Bureaucratic Intelligence
Follows Bureaucratic Efficiency
James at Outside the Beltway points out this from Ralph Peters discussing the shortfalls in our intelligence gathering abilities. Bottom line:
It would have taken brilliant "out of the box" analysis to get it right. But our intelligence system is, above all, a bureaucracy. And bureaucracies cherish consistency, while shunning the risks of excellence. Bureaucracies only deliver what executives demand. Left to their own devices, they plod along in a defensive crouch.
Administrations come and go. If we truly want to improve our intelligence system, only sustained, bipartisan congressional action can force the critical changes.
Throw in certain policy changes such as the one precluding our agencies from 'hiring' certain foreigners as informants and other anti 'boots on the ground' methods and it is no wonder that we often come up short. This is especially true in certain rather closed societies such as those favored by Islamic Jihadists. Compound this with the tendency of our intelligence agencies to be forced to adhere to whatever political wind happens to be blowing at the moment and it is a wonder we knew anything about matters that would prove to be critical to our national security. For instance there is this
prescient warning:
Read more »
The Clinton administration has neglected the terrorist threat, with our public officials paying only lip service to the problem. The State Department office charged with conducting counterterrorist policy has been downgraded and gutted. It has lost 40% of its staff--a curious phenomenon when last year's bombing of the World Trade Center underscored the threat of Mideast terrorism. For many of us who have been involved in the struggle against terrorism, this is ominous. In the past, progress in the fight against terrorism depended on vigorous, visible and courageous U.S. leadership. Without such leadership now, we will soon lose more American lives.
[FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, JAN. 14, 1994]
(BY L. PAUL BREMER III)
This is from an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 14, 1994. This article, written by L. Paul Bremer, a former Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism, raises questions about this (Clinton) Administration's commitment to effective counterterrorism policies and programs.
How's that grab ya?
Deja Vu all over again, maybe?
Obviously, Mr. Bremer's concerns were well founded.
« Collapse
Posted by:
Randall
on Jan 31, 04 | 3:48 pm |
[8]
comments [1652] Views |
Permalink | [1331]
TrackBack |