The Intel Bill is indeed a thorny issue. And Duncan Hunter is bucking tide.
From soldiers I know first hand involved with intel, I am acutely aware of some problems. Bluntly said: How does CNN know where military is going to be (supposed to be) before even Mil Intel does? And will this bill effectively kick the butts of some lard-arses at the State Department (from whom I suspect the leaks are coming)?
The problem. Each of the intel branches intersects with each other -- but address specific areas which are ultimately related, but not in the day to day. NSA, for example, would be required to know that specific "insurgents" from country X were pouring into Fallujah, and in order to peer into domestic ops which may be related which means they might begin the "talk" string in a way that might compromise a Mil Operation; State Department would know, in order to attempt "conversation" with the insurgent country of origin (in order to halt the flow).
Of course it always works in a myriad of ways as far as "data" origination -- which Intel Unit.
Ergo, an Intel Czar.
And while the 911 commission was a kangaroo court in many ways.. on the periphery, there were some good points which emerged concerning Intel.
On thing this Intel Bill has done? Gotten major "brawls and conversations" going within the Intel arenas. That's the first step, IMHO. So much damage has been done to Intel over the past X years. It's gotta be addressed.
2 comments:
Maybe you can clarify some of the debate of the "intel Czar" for me, Alia.
The few Republicans and others in the Pentagon that are opposing the current bill say it's because it will delay needed intel to the military in the field.
Granted, I think there needs to be a melting pot for intel so it is shared for effective anti-terrorism action. Especially for domestic security.
But creating more channels of data filtering can also unduly burden our warriors if necessary military intel gets sidetracked by yet more gov't departments.
You see, I still believe that the most efficient path runs a straight line between two points. Diverting everything thru a single oversight agency does not strike me as being the most effective cure for the intel-sharing problem.
I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the intel bill. Thus I'm in limbo on the creation of this Czar. Got something to help me out here?
I'll keep my eyes peeled for any article which might facilitate understanding of how "intel" works among the agencies; and the Military. Right now, military budget has to come first. However, the other agencies are brawling for their split of the budget. Processes and procedures are tied to money.
I've read through some "news" on the subject of the Intel Bill. I would hazard to say: phase I has been accomplished. And what, in plain terms, is phase I? Getting the agencies to work together. Now I know this sounds dull and plain; but it is actually FAR MORE COMPLICATED a process than it might appear on surface. This will also call for a revamping of the "classification" system, and who gets what data based on what criteria. I'm impressed that JUST this part of the bigger picture has been accomplished. In order to accomplish this.. right in the middle of all these different "parts" one needs a "clearing desk" -- a person/unit on top of all the newer laws and rules. Someone who will get that newer process going. Over time, the intel umbrella begins to work together. But, there has to be a "center". A nerve center, initially.
Post a Comment