RUTHFULLY YOURS

Two former leaders of the Bush administration‘s national security team on Friday slammed Vice President Biden for denigrating the U.S. intelligence community and accusing intelligence officials of causing “the inconsistent and shifting response of the Obama Administration” in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack as described in the Examiner.

Former CIA director Michael Hayden and Michael Chertoff, who served as Secretary of Homeland Security, slammed Biden for insisting that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi did not ask for more U.S. security personnel before it was attacked which is the opposite of what Obama’s minions told Congress and the American people.

“During the Vice Presidential debate, we were disappointed to see Vice President Biden blame the intelligence community for the inconsistent and shifting response of the Obama Administration to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” they said in their statement.

“Given what has emerged publicly about the intelligence available before, during, and after the September 11 attack, it is clear that any failure was not on the part of the intelligence community, but on the part of White House decision-makers who should have listened to, and acted on, available intelligence. Blaming those who put their lives on the line is not the kind of leadership this country needs,” they said.

Hayden, a career intelligence officer and retired U.S. Air Force general, and Chertoff, a former federal judge and prosecutor, both served in the Bush administration.

One complaint often heard privately within law enforcement circles is that the Central Intelligence Agency during the Obama years has morphed into a Liberal think-tank rather than maintaining its role as a strategic and tactical intelligence agency. An even bigger concern is that the agency has become overly politicized and prone to leaking information to the mainstream news media in order to have an impact upon the political climate within the Beltway.

The process by which intelligence requirements and priorities are established warrants a dramatic overhaul, according to intelligence analysts. Requirements for both collection and analysis should be heavily influenced by the needs of policymakers, an imperative that argues against suggestions to isolate the collection agencies further or increase their autonomy. The need to insulate intelligence from political pressure is a powerful argument for maintaining a strong, centralized capability and not leaving intelligence bearing on national concerns up to individual policymaking departments, experts tell the Law Enforcement Examiner.

Competitive analysis of controversial questions can also help guard against politicization, as can Congress and the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), although one complaint is that President Obama rarely attends PFIAB meetings.

Competitive or redundant analysis needs to be carried out and conveyed to policymakers in those areas where being wrong can have major consequences. The leaders of the intelligence community must reinforce the ethic that speaking the truth to those in power is required, and defend anyone who comes under criticism for so doing, experts say.

The best way to ensure high-quality analysis is to bring high quality analysts into the process. Analysis would be improved by increasing the flow of talented people into the intelligence community from outside the government. Greater provision should be made for lateral and mid-career entry of such analysts as well as for their short-term involvement in specific projects. Closer ties between universities and the intelligence community are not desirable in this regard. Careerists would benefit from greater opportunities to spend time in other departments and nongovernmental organizations, including those involved in commerce and finance.

“The most important function for the clandestine services is the collection of human intelligence, that is, espionage. Such intelligence can complement other sources and, especially in closed societies, be the principal or sole source of information. In so doing, it will at times prove necessary to associate the United States with unsavory individuals, including some who have committed crimes. This is acceptable so long as the likely benefits for policy outweigh the moral and political costs of the association,” said former military intelligence and police intelligence official Michael Snopes.

The capability to undertake covert action is an important national security tool, one that can provide policymakers a valuable alternative or complement to other policies, including diplomacy, sanctions, and military intervention. Building a capacity for both espionage and covert action takes time and resources; nurturing such a clandestine capability ought to be one of the highest priorities of the intelligence community. Constraints on clandestine activity need to be reviewed periodically to ensure that they do not unduly limit the effectiveness of this tool,