Comments on: One More Feckless Study On Intelligence Reform

By: Karma

Karma — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:44:46 +0000

Talk about a no win situation with DC becoming more partisan.

You would think after 9/11 those type of games would stop and making sure the IC is effective would be the top priority.

Frankly, I didn’t feel that the Bush/Cheney ‘fixes’ added anything but more layers. And Obama is not the guy who is going to fix that armchair assessment either.

Here is yet another one of those moments where I feel like Hillary Clinton would have been the better choice for resolving these issues.

Thanks, Mr Goodman.

By: Portia Elizabeth

Portia Elizabeth — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:21:09 +0000

Today’s news brings the comment that morale has never been lower in the CIA. From my admittedly uninformed view it looks like the CIA is being systematically dismantled with no alternative. while I’ve never quite understood the CIA’s m.o.’s, I felt safer knowing they were on the job.

If I were CIA now, I’d be reluctant to stick my neck out for an admin. that wants to question my every move and possibly prosecute me for doing my job. I doubt the pay is that good.

By: Ferd Berfle

Ferd Berfle — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:37:27 +0000

Actually, you aren’t far from the truth. The government doesn’t want to do any real research and that is why we do get people who sell us out. One house, one city, and one group of friends means a clearance by proxy, And those of us who work for the country year in and year out, all over hell’s half-acre, get the work over and get more questions than those mentioned above. It sucks to give a rat’s backside.

By: Retired

Retired — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:27:56 +0000

Lieberthal reminds me a bit of a former company commander of mine who notably said, “It doesn’t matter whether you do the right thing or the wrong thing as long as you do it boldly.” By the way, the CIA has always hired people in their late twenties and early thirties, and continues to do so. The problem is, people “…who have had extensive experience related to the country of concern” typically can’t get through the Agency’s security process for staff employees precisely because, in getting that experience, they have had to live and work in the target country and are therefore difficult to investigate and vet. The Agency’s current solution to this is the old standby, hire someone who has lived in one house in St. Louis, MO for their entire life. Makes the field portion of the background investigation soooo much easier!

By: Ferd Berfle

Ferd Berfle — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:27:49 +0000

Sen. David Boren and Rep. David McCurdy, both Democrats, made attempts in 1992 and 1994 to reform the CIA, but there was great resistance from Republicans who were under the influence of the Pentagon, and there was no support from their Democratic colleagues.

I remember their efforts. It is a shame those two centrists held no sway. But then, we’re seeing the same sort of crap today. The old ways are the new ways. The only change is the way in which the information is referred to.

By: Diana L. C.

Diana L. C. — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:32:46 +0000

Mr. Goodman,

Again, your post is quite thought provoking. It’s hard for someone like me to have any type of comment that is at all insightful, since I really have no experience with intelligence gathering, etc.

But this from early in your post struck me:

Unlike previous reform proposals, the Brookings study manages to overlook the serious systemic issues that face the world of intelligence analysis and to propose a full slate of boilerplate steps.

I’ve seen in so many other less important climates–in schools and business–the boilerplate solution attempt without any real understanding of systemic problems. It always strikes me that people want the easy way out, but no one wants to do the hard work of looking into the framework of any organization to find the flaws and to attempt a rebuilding from the ground up.

Such an important agency, yet too many idealogues and political hacks in charge.

By: TeakWoodKite

TeakWoodKite — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:40:16 +0000

CIA that has led to a major deterioration in the ability to prepare strategic intelligence and to inform the policy community.

Would that increase the probability that the CIA’s input into the NIE for Iran’s nuke programs would be less than complete, thus increasing the odds that the NIE is incorrect?

The similarities between refuting his own NIE and BO and Panetta fence sitting is glaring. Will we get it correct in light of what the French President has said recently about Iran’s intentions and progress in developing nukes and the delivery systems they need?

By: Tricia Spiegel

Tricia Spiegel — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:23:59 +0000

Complex report. Thanks Mr. Goodman.