A Risk in Rushing Spy Reform

Time for Congress to create a new post of national intelligence director is almost up. Rather than ram through an ill-conceived bill, as it did in creating the Homeland Security Department, Congress would be better off letting the intelligence legislation expire. The new Congress could decide after January whether to take up the matter again.

After the independent 9/11 commission called in its final report in July for a “czar” to coordinate the government’s 15 intelligence agencies, the White House reluctantly agreed. But the administration’s real goal appears to be to make the intelligence czar as toothless as possible. The Pentagon and House GOP leaders are foiling legislation backed by the Senate that would give the proposed intelligence chief broad powers.

Last week, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), head of the House Armed Services Committee, suggesting that the Pentagon retain independent control over its spying capabilities. Under the Senate plan, the Pentagon would forfeit control over much of the estimated $40-billion annual intelligence budget.

The worst course would be to reach a hasty compromise that gives the Pentagon most of what it wants. The result would be a powerless intelligence chief and even less coordination among agencies. If the legislation isn’t passed this term, the notion of reforming intelligence may well die a merciful death.

All along, the rationale for having one person or one office in charge of all intelligence functions -- not just the FBI, the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency but also the National Security Agency and numerous other units -- has been dubious. More, not less, political influence over intelligence analysis probably would result. More important than restructuring is putting the best people in place to assess and act on intelligence and giving them freedom to make their best judgments.

Centralizing the intelligence agencies could stifle the creative competition that improves analysis of foreign threats. Consider the costly Homeland Security Department, which has failed to coordinate state and federal agencies while issuing a stream of vague and pointless terror alerts that a jaded public has begun to ignore. As part of the new agency’s creation, the immigration service was split into three parts, creating massive confusion and backlogs. Homeland security, in other words, is Exhibit A in what goes wrong when Congress and the president insist on a bill, any bill, to improve security.

If the United States must have an intelligence czar, the competence of the person given the job is critical. President Bush’s appointment of the pliant Porter J. Goss to head the CIA is not a good sign of what might happen if Bush is reelected. If we’ve learned nothing else from the Iraq war, we should know by now that any intelligence chief must be dedicated to telling the truth rather than what the president wants to hear.