Intelligence agency at the crossroads

The need for a more effective national intelligence chief has been apparent ever since the creation of the Director of Central Intelligence or DCI in 1947 (the earlier version of the DNI position).

At that time, the DCI was never given adequate authority to coordinate America’s secret services. Yet efforts to strengthen the DCI office over the years were rebuffed by Pentagon lobbying on Capitol Hill.

Generals and admirals have worried that military intelligence might be slighted by a strong intelligence director who might favor civilian concerns, such as the gathering of information on international economic conferences.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11, though, brought a renewed interest in the establishment of a more integrated “intelligence community,” led by a DNI with proper authority to foster cohesion among the nation’s 16 major spy agencies.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission called for better sharing of intelligence among the intelligence agencies. The commission found excessive institutional fragmentation — “stovepiping” — among these organizations and recommended the creation of a new DNI office to bring about better sharing of information in the preparation of reports for the president and other policymakers.

That year, reformers crafted an Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act to provide the DNI with authority over budgets and personnel for each of the intelligence agencies.

The Pentagon rallied against the proposal, however, in the same way the military brass had leaned on President Harry Truman in 1947 to abandon his plan for a strong spymaster. The bill eventually passed in 2004 but, as a result of the Pentagon’s influence, the new DNI office was stripped of authority to hire and fire spy agency heads or to determine their budgets.

The end result: The United States remains without a true national intelligence director.

No wonder the first three DNIs left in frustration after brief stints at the helm.

Now comes Gen. Clapper as the next candidate for spy chief. He certainly has the credentials to serve with distinction.

A civilian now, he is the top intelligence official in the Pentagon, and earlier in his career he headed up two major intelligence agencies: the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Unlike some former flag officers, Clapper understands the importance of civilian intelligence — information to support diplomatic and trade initiatives, for instance, not just the nation’s war-fighters (as important as that is, too).

He has demonstrated an ability to work with both military and civilian intelligence agencies.

I have observed his style of leadership for many years and I am sure that one of his first steps as DNI would be to warm up relations with the director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, whose ties with the last DNI, Adm. Denis C. Blair, were in deep freeze.

These ties are vital to the DNI, since most of the nation’s intelligence analysts — the experts who study world affairs and warn the president of dangers — are located at the CIA.

Gen. Clapper has expressed some ambivalence about the DNI job. In an essay in The Oxford Handbook of National Security Intelligence (just published), he wrote that he did not “believe that much more authority is warranted” for the office.

Yet he also observed that today’s intelligence agencies “require strong leadership and interagency collaboration.” If confirmed by the Senate, he is apt to find the DNI’s powers maddeningly limited, as did his predecessor, and he would likely seek an expansion of his authority to integrate the work of the intelligence agencies.

Some informal steps can be taken to overcome the fragmentation of the intelligence “community.”

For example, Clapper could spend more time visiting each of the key agencies on a regular basis, building up a feeling of common purpose among them.

Ultimately, though, he will need what the earlier DNI’s never had: authority to hire and fire, and to control budgets — the basics of successful management.

Clapper has a remarkable record of experience in the world of intelligence.

Further, he is well known for energetic leadership, for an ability to balance civilian and military intelligence requirements, and for a desire to instill a sense of team spirit in a cluster of agencies that for too long have acted independently of one another.

With his extensive personal ties throughout Washington, coupled with his strong intellect and a reputation as an honest broker, Clapper has a good chance to succeed where others have failed.

Loch K. Johnson is Regents Professor of International Affairs in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia and senior editor of the journal Intelligence and National Security.