Don't under-estimate the benefits of competition. While the fact that the various agencies were not sharing names was not very smart, the competition has driven excellence in the past.
One of my Uncles, now retired, was the president of a defense contractor that worked for the NSA, CIA and Pentagon in surveillance - cameras in satellites and spy planes.
From his perspective, the NSA and CIA were usually providing a far superior service to the Pentagon - which was driven by internal politics which led to obviously wrong and self-serving conclusions.
None of these organizations had any respect for the FBI, which was seen as both incompetent and forever eager to take credit for the work of others. Much of this was driven by the peculiar personality of J Edgar Hoover, which has left a lasting mark on the FBI. Most local law enforcement hate working with the FBI for exactly the same reasons.
Democracies may be inefficient, but the diversity of opinion they produce is important.
The claustrophobic decision making which led to the "Fiasco in Iraq" was the result of the neo-cons at the White House trying to shut down dissenting opinions. The CIA and NSA was furious, and I understand most of the folks at the Pentagon were unhappy.
Replicating this one-opinion intelligence gathering under one person, would simply create one politically driven fiasco after another.
To save money on defense, Americans need to decide they don't need to be an empire. Empires are expensive. It drove England to ruin, and before them, the Hapsburgs, the Ottomans, and a long list going back to the Romans and before.
America wasn't an Empire prior to WW-II, and its possible for Americans to live that way again - and get better at minding their own business. Its simply a matter of will. Can Americans scrape up the courage to give up their illusions of empire before it devastates them.
. |
