Why the Tsar has no pants (get to know your govt post)

[Fritz]

My title gets more atention than theirs.

from our friends at www.strategypage.com

INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS: Why the Czar Has No Power

August 16, 2004: The United States decision to create yet another office to control all intelligence, is largely avoiding the real problem. And that problem is getting each of the intelligence agencies to play from the same sheet of music. To even have a hope of doing that, the proposed “intelligence czar” must have control of the budgets for all the “cooperating” organizations. That is not going to happen, because each intelligence agency has it’s own little fan club in Congress.

With fifteen different intelligence organizations, the problem of coordinating all of them is nothing new. The CIA was created in the 1947 to coordinate intelligence activities for the president. Unfortunately, each of the fifteen organizations has a different boss, a different mission, different traditions and, well, you get the picture. Just to drive the point home, here are the fifteen intelligence agencies, along with short description of what they do, and who they do it for.

- Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The main customer is the White House, but is also supposed to keep the Department of Defense, and everyone else who works for the president, supplied with accurate and up-to-date analysis of what’s going on in the world. But when the CIA analysts present information that does not conform to what people in the White House want to see, there is pressure to modify the conclusions. This causes problems with all the other intelligence agencies. The director of the CIA is also the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), which is supposed to mean the “intelligence czar.” Doesn’t work out like that because, as new intelligence agencies grew, or were created, over the last half century, the DCI did not control their budgets. In Washington, you really only control an organization if you control its budget.

- National Security Agency (NSA). One of the most underestimated of the intelligence agencies. The NSA collects and sorts out “signals intelligence” (messages sent regularly by radio, telephone, Internet and so on) information. More importantly, NSA develops ciphers (methods to encode secret American messages) and decipher the secret codes of other nations. The United States has always been very good at breaking codes, but doing that is only useful if the other guy doesn’t know you have broken his codes. Thus all the secrecy at NSA.

- National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). A relatively new organization (created from the Defense Mapping Agency and some other small outfits), which takes all those satellite and aerial photos and makes sense of them. NGA exists largely because of all the neat new computer tools for working on digital photos and creating useful maps and videos.

- National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). Builds and maintains spy satellites. NRO gets the biggest chunk of money spent on intelligence, mainly because spy satellites are so expensive. As a result of this, too much emphasis has been placed on information (and its often misinformation) gained from these satellites.

- Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Is something of a Department of Defense CIA. DIA collects and sorts out intelligence information from the various services and tries to eliminate duplication of effort. DIA is also big enough to go head-to-head with the CIA in disputes over resources (getting use of spy satellites) and access to the White House on intelligence matters. The head of the DIA is sort of an “intelligence czar” for all the intel shops connected, in one way or another (like NGA and NRO) to the Department of Defense.

- Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Intelligence Organizations. Each service collects information it needs for its own operations. The DIA is used to prying stuff from the CIA, NSA and NRO (who will often hold on to material the armed forces could use because it’s “too sensitive.” That’s another way of saying they don’t trust the troops to keep a secret, even if keeping the information from the troops gets some of the troops killed in combat.)

- Coast Guard Intelligence. The Coast Guard becomes part of the navy in wartime, but in peacetime it’s part of the Department of Homeland Security and is mainly interested in information about what’s going on along American coasts.

- Department of Energy. Because the Department of Energy got control over all matters nuclear, it has developed a large intelligence operation that concentrates on what other countries are doing with nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Because of the military importance of all this, the Department of Energy intelligence is seen as part of the military establishment.

- Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The new kid on the block, is supposed to take care of intelligence on terrorism. But so far, DHS is way behind the Big Four and has to beg a lot.

- Department of State. Has always had an intelligence operation, but it was never well organized. Seemed to collect interesting gossip, and considered detailed data too geekish for diplomats. But the State Department does have one enormous advantage in that they understand foreign cultures, and that makes a big difference when they analyze what information they do have.

- Department of Treasury. Collects information that has an impact on American fiscal and monetary policy. Most of this stuff is rather easily obtained from large American financial organizations.

- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Not really an intelligence organization, and never meant to be one. The FBI is a police and investigative organization. It deals in collecting information, but for the purpose of prosecuting and convicting criminals, not for providing information on anything on a continual basis (which is what intelligence agencies do.) The FBI is trying to get permission, and money, to become a major player in the intelligence area.

Everyone talks about getting the intelligence agencies to work together, but in over half a century, no one has been able to make it happen. In fact, no one, at the moment, is making a serious effort to make it happen. It's also illuminating to remember what one real Russian czar said about the subject, "I do not rule Russia, 10,000 clerks do."

[sachmo71]

I personally have had enough with the "czar" appointment in this government.

[Fritz]

yeah, all those tsars did the rooskies no good

[albionmoonlight]

I had no idea so many of those agencies existed. Now that I do, I suppose that some guys in black suits are going to hunt me down and kill me.

Thanks a lot, Fritz.

[QuikSand]

Gang, you'll never get Fritz to budge on this tsar/czar thing. If there's anything he feels strongly about, it's "t-s-a-r."

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't think of a better explanation of why a single authority that all of the various agencies have to answer to is needed than the first post in this thread.

[albionmoonlight]

Jon--

I agree with you. However, I would appreciate a little more insight/opinion about a couple of issues I see with that situation.

Under what office would the tsar (for lack of another term) operate? Would it be under the White House? Congress? Somehow separate from either of them (someone, of course, has to control the purse strings)?

On the one hand, I can't see how such an organization could be under anyone other than the president ultimately. The chief executive/commander in chief would seem to be the runaway logical choice for the person who needs the most up-to-date and accurate intelligence regarding our current and potential enemies.

At the same time, I would be afraid that concentrating all of the intelligence power into one office, and then putting that office under the White House could lead to the intelligence being slanted for a president who really wants yes men. As stated above, "[W]hen the CIA analysts present information that does not conform to what people in the White House want to see, there is pressure to modify the conclusions." That pressure becomes much more of a problem if the office being pressured is the only game in town.

In addition, since what various politicians did and did not know about terrorist attacks, WMD's, etc. now appears to be fair game in the political arena, is it even possible for the Tsar to be anything other than a political hotrod? One of the last things I want is for all of our intelligence resources to be focused into one individual who then has to spend 80% of his time testifying to Congress about "what the president did or did not know concering [X]."

Thoughts?

[Fritz]

Under the executive, for sure.

The trend in the executive for power to be centralized in the white house itself. Look at the role the national security advisor has taken on in both defense [Defense] and foreign policy [State].

where in the executive is a good question. I would suggest either a cabinet level appointment or under State if it has budget control.

if it is a clearinghouse/advisor then I would say directly under the president ala the National Security Advisor.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Jon--
Under what office would the tsar (for lack of another term) operate? Would it be under the White House? Congress? Somehow separate from either of them (someone, of course, has to control the purse strings)?

My general feeling is it is good for seperate orgainzations to have seperate portfolios and funding lines. If you get a rotten head of the CIA or a bad relationship with congress, only a portion of your intel goes to hell.

What I suggest we need is some sort of system and standard for storing and sharing intel and coordinating activites. In short, we need a good DBA in the whitehouse.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

On the one hand, I can't see how such an organization could be under anyone other than the president ultimately. The chief executive/commander in chief would seem to be the runaway logical choice for the person who needs the most up-to-date and accurate intelligence regarding our current and potential enemies.

At the same time, I would be afraid that concentrating all of the intelligence power into one office, and then putting that office under the White House could lead to the intelligence being slanted for a president who really wants yes men. As stated above, "[W]hen the CIA analysts present information that does not conform to what people in the White House want to see, there is pressure to modify the conclusions." That pressure becomes much more of a problem if the office being pressured is the only game in town.

In addition, since what various politicians did and did not know about terrorist attacks, WMD's, etc. now appears to be fair game in the political arena, is it even possible for the Tsar to be anything other than a political hotrod? One of the last things I want is for all of our intelligence resources to be focused into one individual who then has to spend 80% of his time testifying to Congress about "what the president did or did not know concering [X]."

Thoughts?

[Fritz]

mikey p ripping me on spelling?

[GrantDawg]

After reading that article I finally understand what the "funding control" debate was about. I kept hearing people talk about it, but never explain it.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Fritz

ripping me on spelling?

Not ripping... just observing your adherence to the less common form, that's all. These things amuse me. Apparently you less so.

[Fritz]

midgets amuse.

midget spies even more so

midget super spies - well, you can imagine.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Let's see what I can do here ...

Under what office would the tsar (for lack of another term) operate? Would it be under the White House? Congress? Somehow separate from either of them (someone, of course, has to control the purse strings)?

I think answering directly to the C-I-C is the only way to go in terms of ultimate authority. Naturally, Congress is involved in the appropriations aspect.

What I invision, at least as a goal, is someone to be the "kindergarten teacher" with a big enough ruler to smack the hands of the various agencies who are notoriously unwilling to share information with the other members of the intelligence community sandbox. From all I've gathered over the years, the turf wars between the various agencies mentioned above make the Bloods & the Crips seem like a squabble over a bridge hand at the local Garden Club.

I guess my idea is different from some of the trial balloons out there, in that I'm not envisioning an agency where all the data is complied. I'm looking more for someone to referee while the existing agencies do their jobs ... which include sharing information with brother/sister agencies whether they like it or not.

Like you, I have concerns that we could end up with a system that simply has an additional layer of bureaucracy, efficiency & national security be damned.
But I think that risk is one worth taking.

The other concern that strikes me is the difficulty in finding the right person for the job -- in order for what I'm invisioning to work, it would require someone who was extremely qualified but not so historically connected with one or more of the agencies involved as to be viewed by the rest as being partial. That might just be the hardest part of the whole scenario IMO.