Comments on: National Intelligence Office Not Doing Much

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:41:55 +0000

Jeez, does this mean weâ��re not scheduled to have a functioning intel community until the late teens?

Be more specific: which century are you talking about?

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:57:13 +0000

Don't feel too bad--I wrote my dissertation on defense reform.

And I think fixing intel will be much, much harder than fixing DoD. As you will recall, we were coming off a big success in 1947.

Plus, intelligence is just harder than warfighting.

By: legion

legion — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:53:21 +0000

D'oh! You're right, I should've remembered it was more complicated than just the NatSec Act.

Jeez, does this mean we're not scheduled to have a functioning intel community until the late teens?

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:39:27 +0000

Legion: But that demotion took a second reform act in 1949--which in turn followed the 1948 Key West and Newport agreements. And was followed by acts of Congress in, if memory serves, 1953, 1958, at least one in the 1960s, and finally Goldwater-Nichols in 1986. And about a dozen blue ribbon panels and internal agreements interspersed into the mix, too.

By: legion

legion — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:29:51 +0000

Well, it _kinda_ worked, but only by turning the War (Army), Navy, and AF departments into sub-cabinet directorates directly reporting to the SecDef. But that kind of semi-demotion of the existing intel chiefs was never really on the table for ONI, confirming the inevitability of your prediction...

By: Steph

Steph — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:25:54 +0000

Someone should call Al Queda. The slimeball students who participated in this obviously support Al Queda and would support them recruiting.

Our best are over there fighting. Our worst are here protesting.

Although they prove having a draft would be a bad idea. Can you imagine these bin laden loving idiots going to war?