THE WESTERN FRONT
Hunter and the Hunted
Will John Negroponte do right by military intelligence? Early signs are encouraging.
WSJ.com
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:01 a.m.
It's perhaps the most pressing question facing us in the war on terror: How do we push large bureaucracies like the FBI and CIA into becoming nimble organizations capable of fighting an intelligence-driven battle with al Qaeda? Judging by recent reports, this isn't a question the FBI is able to answer. It also befuddles many in the media.
We've learned recently that the FBI utterly failed in its attempt to set up a new computerized case-file system--something the 9/11 commission considered vital. In the process the FBI wasted $170 million and years of effort--precious time that may give al Qaeda's cells a jump on pulling off the next attack inside this country. We've also just learned from an inspector general's report many of the embarrassing details of how the bureau failed to detect the 9/11 plot before it was too late. Those details go far beyond simply not searching Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop. Moussaoui, famous for being arrested while taking flight lessons a few weeks before the attacks, remains the only person prosecuted in the United States for alleged involvement in the Sept. 11 plot.
It also turns out that before the attacks the FBI knew two suspected terrorists, known to the CIA to have participated in a "terrorist summit" in Asia, were inside the United States. Those two individuals were living in San Diego, yet the FBI assigned an inexperienced field agent to track them down. Meanwhile, the bureau's agent assigned to the CIA knew how dangerous these men were and wanted to pass that information along to the FBI in early 2000, more than a year and a half before the attacks. But his CIA superiors blocked him, and he failed to push the issue aggressively. The result was that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were free to become two of the 19 hijackers.
Replaying this bit of recent history isn't just a way of embarrassing the CIA and FBI--although we can all hope it does that. It's also crucial to understanding how to avoid making the same mistakes again. When the inspector general's report came out, the press rightly pilloried the FBI. But oddly, no one in the media seemed to connect it to another hot intelligence story burning off the pages the past week--namely, Rep. Duncan Hunter's efforts to prevent the intelligence czar from being able to shift personnel from one intelligence agency to another without congressional approval. Mr. Hunter, the San Diego Republican who serves as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, proposed legislation that would have required the national intelligence director to inform and receive acknowledgement from relevant congressional committees before moving personnel.
The press portrayed this as a replay of the battle that held up intelligence reform last year, so Mr. Hunter took a beating. Former Navy secretary and 9/11 commissioner John Lehman went so far as to say Mr. Hunter was simply carrying water for the military bureaucracy. "This is a classic Washington turf battle," he told the New York Times.
More likely this is another example of Washington myopia. It's true that the newly minted National Director of Intelligence John Negroponte needs to be able to shift personnel around within the intelligence community. It's probably the only way to marshal bureaucratic resources to meet emerging threats and will likely prove to be a vital tool in bringing the bureaucracy to heel. Preserving that power was the first test of his strength and it was important in sending the message to send to both Congress and the bureaucracy that this executive is taking charge. But it could also be one way for the FBI's and CIA's ineptness to spread to military intelligence agencies--which are among the most effective tools we have to gather actionable information.
Call it a turf war if you must, but stopping the military's intelligence agencies from being gutted of effective personnel in favor of the FBI or CIA is vital to national security. After all, the military is now engaged in a hot war with terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq and a less intense war in other parts of the world. Let us also not forget that the intelligence reform signed into law last year came perilously close to cutting the secretary of defense out of the loop on many intelligence decisions. It was only because Mr. Hunter and a few other congressmen, including Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, dug in their heels that the bill was finally stripped of such nonsense.
But that still leaves us with the original question: How to shape up the intelligence bureaucracy? Since 9/11 the FBI has beefed up its antiterrorism personnel, so the problem isn't a lack of warm bodies. What matters is where Mr. Negroponte will want to put them. The problem in the past was getting them all to talk to each other--which is one reason why the Patriot Act, among other things, knocked down some of the walls separating intelligence and the law-enforcement agents assigned to stop terrorists.
Mr. Negroponte has kept pretty close counsel on his ideas as he works on setting up a new office and recruiting as many as 2,000 new staffers, so most of us will have to wait and see what he will do. The danger has always been that in the Washington turf wars, the military would get sidelined while the FBI and CIA would be given the lead in going after al Qaeda.
An encouraging sign is that Mr. Negroponte isn't setting up shop inside the CIA or the FBI. He's taken up temporary offices inside the Eisenhower Executive Office building, part of the White House complex. Mr. Negroponte couldn't be any closer to the Oval Office unless he had a desk inside the West Wing.
Not content to sit on his hands to wait and see what happens, Mr. Hunter decided to press the issue and last week met with Mr. Negroponte on Capitol Hill. The specifics of what they discussed haven't been disclosed. But afterward, Mr. Hunter withdrew his support for the controversial legislation. Perhaps Mr. Negroponte pointed out that he understands the importance of military intelligence because he saw it in action on his recent tour as ambassador to Iraq or that the executive branch has to be able to take the lead here. At any rate, Mr. Hunter now seems confident that the military isn't going to get the shaft when no one is looking. And that is a good way to start as Mr. Negroponte now has a relatively free hand to push the FBI in the right direction.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
