Panetta as CIA Director

[wm]

let us assume that the agency is "removed". Where would you transfer its various functions ? - remember I'm the low level practice guy who likes concrete real world solutions.

Serious question, which has been asked by many - some, like Berntsen, say keep but reform the agency (he offers concrete proposals - whether they could or should be implemented is another discussion).

Others want it "removed" - but are short on concrete redeployments of its functions.

Pieces could be passed out to other agencies currently in existence; those agencies could have a collection focus, an analytic focus, or both. What would be missing would a central all-source fusion agency, an overarching collection management (CM) activity to make sure that intel collection resources were being tasked appropriately, and a central reporting/dissemination (D) activity to ensure that users get the intel they want in a timely way after production.
The Analysis, CM & D functions could be dragged up under the DNI.
Oh golly, isn't that what the CIA Director was really responsible for when he (sexist language intentional as I do not recall the Director position ever being filled by a woman) was also performing as the Director of Central Intelligence (the two are not the same thing) before we reorganized and put in a DNI? Silly me.

[jmm99]

Now, we have the DI moved under the DNI - and all the analysts are happy.

What do we do with the following basic functions:

1. Espionage

2. Disinformation

3. Special Operations

4. Counter-intelligence

realizing that these functions are generally illegal in the foreign countries where they operate.

[wm]

Now, we have the DI moved under the DNI - and all the analysts are happy.

What do we do with the following basic functions:

1. Espionage

2. Disinformation

3. Special Operations

4. Counter-intelligence

realizing that these functions are generally illegal in the foreign countries where they operate.

Except espionage, which is another name for HUMINT to most folks I think, this list comprises "scope creep" missions that should not be part of an intel organization anyway.

[Entropy]

WM,

A lot of that already happened with the 2004 intel reforms, though reality is still catching up

The CIA was stripped of most of its "prestige" responsibilities and by law should just be the HUMINT collection and covert action agency. The DNI and President Bush have slowly been making this the reality - it will be interesting to see if Panetta will complete the process. I'm guessing he will.

[Rex Brynen]

The CIA was stripped of most of its "prestige" responsibilities and by law should just be the HUMINT collection and covert action agency. The DNI and President Bush have slowly been making this the reality - it will be interesting to see if Panetta will complete the process. I'm guessing he will.

And where does the analytic function go? While it is uneven, from what I've seen there's no one who does it better in the USG (well, INR, but that works in part because it is a rather small shop).

[jmm99]

DI is under DNI - wm's proposal for it.

And "DO" is another agency from what I glean from Entropy:

... should just be the HUMINT collection and covert action agency

as to which, Entropy, does this include all four of the "blacker" functions:

1. Espionage

2. Disinformation

3. Special Operations

4. Counter-intelligence

See, we nearly have the re-orgnization solved - ain't we smart.

forgot to ask - Is this agency under DNI as in wm's proposal for DI ?

------------------
PS: Rex, I like "small shops" - the possibility of a meritocracy with functioning horizontal and vertical lines of communication. Can work for a few hundred people.

[Entropy]

JMM,

1. Espionage - yes definitely, this falls under CIA's HUMINT mandate. (google "national clandestine service" for more).
2. Disinformation - not sure what you mean here. Psyops? If so, I thinks that's spread around a bit. Not really sure.
3. CIA still does covert action stuff. It nests nicely with clandestine HUMINT.
4. CI is still distributed among the various agencies. There isn't yet a centralized CI organization.

You may find this CRS report of value:

[jmm99]

OK, now we have:

1. DI (directorate of intelligence - analysis) under DNI

2. DH (directorate of HUMINT - espionage) under DNI ?

And following wm's statement

Except espionage, which is another name for HUMINT to most folks I think, this list comprises "scope creep" missions that should not be part of an intel organization anyway.

that leaves three functions out to lunch:

1. Disinformation - generally non-violent stuff involving subversion, infiltration, planting stories & docs, political action dirty tricks - all in foreign counties.

2. Special Operations - violent stuff, small and big - again in foreign counties[*]

3. Counter-intelligence - penetration of or screwing up foreign intel agencies & protecting own against same (James Angelton stuff) - counter espionage is J. Edgar Hoover stuff.

Where do these go ?
[*]

from Entropy
CIA still does covert action stuff. It nests nicely with clandestine HUMINT.

Not sure that this OSS action stuff "nests nicely" with espionage. Comments from others - since we have had roughly 60 years of history here.

PS: have to go home now - will check in later. Good discussion.

[John T. Fishel]

As Entropy says, espionage is a function of HUMINT which is CIA (but also some DIA) The National Clandestine Service is still managed by CIA. Entropy (and JMM) disinformation is NOT PSYOP - as an old Psyoper. Disinformation is a subset of deception which is run as an intel op by the military (Fortitude in WWII) or by CIA. Special ops is primarily military -USSOCOM - but covert action both political and paramilitary falls under CIA from the National Security Act of 1947 where it talks about "such other activities as the President shall from time to time direct." CI is primarly an FBI function but DOD and others have a share - CIA also owns a piece overseas.

Rex, generally, I agree with you about CIA's analytical capability and INR's as well. there have been times, however, when DIA actually did better analytical work than CIA and times when sevice analytical elements were better than any of them. DI was not moved to DNI. It's still there and no analysis shop is limited to one intel discipline. they all do all source analysis an are limited only by what is not shared among the various elements of the community. When I was in the business, we got all of NSA's take, all of DIA's reports, all DOS cables and INR analysis, nothing from FBI, and supposedly everything from CIA. CIA always held back in those days and if something broke, you'd always get a flood of CIA traffic from the last several months.... My impression is that now there is far more sharing w/in the community than in my day and that it is largely elecronic. I had heard as well that the dreaded caveat, ORCON, is no longer seen - hope that is true.

Cheers

JohnT

[Tom Odom]

Honestly I thought then and still do that Army intelligence in the DFI did better military and pol-mil analysis in the 1990s. I also feel that ITAC and AIA when they existed were far better than either CIA or DIA when it came to ground focused operational to tactical intelligence. Case in point for both those arguments was Army DFI's role in pushing a clear picture of the Iraqi threat and reactions to an reconquest of Kuwait versus an intent to conquer Iraq and ITAC analysis of the Iraqi ground deployments in the KTO. CIA, State (not INR), and DIA were into group think that the world would end if we took Kuwait back.

On CIA regional analysis uneven is an accurate word. All depends on who is sitting in the chair. INR had an edge because they tended to stay. CIA-DI were younger and more transient. DIA suffered from the same plus then DIA decided to analyze along "functional" lines so you had transport analysts and military analysts etc etc. none of whom understood that a tank or a train or a plane in the Sudan or Congo was not the same as a tank or a train or a plane in South Africa (in the previous regime).

Longevity, training, and rewards are the keys to building an analytical base, regardless of agency.

Tom

[Entropy]

And where does the analytic function go? While it is uneven, from what I've seen there's no one who does it better in the USG (well, INR, but that works in part because it is a rather small shop).

That's a big question. Big parts of it have been stripped off - most notably the counter-terrorism analysis and management of NIE's which were consolidated under the DNI. Technically (if I'm reading the law right, which I might not be doing) CIA gets to retain an analysis capability as long as it relates to its HUMINT mission. Makes sense since NSA and NGA both have analysis functions as well. But CIA specialized in a lot of "all-source" analytical areas, particularly strategic-level analysis, and it's not clear to me what's going to happen there beyond the NIE change. I do remember reading somewhere that CIA has increased the number of analysts it employs, so that should tell us something.