CIA's Panetta, DNI Blair Must End Turf War and Switch Jobs

Each man is better suited to the other's role

June 18, 2009 RSS Feed Print

When Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, it did so to better protect the American people from the breakdown of vital intelligence that left our nation vulnerable on that infamous morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Administrative coordination of the various intelligence agencies—a key provision of the law—was met with initial skepticism, but a post-9/11 world required new approaches to preserve our national security.

Regrettably, the internecine turf wars that formerly compromised our intelligence community show signs of new life. This time around, the conflict involves Adm. Dennis Blair, President Obama's national intelligence director and a highly-decorated Pacific fleet commander, and Leon Panetta, a seasoned and immensely competent Washington insider who now leads the Central Intelligence Agency.

The New York Times reported on June 9 that Blair issued a directive in May announcing his intention to handpick every overseas senior intelligence officer. Panetta responded, staking out the exclusive and historic province of the CIA to install station chiefs. The disagreement quickly hit fever pitch, and senior administration officials have now been summoned to mediate a truce.

As a fundamental matter, the law specifically prohibits the director of national intelligence from concurrently serving as the director of the CIA. While this distinction may seem academic, it underscores a clear congressional intent to differentiate intelligence gathering from intelligence coordination. In other words, the business of spying must reside within the CIA and intelligence gathering entities.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created to "oversee the coordination of the relationships between elements of the intelligence community and the intelligence or security services of foreign governments." According to the law, the position is one designed to harmonize—not disrupt—the interrelationship of various intelligence agencies.

The CIA director, on the other hand, "shall coordinate the relationships between elements of the intelligence community and the intelligence or security services of foreign governments . . . on all matters involving intelligence related to the national security or involving intelligence acquired through clandestine means."

The distinction couldn't be more apparent. Director Blair is charged with the administrative oversight of the intelligence community. Director Panetta is charged with the active "command and control" of the CIA's foreign intelligence officers.

Director Blair's strategic office must resist the urge to assert command and control of the intelligence community in violation of both the letter and spirit of the law that created it. But that could be a tall order for a man who's earned his stripes—and his stars—by demonstrating those skills through years of naval command.

The challenges are there for Director Panetta too—from the burden of reinvigorating an agency hard hit in a current climate of congressional accusation to working within a legal framework that potentially buffers his direct access to the president. Panetta's strengths—the ability to direct the traffic of government at both the Office and Management and Budget and as White House chief of staff—are naturally predisposed to coordination and administration.

In this instance, the Obama administration has selected two outstanding and experienced leaders to serve America's national security interests. If internal conflicts now threaten the effective coordination of these interests, the president may need to intervene personally and reorganize his national security team. Perhaps Panetta, with his vast administrative and political experience, is better suited as DNI while Blair, with his extensive background as a commander, would thrive at the CIA.

Such organizational shakeups and senior-level swaps within an administration are common in presidential history. Indeed, they are often a sign of good and efficient management skills that ensure the nation's top leaders are assigned the most suitable roles.

With two wars to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with too many terrorist cells preparing for new attacks on the United States and our allies, the Obama administration must take every effort to prevent the type of stovepiping that undercut our strategic defenses, damaged the morale of frontline agents, and exposed the nation to the nefarious acts of 19 terrorists armed with box cutters and a few weeks of domestic flight school.

Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, is the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and a former member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Tags:
Leon Panetta,
Dennis Blair,
CIA

Reader Comments Read all comments (1)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

As this is written, in January of 2010, it is easy to see that this is an extremely well written article.

The main lesson of 911 was that Intel agencies needed to share info - but it also shed some light on the differences between the FBI and the CIA: The FBI is absolutely bound by the laws protecting all American Citizens, legal immigrants and visitors within U.S. territories, while the CIA has to operate in hostile environments that often respect no laws.

Civil and criminal courts are very different from military tribunals, just as common criminals are very different from enemy combatants and prisoners of war. Most people do not understand how the Geneva Convention applies to prisoners of war but not to enemy combatants.

This of course is a shame, but pales in comparison to not understanding that common criminals are considered innocent until proven guilty, while enemy combatants are 'by nature' captured in a war zone and considered guilty until proven otherwise.

Our military is in a war zone to win battles, not to gather evidence for lawyers to prosecute common criminals. In a war zone its kill or be killed! Captured enemy combatants are usually the lucky ones that manage to survive a loosing battle to an honorable and civilized opponent. Terrorists do not fall into that category and they usually do not take prisoners - instead, they take hostages to bargain with or to torture and decapitate on video to further their cause.

The war on terrorism is a misnomer: we are really in a war against Radical Islam. There are no 'prisoners of war' possible here, unless the terrorists start wearing uniforms with a country insignia and begin identifying themselves by name, rank, and serial number.

Black Ops are never meant to see the light of day and laws are meaningless on either side. Morality does not enter the equation here. A proper Commander-in-Chief can only provide guidance and must not attempt to micromanage field ops.

Diplomacy enters the equation at the Director of National Intelligence level, as he or she not only coordinates sharing information, but perhaps more importantly, as he or she makes sure that our laws are not violated by agencies under homeland jurisdiction.

Political Correctness cannot and should never be part of any calculation involving national security. A proper Commander-in-Chief would know the difference between image politics and the realities of a command structure geared towards security as the primary and mission-critical objective of the intelligence community.

The Constitution requires a Commander-in-Chief to be a Natural Born Citizen as a safeguard against 'divided loyalties'. Complexity and chaos between the various security agencies and the DNI command structure is a fatal flaw that could easily be exploited from within.

While we should all feel embarrassed by the recent failures of our DNI, CIA and FBI directors, we are still failing to connect the dots about our own president.

Sunnstarr of CA 3:24AM January 27, 2010

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Romney's Bain Experience Wasn't Real American Capitalism

The fact that Bain Capital served to make money for investors, not to create jobs, could endanger Romney.

Why Is Mitt Romney Embracing Birther Donald Trump?

Maybe Trump is Romney's idea of a rich guy that common people can relate to?

Does Barack Obama Actually Want to Be Re-Elected?

The president's lack of enthusiasm jeopardizes his campaign.

3 Reasons Why the Scott Walker Wisconsin Recall Election Matters

Scott Walker is a canary in a coal mine.

The Right's Fixation With 'Vetting' Obama

American voters can use the past four years to judge Obama's qualifications as president

Voters Tuning Out Flood of 2012 Super PAC, Campaign Ads

This will be the year of grassroots voters, not Nielsen families.

Scott Walker's Union Fight Helps Mitt Romney Against Barack Obama

The Wisconsin governor refuses to back down from his opposition to collective bargaining.

Why Is It Only Women Who Need 'Informing' on Reproductive Health?

Men's sexual behavior could also use some "controlling."

advertisement