|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Senior U.S. Defense Official Criticizes National Intelligence Director Proposal By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — U.S. Defense Undersecretary for Intelligence Stephen Cambone yesterday told U.S. lawmakers that he opposes the creation of an “intelligence czar” to oversee the entire U.S. intelligence community — a proposal that some supporters have said would aid U.S. efforts against WMD proliferation (see GSN, April 2). Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence this month introduced the Intelligence Transformation Act, which includes a proposal to create the Cabinet-level position of national director of intelligence. Such a position is needed, according to lawmakers, to improve coordination and collaboration among the various U.S. intelligence services. “In some ways the intelligence community is in the position the military was before 1986: too much duplication, too much competition, not enough coordination, not enough collaboration,” Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said during an April 1 press conference at the U.S. Capitol to announce the proposed legislation. Under the Democratic proposal, the new director of intelligence would have budgetary and statutory authority over the entire U.S. intelligence community. In addition, to better integrate military intelligence into the new structure, a deputy director of national intelligence position would be created that would also serve as defense undersecretary for intelligence. In testimony yesterday before a Senate Armed Services Committee subcommittee, however, Cambone spoke against the proposal. “I honestly do not see advantage to the creation of a different structure for the governance of the intelligence community than the one we have today,” he told the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. Potential interference with the “deep and abiding relationship” between the director of the CIA and the defense secretary would hurt the military, which uses intelligence generated by both its own services and the national foreign intelligence program, Cambone said. “It is easy to see the ways in which seams would begin to grow up between organizations and in which the Department of Defense would not be benefited, and in fact the intelligence community as a whole would be hurt by … that split,” he said. Cambone’s criticisms yesterday echoed those made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld late last month. In an appearance before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Rumsfeld warned that creation of a national director of intelligence could actually damage intelligence efforts. “There are some activities, like intelligence, and research and development, where it’s a serious mistake to think that you’re advantaged by relying on a single, centralized source. In fact, fostering multiple centers of information has proven to be better at promoting creativity and challenging conventional thinking,” Rumsfeld said. Rumsfeld also said that it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between national-related intelligence and military intelligence applicable to the battlefield. “I would say that just as it would be unwise to concentrate everything under a single intelligence czar in an effort to improve national intelligence, it would be equally undesirable to concentrate everything under the Department of Defense so that one could improve military intelligence,” he said. “There may be ways we can strengthen intelligence, but centralization is most certainly not one of them,” Rumsfeld added.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
