"Intelligence Czar" a Big Mistake

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

problem.

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.

Advertisements

Boost the Signal. Squelch the Noise. Information is Power.