Woolsey Walks Away After Turning CIA Down Road to Change

Just as he was beginning to rejuvenate the beleaguered Central Intelligence Agency, R. James Woolsey is leaving it at perhaps one of its most critical times.

The nation’s spy network, heralded during the darkest days of the Cold War, has been scorched by the espionage scandal involving Aldrich H. Ames and humiliated by widespread allegations of sexual harassment and male clubbiness.

It also faces the political reality of a shrinking budget and a new Republican Congress eager to plant its own imprint on the intelligence community in the years ahead.

Woolsey was the first CIA director from the outside to take the helm with the stated intent of moving the agency through the changes needed in a post-Cold War era. It is a job he will leave unfinished.

“These are tough changes ahead,” Woolsey told The Times last month, describing the predicament of trying to boost the effectiveness and morale of a secret organization that has come sharply under fire.

“I’ve got to say things in a way that doesn’t tell people that their institution is worthless and that it’s fallen into such disrepute that it can’t be repaired. So it’s kind of a tough line I walk,” he said.

“And the trick in all this is in walking the line of convincing people that there are some things that need to change, like greater counterintelligence awarenesses and less of a clubbish atmosphere. And that it’s not true that once you’re inside the door (at CIA headquarters) that you can be trusted with everything.”

Indeed, the CIA is under public scrutiny like almost never before.

On Capitol Hill, Senate and House intelligence committees soon will be chaired by Republicans who have their own ideas on making the CIA more accountable to the public trust.

“I’m coming at this from a different perspective,” said Rep. Larry Combest (R-Tex.), who will head the House Select Committee on Intelligence. “I’m going to come at this from a standpoint of how much do we need. I want to define the need for intelligence before I define its size. And there’s no blank check on this anymore.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who will head the Senate intelligence panel, promised to be equally vigilant. One of his great concerns is whether the Ames spy scandal and the allegations of sexual harassment are an aberration or part of deep structural failings inside an agency in serious need of rehabilitation.

“It’s a real dangerous thing, as to whether this is systemic,” Specter said. “I am prepared to say it’s a real worry.”

The Clinton Administration has designs of its own on reshaping the intelligence apparatus in Washington. A special presidential commission has been established and, under the auspices of former Defense Secretary Les Aspin, will meet over the next year to draw up recommendations for improving both the civilian and military intelligence networks.

Such former CIA directors as Robert M. Gates and William H. Webster credit Woolsey with taking the first steps toward reforming the agency. But they see more that needs to be accomplished before real improvements will come about.

Gates, for instance, has made a series of speeches outlining a 10-point plan that ranges from creating a separate director of military intelligence to halting the large amount of duplication by various government agencies in compiling intelligence data.

“I would consider these to be a menu of changes that would be fairly dramatic taken together,” Gates said in an interview. “And it would enable the government to do a lot of restructuring.”

Webster, while not as specific in his reform proposals, said the Woolsey changes and other recommendations he has made should be continued.

“Jim has moved well down the road in terms of downsizing,” Webster said. “There’s nothing magic about the shape of the agency, as long as it’s relevant to its time.”

Indeed, Woolsey seemed intent on rehabilitating the agency.

In the 10 weeks between Ames’ arrest and the imposition of his life prison sentence, Woolsey and his subordinates held a total of 242 meetings with members of Congress and their staffs--in formal committee sessions, in small groups and in individual discussions.

During that same period, intelligence experts advised the White House on such issues as North Korea, Russia, Iraq and international organized crime. In March, they gave more than 1,300 intelligence briefings to government officials here and abroad.

As part of an array of steps he hoped would increase effectiveness at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., Woolsey has:

* Implemented mandatory training for counterintelligence and new procedures for coordinating CIA and FBI operations, appointing a special assistant for counterintelligence who reports directly to the head of the CIA.

* Drafted new guidelines for CIA managers and created the office of personnel security to monitor employee performance.

* Brought changes to the agency’s bread-and-butter directorate of operations, including new employee evaluations and an overhaul of its training program.

But even as Woolsey was remodeling his organization, many of his detractors said he was not acting fast enough.

One constant critic, Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), the outgoing chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, persistently questioned Woolsey’s leadership, attacking everything from the size of the budgets he sought to his handling of the Ames case.

Others in Congress were upset that Woolsey’s harshest punishments in the Ames matter were reprimands for some of Ames’ supervisors. They felt stiffer penalties were in order if the agency expected to cleanse itself from within. They were curious that President Clinton and other Administration officials never spoke out publicly about the “moves” Woolsey made after the Ames affair.

“He moved because events forced him to move,” said Rep. Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), the outgoing chairman of the House intelligence panel. “But when Woolsey meted out the punishment, I did not see the National Security Council as an active player.

“Here was the irony of all ironies,” Glickman added. “We spent $2 trillion on defense in the Cold War, and then along comes the biggest spy scandal in the history of America and Woolsey just handles it all on his own. And I think he became a little bit of a fall guy because of that.”

The effect of the negative attacks on the CIA during the last two years was not lost on the rank-and-file members inside the agency. But some observers see that as an eventuality for an agency whose fundamental mission requires it to operate behind closed doors.

“Those frustrations are inherent with an agency that deals in secrets,” Combest said. “You’re never going to see a list in the newspaper of all the good things they have done.”

At Langley, the news of Woolsey’s departure is another blow to some agency officials who had thought their director would be on hand to see his changes come to fruition.