GailForce: Aspen Institute Forum – Final Wrap Up

Wanted to finish up my thoughts on the Aspen Institute’s Security Forum. Thought I would begin where I ended my last blog with comments from the former Director of National Intelligence (DNI), retired Admiral Dennis Blair. There was quite a bit of talk during the forum revolving around the history and purpose of the DNI position. During her interview with Blair, Lesley Stahl asked if the position was just another layer of bureaucracy. The Admiral replied that was “dead wrong” and the DNI and his staff were the only ones in the intelligence community looking at how the community as a whole was doing and was trying to ensure the 16 member community operated as one team.

He said the CIA had the biggest problem getting along with others. He also said his position was undercut and that the White House is not a good place to coordinate intelligence and that the people who came into the White House after 9/11 were not people who experienced intelligence from the inside. When he said that, I and a number of others present applauded. I’ve blogged before about my concerns that politicians and the media don’t have a good understanding of how the intelligence community actually operates. You can’t fix what you don’t understand.

During the session Reflections on 9/11 and the Decade Since, Stephen Hadley, former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Fran Townsend, former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, and Jane Harman, former Congresswoman and one of the sponsors of the bill that set up the DNI position weighed in on the position of the DNI. Townsend says you have to look at what was intended and what was the role. It was intended for the DNI to be an enterprise manager but not to reduce the role of the CIA. She also said the position did not get all the authorities they intended like control over the budget and personnel.

Harmon said her thought process when sponsoring the bill revolved around the success of the Goldwater/Nichols bill that forced the services to operate jointly. The DNI would be the Joint Commander of the Intelligence community. She believes neither Presidents Bush nor Obama has given the DNI enough authority to do the job. I asked why the DNI was not given budget or personnel authority. She replied the position had some authority in those areas but basically some people in Congress did not agree with the bill or the DNI position. In Washington if you have that view, one way to deal with it was to “Defang” the position.

She seemed to feel that even “defanged” there had been improvement in the way the intelligence community operates citing improved intelligence reports that include “Red Team” data as an example. She said they basically replaced a 1947 model that was designed to combat the Cold War. Hadley called the position a work in progress and said reform takes time and it’s going to depend on people to make it work. One thing he wouldn’t change as far as how covert operations are conducted is to have the CIA report directly to the President. He said of course the DNI should be in the room.

What is the “so what” factor in all of this for the public. To me it’s simple its all about the best and most efficient use of tax dollars and the intelligence community. Take the comment by Hadley about covert operations. How would you know that covert operations would be the right tool to use in a particular situation? Each of the 16 agencies is very familiar with what they have to bring to the table but not necessarily what the others have available. The President and his staff might think covert operations would be the way to go in a particular scenario while one of the other intelligence agencies might have a more efficient tool. The DNI and his staff need to be sufficiently empowered and knowledgeable to recommend the best course of action to the President. That role should not be left to the head of one of the 16 agencies. I thought the purpose of “reforming” the intelligence community was to do away with “stove pipes”. All tools should be looked at when addressing national security goals.

The last thing I’ll cover is some comments made by Douglas E. Lute, Special Assistant to the President for Afghanistan and Pakistan and a retired Army General. When asked about the death of Osama Bin Laden he said the Al Qaeda core was wounded but not yet defeated. He stated large forces like the surge in Iraq and Afghanistan should be sent in with well defined goals and for a time period to allow a nation to build up their own security forces. He seems to believe that our surge in Afghanistan has allowed the Afghans to do that. I asked what happens if the Taliban regain ground in the wake of our drawdown. He replied that there would still be 60,000 + troops in place that he believes those forces along with the Afghan forces would prevent that scenario from happening. I hope he’s right and perhaps as in the days leading up to Bin Laden’s take down, he has access to information not available to the public and media that gives him the confidence that the Taliban won’t gain the upper hand again. I hope that’s the case.

Think I’ll end here. As always my views are my own.