By Kevin D. Williamson
Friday, January 06, 2017
The Wall Street
Journal reports that Donald Trump’s recent public criticism of U.S.
intelligence agencies presages an effort to reorganize the nation’s sundry spy
bureaucracies. Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, denies that the president
has any such plan in mind.
If he doesn’t, he damn well should.
The plan described in the Journal is not unlike the one described in National Review on December 9 by Fred Fleitz of the Center for
Security Policy, which would scale back the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI), a post-9/11 innovation intended to create a central
authority to ensure cooperation and coordination within the herd of cats that
is the intelligence community. Fleitz and others have argued that ODNI is just
another ladle full of federal alphabet soup — CIA, DIA, NIC, etc. — doing very
little more than adding a layer of bureaucracy.
Conservatives have a blind spot for spies, cops, and
soldiers. The psychology here is pretty straightforward: A great many
conservatives (myself included) who are habitually and instinctively skeptical
of grand federal plans were insufficiently beady-eyed when it came to President
George W. Bush’s big plans for Iraq, and some of that (again, speaking for
myself first and foremost, but not, I think, for myself alone) is purely
reactionary. When I see a bunch of dopey white kids with dreadlocks from
Haverford College, the Workers World Party, and Chaka Fattah on one side of a
barricade, I instinctively want to be on the other side. (This is especially
true at the moment for Fattah, the longtime Philadelphia Democrat and Hugo
Chávez fanboy who is headed to the penitentiary for corruption.) This is, to be
sure, an imperfect heuristic.
There is a question of agents and a separate question of
agencies. Many of us, especially conservatives, are inclined to respect and
admire those whose profession consists in performing necessary violence: police
on the beat in New York City, soldiers patrolling Mosul, and intelligence
operatives who, if they are doing their jobs, will never hear the words “Thank
you for your service.” But bureaucracies have lives and characters of their
own, irrespective of the sort of men they employ. The public schools are made
up mostly of good people, but they don’t work very well. One imagines that most
IRS agents are scrupulous and dedicated. (The DMV people just hate us.) Out of
the field of operations and into the cubicles and corner offices, the NYPD, the
FBI, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency are
bureaucracies like any others, and suffer from familiar bureaucratic ailments.
The standard text on this is James Wilson’s Bureaucracy, though it is an interesting
sign of our times that recent years have produced not one but two excellent
novels on the subject of bureaucracy: David Foster Wallace’s The Pale King (a novel about the IRS)
and my friend Jim Geraghty’s The Weed
Agency (a novel about the USDA’s Agency of Invasive Species). If you have
ever spent much time around people with intelligence careers, you’ll soon learn
the disappointing and unglamorous truth that life in the CIA is a lot less like
a James Bond movie and a great deal more like the municipal planning-and-zoning
commission in San Bernardino.
These are mainly management problems, which is one reason
that the suggestion that Carly Fiorina might be entrusted with overseeing
reform efforts is encouraging. We don’t lose wars because our soldiers cannot
win them but because our politicians cannot; similarly, we are not losing the
intelligence wars because we lack a national talent for spookery.
But we are losing the intelligence wars.
The failures of the intelligence community leading up to
9/11 are well documented, and there is very little reason to believe that the
reforms undertaken since then have radically improved things. Coordination
among relevant agencies, which include law-enforcement agencies, remains
shockingly poor. Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston, Fort Hood — when was the last
time we had a domestic terrorist attack in which the perpetrators were not
already on the authorities’ radar or in a position in which they obviously
should have been? We apparently allowed the Russians to set up two very large
and semi-open espionage operations in Maryland and New York, and the government
could not be moved to do anything about them until Vladimir Putin started
playing dirty tricks in the U.S. presidential election.
The higher up the chain you go, the worse the failures
get.
Federal failures have been noticed at the state and local
levels. After 9/11, the NYPD built a very highly regarded intelligence
operation, only to see it crippled by politics. This week, Florida governor
Rick Scott went to his state legislature asking for a relatively small sum,
about $6 million, to begin building a counterterrorism operation at the state
level in the wake of the massacre in Orlando. This is a worthwhile development,
but there is only so much that can be done at the state and local levels.
What is needed is a seamless-garment approach to
intelligence gathering at the federal level, which will necessarily touch everything
from financial oversight to immigration to old-fashioned military and espionage
operations. The dissemination of that information to and coordination with
domestic law-enforcement agencies poses some tricky legal and ethical questions
— questions that we will want answered in a consistent and effective way that
comports with our existing civil-rights practices.
There is very little reason to have confidence that our
current intelligence leadership, tied to our current bureaucratic structures,
is up to that task.
The next time you’re taking your shoes off at the
airport, think what a few million dollars’ worth of prevention and bureaucratic
reform might have accomplished at the end of the 20th century, and how
different the world and this country might have looked had things gone
differently.
This isn’t a fight about ethanol subsidies or another
culture-war campaign about which toilet is used by whom. Some things you have
to get right, and this is one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment