Obama and the Intelligence Community: Look Inside and Learn from the Past

On Thursday after his election, President-Elect Obama met with Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and top CIA analyst Mike Morrell to receive his first intelligence briefing. Though CIA chief Mike Hayden (does every senior intelligence official go by "Mike?") has issued one of those "keep on working, nothing to see here during this presidential transition" memos to the CIA workforce, big leadership changes are expected.

The Obama camp has officially been mum on expected intelligence appointments, but John Brennan, former interim director of the National Counterterrorist Center and head of a powerful intelligence contractor industry association, is mentioned often. So is Jane Harman, Representative (D) from California and member of the House intelligence committee, .

Regardless of who takes charge at the intelligence agencies, the incoming Obama administration is inheriting an intelligence mess. And with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, there's an historic opportunity to put US national security policy back on track.

But it will be an easy opportunity to blow, especially if the new Obama team throws the baby--real national security priorities--out with the bathwater. Or if Obama's national security team takes a big drink of the intelligence community's bath water.

To show just how the new Obama administration could throw out the baby with the bath water, let's take a look back at the first few years of the Clinton administration. Clinton kicked off his presidency by alienating the intelligence workforce in a poorly executed bid to cash in on the peace dividend. It didn't help that several of Clinton national security policy advisers were also settling old scores from the Vietnam and Nixon eras.

First, Clinton appointed charisma-deficient neocon James Woolsey, as Director of Central Intelligence. Woolsey became infamous within the intelligence community for gutting America's clandestine operations capabilities. These cuts were most keenly felt in US intelligence outposts in the third world, fertile ground for the destructive ideologies--big threats like Bin Laden-style Islamic extremism and annoyances like Chavez-style authoritarian populism--that have become the central vexation of US policy since the end of Cold War. In another morale-busting move, Clinton effectively demoted the office of DCI, removing it from its former prominence on the cabinet, and also declined a regular intelligence briefing. Under Woolsey's watch, CIA sunk to a new low of marginalization.

Woolsey also rubbed the CIA workforce the wrong way. Most notably, he had to be shamed into taking a polygraph test for his CIA security clearance. That didn't sit well with rank-and-file national security drones, who are subjected to polygraphs throughout their careers--it was sort of like soldiers knowing that their general can't shoot a gun or do pushups.

(Later, after 9/11, Woolsey emerged as a neocon pundit advocating ideologically inspired myths, even when they are contradicted by fact-based reality. Stuff like Iraq plotting 9/11. Make that another intelligence community value--solid, objective analysis and presentation of the facts--that Woolsey fairly crapped all over.)

Elsewhere in the new Clinton administration, ideologues who were still mad about Cold War-era US intelligence adventures in the 60s and 70s started doing things like calling for the indictment of serving US intelligence officers. For example, former CIA officer Robert Baer described in his book See No Evil how he had been recalled from his field duties in Northern Iraq in the early 90s because Anthony Lake (a member of Obama's foreign policy team) had actively sought his indictment.

The lessons here are simple: the incoming Obama administration should take care to not alienate the institutions and the numerous employees who work very hard and earnestly (though not necessarily under the best leadership) to protect America.

One way to not alienate the intelligence community: Don't appoint unleaderly cowards who refuse to value the sacrifices and traditions of the intelligence craft.

Another way to not alienate the intelligence community: Don't punish junior intelligence officers for simply doing their jobs, even if they have been involved in activities that have embarrassed or shamed our great nation.

With extraordinary renditions, black site prisons, spying on Americans, industrial-scale contracting corruption, misbegotten attempts to thwart terrorism finances via manipulation of international banking systems, and who knows what else, the Obama administration will be tempted to make some heads roll.

And those heads--especially senior heads--do indeed need to roll.

But intelligence institutions have a history of resisting correction and discipline.

This is where the incoming administration needs to keep from drinking the intelligence community's bath water.

The intelligence community insists that everything it does is so important and so fragile that it must be kept secret, not only from America's enemies, but from accountability or scrutiny by other, legitimately interested democratic institutions.

To be sure, the operations, sources, and methods of our nation's intelligence agencies deserve the most vigilant protection. Unfortunately, the record shows that the veil of secrecy is used all too often to obscure poor decisions, sloppy administration, incompetence, and even corruption--even when there is no compelling national security issue at hand. I even know of a sexual harassment case that was effectively buried under national security secrecy. Senior intelligence officials who have broken the law can be counted upon to use every tool at their disposal--including misappropriated secrecy policy--to evade accountability.

How to keep from drinking the bath water? Trust, but verify. If Obama administration officials are able to establish trust and credibility within the intelligence community, they will be able to get at the critical questions of where the (metaphorical) bodies are buried, and get on to the business that will re-establish American prestige and regain the confidence of American taxpayers.

But it would be naïve to expect evildoers in US intelligence to just come quietly and not make a fuss. The new Obama administration and the incoming Congress should be prepared to use its existing authority, including the power of the purse, to bring accountability to the intelligence community. The new Obama administration should also be ready to challenge or overturn policies that give the intelligence community a free hand to thwart civil court actions against them.

Intelligence officers I know will be interested in justice and preserving the integrity of their proud tradition. I know I will be. And I hope the new Obama administration is, too

Comments

[RedDogBear]

I think its worth considering if we should continue to have a clandestine intelligence service at all. We got along fine for apx. the first 150 years of the republic without one. We created it during the second world war to fight the Germans and grew it during the cold war on the pretext of fighting the Russians. As Tim Weiner points out in his excellent book Legacy of Ashes the clandestine services have initiated one disaster after another starting with their failures in Germany. They have had some successes where they achieved their goals but in every instance you could make a good case that in the long term the success turned out to be worse than if the agency had done nothing.

For example, the CIA funded islamic extremists in Afghanistan to fight the soviets. The same people that we nurtured there turned around and attacked us on 9/11. They successfully installed the brutal Shah of Iran and in the process destroyed a secular democracy that could have been an example and force for moderation in the region. Removing or drastically curtailing the CIA's clandestine services would be a signal to the world that we want to return to being a role model for freedom rather than continue being the global bully we've been for the last 8 years and would prevent blowback from future mischief.

[egal]

You're wrong about the Intelligence community seeking excessive secrecy and leeway. They encourage oversight, legality, and morality. It's the higher-ups in the military, and especially those with power over it who aren't soldiers, who try to shroud everything and who command operations that violate our peoples' rights and safety.

Blaming the entire community is as over-generalized as blaming the entire citizenry for our highest leaders' crimes and curruption. Suitingly, the punishment for crimes should be considerably worse for those highest ranked, and the standards which they must not violate need to be higher, tighter.

However, it is the obligation of every soldier (sworn to it) to reject or oppose an illegal order. The reason most of the soldiers involved in torturing aren't from the Intel community, The Intle personnel are more likely to know both what they aren't allowed to do and what doesn't work (torture being almost entirely UNreliable for information-gathering). So, giving soldiers following illegal orders a break for their crimes is generally not helpful ore merited.

[Frank Naif - Huffpost Blogger]

I worked in intelligence and classified programs for over 15 years, and during that time I witnessed numerous examples of excessive or gratuitous secrecy. I would even say the problem is pervasive. Steven Aftergood at Federation of American Scientists (www.fas.org) has been documenting the problem for years. If good people have the ability to conceal or obfuscate their shenaningans, they will. It's human nature.

The entire community is not solely to blame for the intelligence foul-ups of the Bush years, but individual civilian and uniformed individuals bear a share of the responsibility for exactly the reason you cite: it is indeed the obligation of all who serve in government to reject or oppose illegal orders.

[Wilbur]

Good point. Look what happened to JFK when he tried to reign in the CIA (hint: it's called triangulation of crossfire...Dealey Plaza....Dallas, TX....Nov. 22, 1963)

Wilbur

[weatherwaxx]

How about a column detailing all the Bush disasters that Obama needs to repair? I think he left the intelligence system in far worse shape than Clinton ever did.

[Frank Naif - Huffpost Blogger]

I will be covering some of the more high-visibility Bush-era intelligence foul-ups in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, you might be interested in one of my earlier posts that overviewed the intelligence mess that the Bush administration is leaving to Obama:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-naif/obama-mccain-and-the-inte_b_130571.html

[razajac]

The upshot of this article?: Identify wrongdoing and act accordingly, yet don't alienate anyone.

Sorry. Can't have it both ways. Convicted felons are the most alienated people on the planet.

[Rog49Thomas]

Perhaps you have put your finger on a fundamental contradiction in our intelligence services.

[Frank Naif - Huffpost Blogger]

To effectively reform any enterprise, whether in the private or public sector, the reforming leaders need to have buy-in from the troops.

You can't just arrive as the head of an organization and expect cooperation by arbitrarily meting out harsh punishments, especially against people who were doing their duty in good faith.

It's as true in a grocery store or dental office as it is in an infantry platoon or an intelligence agency. An overwhelming majority of intelligence officers want to do the right thing--and will do the right thing.

[ddanaan]

While this is only tangentially relevant, One problem with the intelligence community and the gov't as a whole goes back to the American deficiency with training and rewarding language ability. Has the gov't ever considered establishing a Foreign Policy/Intelligence Academy along the lines of the military Academies? We probably can't change the Amercan mono-lingual culture but we can prepare our diplomats and intelligence personnel better.
Traditionally Foreign Service was the province of the Boarding school/Ivy League schools and with the post-war rise of the Intelligence services that was where the recruiting was done. It was very euro-centric but they did tend to produce a polyglot culture. That day is past however and a Ewuro-centric laguage base is not what we need now.
American Universities are ill equipt to produce linguists since language training is shoe-horned into class-based structure better suited for the traditional curriculum. A program accentuating a total immersion experience with classes in history/economics/politics taught in the major (UN) languages (Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Russian, French) and I'd add either Hindi or Turkish combined with internships overseas would be a rough outline.

The cost of better training would be minimal compared with the military academies.

[Cloudburst]

It's funny how the blogger kind of skips over the Bush years - where accurate intelligence estimates were "rewritten" by the White House for ideological reasons. Then, when things turned out badly, the White House blamed the Agency for the screw ups (knowing full well the Agency couldn't fight back).

Bottom line, the neo-cons in the Agency have to go.

[Rog49Thomas]

Simply put --- put intelligence back in the intellilgence agencies and remove the delusional ideologues, especially those who think they are running God as an agent.

[Frank Naif - Huffpost Blogger]

You might be interested in one of my earlier posts that overviewed the intelligence mess that the Bush administration is leaving to Obama:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-naif/obama-mccain-and-the-inte_b_130571.html

[jhNY]

So basically, Obama needs to be very careful of the sensitivities of his employees in the intelligence business or they might do him mischief while their feelings are hurt, or at least drag they l'il feet when given orders. Glad to see the employees have their priorities straight!

[IndyReader]

So is Obama playing 3D chess on a Cray supercomputer against everyone else playing 1D chess on a Commodore 64, or what? Every time the guy takes one step forward some blogger comes along and yanks him two steps back.

[MontanaMaven]

Check out ex CIA analyst Melvin Goodman's op ed piece in theBaltimore Sun http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.intel14nov14,0,4502683.story
Brennan is a horrible guy and should have his butt kicked off the transition team and out of Washington along with Jami Misnick who was part of the "slam dunk" team. Obama has bad intelligence advisers.
and his appearance on "Democracy Now" with Amy Goodman yesterday. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/17/obama_taps_ex_cia_officials_tied

[vinny]

don't forget though, cleaning house is the name of the game...

[RnR]

Not Jane Harman.

[renatam]

I agree.

[Spesabsquemetu]

TRUST

"How to keep from drinking the bath water? Trust, but verify. If Obama administration officials are able to establish trust and credibility within the intelligence community, they will be able to get at the critical questions of where the (metaphorical) bodies are buried, and get on to the business that will re-establish American prestige and regain the confidence of American taxpayers."

LEADERSHIP

First, Clinton appointed charisma-deficient neocon James Woolsey, as Director of Central Intelligence. Woolsey became infamous within the intelligence community for gutting America's clandestine operations capabilities. These cuts were most keenly felt in US intelligence outposts in the third world, fertile ground for the destructive ideologies--big threats like Bin Laden-style Islamic extremism and annoyances like Chavez-style authoritarian populism--that have become the central vexation of US policy since the end of Cold War. In another morale-busting move, Clinton effectively demoted the office of DCI, removing it from its former prominence on the cabinet, and also declined a regular intelligence briefing. Under Woolsey's watch, CIA sunk to a new low of marginalization.

This will be fundamental to the success of our intelligence agencies:

LISTENING TO THOSE IN THE FIELD...

"...the incoming Obama administration should take care to not alienate the institutions and the numerous employees who work very hard and earnestly (though not necessarily under the best leadership) to protect America.

I hope President Obama will INVEST in building UP our intelligence agencies, incorporating feedback of those in the field.

[RedDogBear]

"Chavez-style authoritarian populism" What exactly is that? Chavez was elected by huge majorities in free and fair elections, even though the MSM often erroneously describes him as a "dictator". Its interesting how democracy ceases to be legitimate in the eyes of some people when the people make decisions our government doesn't like.

[idest]

To be fair, there have been some civil-rights-limiting actions by the Chavez administration. Even Human Rights Watch wrote up a report on Chavez in power. Yes, the man has done a lot of good for Venezuela's underprivileged, but some of the methods he has used to accomplish this good, and to cement his hold on power, have been somewhat authoritarian. It's just calling a duck a duck.

Now, it's hard to blame the guy when you read about the coup attempt against him. Can you imagine, working your whole life to be in a position to do real good for the poor around you, only to have it nearly snatched away by the plutocratic elements of society? Also hard to blame him for being paranoid when we have nationally-known religious icons calling for his assassination, and feeling nary a repercussion for calling for the premeditated murder of a fellow human.