006 2×4…

The Dems are howling, but I don’t recall hearing a peep from them when Clinton purged the CIA. See IMPENDING REORGANIZATION OF CIA LOOKS LIKE SUPPRESSION, POLITICIZING OF INTELLIGENCE, linked from QandO with original trail started at Istapundit (you don’t need no steenking leenk!)

A decade later the havoc wrought by the leader of the Reactionary Party for Appeasement, Apology, and International Kleptocracy (aka The Democrat Party) needs to be cleaned up and the sick agencies they stuffed full of their partisan vipers cleaned out while we all pay the price of their seditious perfidy. Good grief how I loathe the Democratic Party.

I’ll just offer my condolences to y’all here at Roger’s Place who have only begun to see the light. You belonged to the Dem party for the real and imagined benefits they once brought to the political system of the United States, but they are now corrupt and reactionary obstructionists. The times are far too dangerous to tolerate them any longer. The marginalization of the Dems needs to be done faster, please.

As you’ve reflected in this post, these types of articles are of interest not for what they purport to represent on the surface, but because they represent a glimpse or a window into the machinations of status quo bureaucrats, politicos and their apologists in the press. Not all articles in this vein are as transparently biased and agenda-driven as this one is, though it’s interesting that many of them are.

Maybe some good will come from all this. Of all the government agencies, State and the CIA act the least like they work for either the American people or the current administration (unless that administration lines up with the policies espoused at State and in Langley).

State has long been the domain of Eastern establishment internationalists. It seems to identify more with the internationlist community than with the American public. The problem goes back decades.

There are similar problems in Langley. The agency works with foreign intelligence agencies, just as State diplomats spend a lot of time with foreign diplomats. Groupthink takes over and the people representing our interests with foreign powers begin to identify more with those foreign powers than with us.

Not unlike the “Court Jews” in monarchial Europe. The Jewish communities would need liaisons with Gentile authorities, fluent in the language and culture of the Gentiles. Unfortunately, people who are fluent in the language and culture of another group often identify more with that group than with their group of origin. Sort of like anthropologists going native. Probably more groupthink at work here as well.

This is the type of action I’ve felt was necessary since 9/11. I think the best opportunity for this was lost when Henry Kissinger was pushed out of the 9/11 commission chairmanship.

Say what you will about him, if you have read any of his books like Diplomacy or his White House memoirs, one can see he has a detailed understanding of the bureaucratic workings of the intelligence agencies, how they relate to, and at times conflict with, the policy goals set by an elected administration.

All in all I view it as a lost opportunity as I think you would have seen a very detailed nuts-and-bolts recommendations for intelligence and FBI reform come out of his committee, instead of the broad top-down move the deck chairs around recommendations we got.

Considering the incredible incompetence of the agency here of late I would think it would come as no surprise to anyone that some heads are rolling.

High time… I just hope they get rid of the leakers. These guys are supposed to be able to keep a secret. That is part ot their job, instead they are acting like a bunch of chatty cathies who are too busy trying to rat out the president to be bothered with these silly terrorists.