Intel Overhaul
Just as you wouldn't overhaul your transmission to fix a worn out spark plug, the Congress is right to resist efforts by members of both parties to press for immediate overhaul of the Intel community during this lame duck season for the 108th Congress. There has been much ado about the failure to move the legislation through the House, and Representatives Hunter and Sensenbrenner have taken much heat over the issue. We've been wrong to ignore their objections and should be applauding their support for real reform and insight into the possible unintended consequences of hasty reform, in particular the concerns of Representative Hunter.
The Center for Security Policy in a conclusion to a recent brief paints the picture as completely political posturing by the proponents of immediate reform:
Perhaps the real reason some in Congress are so intent on getting "intelligence reform" legislation done now is that consideration of this matter next year would almost certainly require action they are resisting and have not addressed in the current bill: Much-needed streamlining and other improvements in legislative oversight of the intelligence community. That possibility to do real good is another excellent reason for our leaders to avoid doing harm to American intelligence when the lame duck session resumes next week.It is hard to disagree with the general sentiment, but the political posturing over the border security issues involved are perhaps misplaced as the Congress has had three years to move for tighter border security and has failed to meaningfully do so. The real issue, with the current bill, is the possible consequences of further separating the Intel community, now functioning more closely at home and abroad, from the military services who are dependent on their support, analysis and satellite based participation prior to and during hostile actions.
Patience. Early next year, after the new Congress has arrived, the House should address the Intel Reform matter, as well as the issues relating to border security. If they haven’t done so within a quarter of the year, we’ll know they don’t intend to act and can begin to seek candidates who will. We’ll also have to pay significant attention to the language of any reform, in particular their willingness to address their oversight of the Intel community, how funding and budgetary responsibility is handled and the future of the NID.
