POLITICS MARCH 25, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Many of Barack Obama's foreign policy initiatives are designed in direct philosophical opposition to the policies--indeed, the worldview--of the Bush administration. On Iraq, Obama does not merely say that he wants to end mismanagement of the war (like John McCain), nor the war itself (like Hillary Clinton)--he says, "I don't want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us in the war."
One of Obama's most important attempts to roll back the Bush administration's foreign policy is also among the least understood. It is his proposal for intelligence reform. Obama's rebuke to conservative orthodoxy on this issue can be found buried in a Q&A and complementary article published earlier this month in the Washington Post: "Obama repeated his pledge to end the Bush administration's 'politicization of intelligence' and said he would give the director of national intelligence--who currently serves at the pleasure of the president--a fixed term, similar to that of the Federal Reserve chairman."
It's common for Democrats to promise an end to Bush-style politicization of intelligence. But the way that Obama frames the issue--likening the DNI to the independent, technocratic Chairman of the Federal Reserve--indicates that his view of the intelligence process is ontologically opposed to the way conservatives see it. As Franklin Foer has explained in detail in The New Republic, the Bush administration justified its pre-war intel abuses using a methodological critique that dates back, at least, to the 1970s (some trace it back to Edmund Burke's distrust of the Enlightenment).
The administration argued that the CIA put too much trust in the social-science methods cultivated by people like the CIA's "father of intelligence analysis," Sherman Kent. Abram Shulsky, who ran the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans--the outfit that produced "alternate intelligence" to justify the Iraq war--decried "the view that intelligence is, at bottom, an endeavor similar to social science, if not equivalent to it," which led to the pernicious belief that "intelligence analysis can be divorced from the policy process and, indeed, be apolitical in nature. As a result, one can even talk about creating within the intelligence community an analytic arm along the lines of a 'world-class think-tank'."
By contrast, Obama's proposal reaffirms exactly that view: in saying the DNI should be like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, (rather than, say, the Secretary of Defense, who always serves at the pleasure of the President), the candidate is throwing his weight behind the idea that the intelligence community (IC) should be an independent assessor of empirically-verifiable facts; that intelligence assessment is a non-ideological exercise in finding out what's true and what's not.
That task, in this view, is more appropriate for an agency with an independent mandate and fixed-term leadership like the Fed, the SEC, or the FEC. Like those agencies, the IC has made its share of mistakes. Finding the truth is--of course--a difficult task, and even those who strive for empiricism and objectivity inevitably commit errors. That's true even when the White House and Congress are not pressuring them. But, contrary to current, unwarranted popular perceptions, the IC is actually quite good at doing its job, learning from its mistakes, and adapting its procedures to meet new challenges.
Adopting Obama's approach toward intelligence wouldn't solve everything. We would have to ensure that a fixed term for the DNI does not become a license for complacency. And it would be important to strengthen oversight, minimizing the independent DNI's incentive to create a bureaucratic fiefdom like J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.
But, ever since President Nixon's administration disregarded CIA data because he feared they were "soft" and in league with the liberal "Georgetown social set"; continuing through the notorious Team B "alternative intelligence" exercise in 1976 and Donald Rumsfeld's politicized 1998 ballistic missile commission; right up to the Iraq War, presidents and congressmen have used the intelligence community as a political football. Most recently, there was the scuffle over last year's National Intelligence Estimate, which can only be understood in the context of the Bush administration's past attempts to pressure the CIA over Iraq and Iran.
Because the CIA felt the need to push back against the Bush administration's constant pressure to find incriminating evidence about Iran, the Agency issued an NIE that basically slapped the administration in the face--creating a headline that rendered U.S. policy on Iran's uranium enrichment program all but inert until 2009. The Bush administration started this cycle of recrimination, and the end result is that Iran continues to enrich uranium--the most difficult part of making a nuclear bomb--and the U.S. has been helpless to pressure Tehran to stop, to the point where the Europeans were so alarmed they decided to take up the slack.
If the Bush administration had taken a pragmatic approach to Iran's activities, rather than cooking the books to fit its own views, we would have been able to have a substantive, gradual policy that increases pressure on Iran in proportion to its progress on uranium enrichment. And the IC and the administration wouldn't be looking over their shoulders at each other, so suspicious that it's near-impossible for the U.S. to figure out, and devise a rational response to, the true situation on the ground.
Working at the CIA, by all accounts, is like working at a company that's constantly being bought, purged, reorganized, and subjected to political recriminations. Establishing some independence for the intelligence community, as Obama suggests, would be a step towards rectifying that problem. At least, it would create some stability in the IC and place the mission of intelligence agencies in its proper context--of uncovering facts about the rest of the world, not furthering political agenda of whoever happens to occupy the White House.
Barron YoungSmith is a web intern at The New Republic. He was a research assistant on the upcoming book U.S. vs. Them: How a Half-Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security.
20 comments
The problem with intelligence under Bush was that it was under Bush. Bill Clinton was quite extraordinary in his use of intelligence and with the organizations. http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/63/22170 I would like to hear about HRC's strategy--it would have been much more interesting if you had written a comparison article--but it seems that all that is ever published are Obama's views. To say that one wants to be diametrically opposed to the Bush method of doing things is pretty predictable.
- susan k. (NYC)
March 25, 2008 at 1:40am
Beautiful. I just found this site recently and appreciate the well written articles that are difficult (if not impossible) to find in any mainstream news media.
- Matt in Austin
March 25, 2008 at 10:47am
This solution would work if the CIA were merely an intelligence-gathering agency. But it has an operations wing as well. These are quasi-military activities, and it has been a hallmark of democracy that the military is subject to the authority of the elected civilian leadership. In its history, the CIA has usually gotten involved in shady activities with the support of presidents and their top advisors--see, rendition, toppling governments in Guatemala and Iran, trying to assassinate Castro and other world leaders. But it is entirely possible that a CIA director will want to do more of these things than a president, and in that case, it is important that a president be able to fire the director, just as it was important that Truman be able to fire McCarther.
- Drew
March 25, 2008 at 11:43am
I disagree with the statement that that is all you ever hear are Obama's views. I think what you hear is the media wanting to focus on anythign that open to debate. Since both candidates agree on each issue ad well as the most of the democratic party ...then that leaves nothing else but he says she says. But I agree that thi smay have made a good discussion. I on the other hand beleives that if the issue has anythign to do with secrets, maintainig and asserting power then the Clinton are all in.
- Cassandra
March 25, 2008 at 12:37pm
The failure of intelegence in Iraq in fact began with the Clinton administration.
- Roberto
March 25, 2008 at 12:58pm
Excellent article. I agree with taking this approach. It allows for the IC 1. To recruit people of diverse talents as well and 2. To cultivate leadership that serves the mission and not be used by the President in office to further ideological goals
- Ramon Morales
March 25, 2008 at 2:44pm
this sounds kind of nuts
- a
March 25, 2008 at 9:49pm
"The problem with intelligence under Bush was that it was under Bush. Bill Clinton was quite extraordinary in his use of intelligence and with the organizations." And yet...he completely missed the fact that North Korea had re-started their nuclear program and Osama Bin Laden was planning to attack America. Yeah...the guy was a genius....
- Mike
March 26, 2008 at 11:01am
I remember when TNR was a credible journalistic organ. These days, though, it seems more like a paid broadsheet for the Obama campaign. A CEO for intelligence? Brilliant. Why has no-one thought of that before? Perhaps because the rot within the IC goes much deeper - to Stansfield Turner's evisceration of the agencies' HUMINT capabilities three decades ago, and to the current risk-averse culture that is perpetuated by both policymakers and the media. Simply exchanging figureheads will do little to improve matters unless more fundamental reforms are attempted. A policymaker interested in serious change - and a writer with more than a passing acquaintance with the history of American intelligence - would know as much.
- Alan
March 26, 2008 at 4:18pm
I remember when TNR was a credible journalistic organ. These days, though, it seems more like a paid broadsheet for the Obama campaign. A CEO for intelligence? Brilliant. Why has no-one thought of that before? Perhaps because the rot within the IC goes much deeper - to Stansfield Turner's evisceration of the agencies' HUMINT capabilities three decades ago, and to the current risk-averse culture that is perpetuated by both policymakers and the media. Simply exchanging figureheads will do little to improve matters unless more fundamental reforms are attempted. A policymaker interested in serious change - and a writer with more than a passing acquaintance with the history of American intelligence - would know as much.
- Alan
March 26, 2008 at 4:27pm
mainstream media can take a lesson from this article. this is the type of stuff we should be talking about; not the comments someone's pastor made. These are ideas that affects everyone in America,
- Leonard
March 26, 2008 at 5:15pm
Obama be praised. Fact gathering must be independent of politics. Covert action, on the other hand, must be under guidance by the executive branch with a lot of Senate oversight. More nuance needed.
- Marvin Sussman
March 26, 2008 at 8:12pm
This is a very good start on a good article. That is one that compares Obama's with Hillary's views on the subject. To make it a great article, compare those with McCain's and examples of Bill Clinton's and George W.'s use of intelligence in specific situations and how the changes proposed by Hillary and Obama would be have likely changed or affected the outcomes of those examples. There are more than a few key areas where we should be comparing the candidates' positions, not just health care, taxes and education. This is one of them. Like I said ... it was a good start...
- David McClure
March 27, 2008 at 5:33pm
And what is to stop the "independent" CIA from skewing intel analysis to promote its own policy views? The CIA leaks like a sieve because of a rogue element that undermines any policy or president it doesn't support. Obama's proposal would remove what little control there is now to prevent that kind of mutinous behavior. I find it hard to believe that this publication still credits that "manipulation of Iraq intel" nonsense after the unanimous, bipartisan Senate Select Intel Committee reported in detail on the how and why of another intel failure. Didn't the Clinton administration bomb Iraq in 1998 on account of the same non-existent WMD stockpiles?
- Ron C
March 27, 2008 at 6:29pm
Remove the CIA from government oversight? Scary!
- olcottr
March 28, 2008 at 12:40pm
Humor me, would you? What doesn't TNR like about Obama? Could you please find anyone on your staff who hasn't swallowed the propaganda from the Obama handlers? Or has your magazine been renamed the Obama journal written by his loyal and mezmerized followers?
- at_david
March 30, 2008 at 12:45am
Brilliant, I agree.. this is the kind of Idea of change that we should be listening to and talking about. excellent Sen. Obama!....more ...more...leave the other tuff to the others. Deal in strenght, this is strong!
- Sabastian Shaw
March 30, 2008 at 11:41pm
I agree with the very basis of your piece - that the IC needs to have the freedom to stop feeling in a defensive posture all the time, thus enabling them to do their jobs. However, I don't think Obama's plan of making the DNI position a termed position will get the job done. Firstly, throughout the history of the CIA, the DCI (and now the DNI) has not been purged and replaced by the new administration. Prime example is Tenet's existence in both Clinton's and Bush's tenures. So this new plan would essentially just make into law what currently already happens empiracally. Secondly, the DNI would still remain a presidential appointee, thus making him a choice of someone's agenda, even if not the current administration. Thirdly, the job is so high-stress that the DCI/DNI typically resigns before the administration that chose him is even out of the White House. If this occurs as has been precedent, the existence of terms won't matter. What we need is merely more oversight - from Congress, the media, and the public - in order to allow the IC to do its job without politics.
- Shanna
April 2, 2008 at 5:27pm
I have a non-rhetorical question for the people on here who are nervous about the CIA becoming more independent: Given the power the Fed has over both our economy and that of other nations, do you feel that IT has too much freedom too?
- michael
April 2, 2008 at 8:54pm
I was a 97C40 (Area Intelligence Specialist) in Viet Nam. We were tasked with running operations to collect INFORMATION on the enemy. We "Charlies" (for the "C" in the MOS)were an eclectic bunch - intelligent, motivated, even a little egotistical...but we did the job. We gathered and submitted INFORMATION which predicted the Tet Uprising, assault on Khe Sanh and many other enemy operations. This INFORMATION was processed into INTELLIGENCE by the"Analysts". These analysts had a different agenda which was basically to filter this information and forward it to the combat units. Unfortunately, this often meant "spinning" the info to fit whatever message the Administration (MACV) was pushing. I will never forget the tine the S2 of the 101 Airborne personally visited our safehouse in Hue just before the A Shau Valley Operation pleading for us to provide him with the UNFILTERED information we had collected. Going forward, we cannot continue political considerations to color or compromise the disemmenation of raw information collected by our clandestine services.
- Frank A. Silvera
November 13, 2008 at 5:29pm