I just read the New York Times story, 9/11 Panel Is Said to Urge New
Post for Intelligence–
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/politics/17panel.html . It says the
the most important recommendation of the commission is the
establishement of a national director of intelligence.
They couldn’t be more wrong. In the first place we already have one.
The Director of Central Intelligence, if you read the job description,
already is what they are proposing. He is, unfortunately, a largely
figurative head of an aglomeration of ad hoc relationships, programs,
divisions and agencies over which he has, and can have, little
control. Creating a new post will only accomplish one thing; you will
have tacked on a redundant and largely impotent office to a structure
of tacked on, redundant and largely impotent offices.
If they want to set up a cabinet-level post to oversee National-level
intelligence, that’s fine. I think such things are primarily
posturing and symbolic; offering no real substance, but that’s not the
problem in this instance.
The problem is in what is lead, not in who is doing the leading or
from where. The DCI or a new Director of National Intelligence (DNI),
still can’t tell the Secretary of Defense, Homeland Security
Secretary, or Attorney General how to run their shops. Until you
solve this organizational problem, you will still have the same
Otherwise this looks like a federal jobs program in disguise–hiring a
new director and all his “support” staff. I thought I’d been told the
era of big government was over.