Intelligence_ From Secrets to Policy - Mark M. Lowenthal [25]
Some of these enterprise objectives reflect the findings of the various studies and commissions undertaken after September 11, 2001, and the Iraq WMD issue. Others reflect issues of much longer standing. The same is true of DNI McConnell’s 100 and 500 Day Plans. (These documents can all be found at www.odni.gov.)
The National Intelligence Strategy is written at a higher strategic level than the 100 and 500 Day Plans, which are more immediate action plans. Both DNIs were attempting to force a greater sense of community over a disparate group of agencies over which they exercised very little real control. The issue for either approach is how the DNI would use his somewhat limited authority to enforce these goals. Many of these goals are ambitious and some would require major changes in how agencies work or how they conceive of their role, as well as their culture. Thus, the 100 and 500 Day Plans can also be seen as an attempt by McConnell to flex his bureaucratic powers to see how extensive they are. McConnell also felt that there was a disparity between his authorities under law and under the executive order under which he operated, signed by President Reagan in 1981. Therefore, he promoted drafting a new order to reflect the current structure.
DNI Negroponte correctly described the activities of his office as “a work in progress.” Congress, however, has expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of reform. A report from the House Intelligence Committee in July 2006 complained about a “lack of urgency” in intelligence reform. At the same time, efforts by some in Congress to enhance the DNI’s authority have run afoul of members protecting the interests of other agencies, particularly the Department of Defense (DOD).
How would one know that intelligence reform was working? The answer, based on DNI McConnell’s 100 and 500 Day Plans, apparently would be the ability of the DNI to enforce a series of procedural and cultural reforms on the intelligence community. This is a laudable but somewhat vague result, which underscores the problems inherent in judging the pace of intelligence reform.
Figure 3-1 The Intelligence Community: An Organizational View
The U.S. intelligence community is generally perceived as being hierarchical and bureaucratic, emphasizing vertical lines of authority. Figure 3-1 offers such a view but also categorizes agencies by intelligence budget sectors: National Intelligence Program (NIP, formerly the National Foreign Intelligence Program, renamed to recognize the inclusion of homeland security and domestic intelligence); the Military Intelligence Program (MIP), made up of two former military intelligence budget programs; the Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP); and Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA).
The NSC has authority over the director of national intelligence, who in turn oversees, but does not direct, the CIA. The CIA, unlike the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) at the Department of State or the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) at DOD, has no cabinet-level patron but reports to the DNI, although the DNI does not have operational control over the CIA. The CIA’s main clients continue to be the president and the NSC. This relationship has both benefits and problems. The CIA has access to the ultimate decision maker, but it can no longer count on this access through its own director given that much