|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Rumsfeld Calls for Caution on Intelligence Reform By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday called on lawmakers to exercise caution as they implement the intelligence reform measures proposed by the Sept. 11 commission, including the creation of a national director to oversee the entire U.S intelligence community (see GSN, Aug. 17). “It’s important that we move with all deliberate speed. We need to remember that we are considering these important matters, however, while we are waging a war. If we move unwisely and get it wrong, the penalty would be great,” Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I doubt that we should think of intelligence reform being completed at a single stroke,” he added. As lawmakers work to prepare legislation creating the new director — a move backed by the White House — questions have arisen over what level of authority the new director should have over the budgets and top personnel of the various intelligence agencies, a large number of which are contained in the Defense Department. The Sept. 11 commission and many Democratic lawmakers support giving the new director full budgetary and personnel authority. While the White House originally resisted providing that authority, there have been recent indications that President George W. Bush has shifted his position to allowing the director more power in those areas. While Rumsfeld did not directly address that issue, acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said he supported providing substantial authority to the intelligence director. “I believe that that individual should have the clear authority to move people and resources and to evaluate the performance of the national intelligence agencies and their leaders,” McLaughlin told lawmakers, adding that “this should be accomplished in the cleanest and most direct manner you can devise.” McLaughlin has previously opposed the creation of a national intelligence director on the grounds that it would add unnecessary bureaucracy (see GSN, July 19). He also said yesterday, though, that the new director’s authority should be limited to the intelligence agencies included in the National Foreign Intelligence Program — the CIA, National Security Agency, National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. The new director would also have to accept “ironclad accountability” for continuing to support military intelligence needs, McLaughlin said. “No matter what course the administration and Congress choose, intelligence support to the military, especially in time of war, should not be allowed to diminish,” he added. During yesterday’s hearing, administration and military officials emphasized the need to preserve the collaborative relationship between the intelligence community and the military in an intelligence reform effort. “There cannot be a czar that just starts pointing and pulling levels. There is no Wizard of Oz here that’s going to solve this, in my opinion,” said Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The creation of the new national intelligence director cannot be allowed to create “institutional barriers” between intelligence agencies and the rest of the military, Myers said. He also warned that the overcentralization of intelligence could reduce important competition and “innovative thinking” among intelligence analysts in the various agencies. “I believe the more you have centralized control, the less you have the kind of entrepreneurial spirit and agility that I see in our servicemen and women every day. The officers and NCOs [noncommissioned officers] and civilians in the field who see a problem and create a solution contribute immeasurably to our overall intelligence capabilities,” Myers said. Instead of creating a new national intelligence director, committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) proposed enhancing the stature and authority of the director of central intelligence. “As I look at the current body of law, you have extraordinary powers already on the statute. Perhaps some correction could be made or addition by Congress to the existing powers, so that there is no limitation to your ability to work as a co-equal with your peer group, be it the secretary of defense, secretary of homeland (sic), secretary of state or whatever the case may be,” he told McLaughlin. Warner suggested formalizing through legislation the current collaborative relationship between the director of central intelligence and the defense secretary on budgetary and personnel issues. While not advocating that the director of central intelligence be made a Cabinet-level position, Warner said that the position should be elevated “in every possible way to that of a full Cabinet status.” “Perhaps we could change it so you're on an absolute co-equal status and give you the title of NID [national intelligence director] and try it for a while and see if it would work,” he told McLaughlin. McLaughlin said that the elevation of a national intelligence director over the CIA director could have a negative impact on agency employees. “People who work in … the intelligence community, in the National Foreign Intelligence Program, not just the CIA, have grown up with the thought that the leader of the DCI is the leader of the community. And, you know, I think anything that diminished the role of the person who sits in that chair would take quite a bit of adjustment on the part of CIA employees,” he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
