The Bureaucratic Murder of the CIA
By Larry Johnson on May 28, 2009 at 1:42 PM in Current Affairs
Leave it to a petty turf battle to gut our human intelligence capability. An AP report yesterday by Pamela Hess exposes what, up till now, has been a furious but classified bureaucratic struggle. According to Hess:
The nation’s two intelligence chiefs are locked in a turf battle over overseas posts, forcing National Security Adviser James L. Jones to mediate, according to current and former government officials.
The jockeying between CIA Director Leon Panetta and National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair centers on Blair’s effort to choose his own representatives at U.S. embassies instead of relying only on CIA station chiefs. Current and former U.S. officials described the dispute on the condition of anonymity, because of the sensitivity of intelligence issues.
You can read the rest here.
Why does this matter?
Let me turn the question around. Do you want a Senior CIA offficer who has been the Chief of CIA operations in Russia, for example, put in command of the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan? The correct answer is, “no.” Why? The CIA officer even with prior military experience is still a civilian. He or she lacks both the training and experience to command large military units and execute military tactics. Senior military leaders are developed over time. You start off as a Lieutenant and command a platoon. As you are promoted you are given more responsibility and more troops to command. By the time you are a one-star general you have had experience commanding or helping manage a company, a batallion, a regiment and a brigade. A company usually consists of between 150 and 200 soldiers. A brigade is 2000 to 5000 soldiers.
CIA employs a similar system in that “Case Officers” (i.e., intelligence officers who work overseas recruiting foreigners to give us secrets) learn by doing and work their way up to greater responsibility. After formal training you go to the field and learn firsthand how to recruit and manage a human source. As time goes by you learn how to manage multiple sources and navigate the sensitive political issues that invariably arise in these types of cases. You do not learn this just by reading a book or watching a movie. Just because a military officer is designated as an intelligence officer and has been involved in recruiting a source or two for military intelligence purposes, that does not mean the officer is qualified to manage the broader human intelligence issues a CIA Chief of Station normally confronts.
Here is what Denny Blair, the current Director of National Intelligence, wants to do–put senior military officers in charge overseas of all human collection activities. Sounds rather innocuous until you realize he is talking about putting military officers into jobs they have no experience doing. Until recently the CIA Chief of station (i.e., the senior spy overseas) was in charge of coordinating all intelligence activities in country. The U.S. military has some highly classified human collection capabilities that invariably end up being employed in countries overseas. Prior to 9-11 the CIA Chief had veto power over these operations. After 9-11 Don Rumsfeld pushed to get unilateral authority to operate without CIA oversight. Why? He chafed at the fact that the CIA got on the ground in Afghanistan first and was more effective than the military forces deployed to theater.
Why do we need coordination? Let me give you an example from the Contra war of the 1980s. US intelligence and military personnel were operating from Honduras. Both had missions to collect information about the intentions of the Honduran government and to identify developing terrorism threats. There is not an unlimited supply of sources in Honduras. The number of people with information and access is fairly limited. So what happens if you have a fixed supply of something and the demand for that product goes up? The price goes up for the product. But when you are trying to recruit human spies another thing happens–those spies try to work for as many people as possible, earn as much money as possible and tell their handlers what they want to hear. You need somebody in charge who can play traffic cop and ensure that we have solid human sources who are providing authentic, valuable information.
Blair is proposing to upset this apple cart. The reality is that military intelligence officers and CIA intelligence officers are promoted through separate entities. Army officers are promoted within the Army by other Army officers because of the perceived value and competence of the individual who is part of the Army. CIA officers are promoted within CIA chains. A key element in these promotions usually entails evaluating how well you recruit spies and manage their activities. CIA has a different system than does the military. Yet Blair is proposing trying to put both under his control.
This is a disaster in the making. Once you muddle the chain of command and people no longer clearly understand who they are working for and what they need to do to get promoted, the very integrity of the system for recruiting and managing human sources will breakdown.
This push started under George W. Bush. This has not originated with Obama. But if it happens it will be on Obamas watch and he will bear ultimate responsibility. All this is doing is adding one more layer of bureaucracy to the process. And we all know why we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11? We did not have enough bureaucracy in Washington.
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
