Archive

DNI Blair to resign

  • ptown_trojans_1
    Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair will resign. Apparently, from the rumblings over the past few months, he has not been able to adequately address the role of the DNI and has let the CIA run all over him. He has also not been sharp on overseeing and fixing the flaws that led to the wave of attacks over the past few months. Plus, he was one of the few that was against releasing the total number of nuclear weapons.


    I'm not sure who will replace him, but whoever it is needs to really hammer out what exactly the role of the DNI is in-relation to the intelligence community. The DNI is still new, since 05 and has not really been fleshed out.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052004343.html?hpid=topnews
  • majorspark
    A waste of 50 billion annually in federal dollars. It should never have been fleshed in.
  • Mr. 300
    Merely a scapegoat for the President.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Mr. 300 wrote: Merely a scapegoat for the President.
    Not really. From what I've been hearing for a few months, he did not fit well into the National Security Council, was more a burden than an assest and frequently argued with the CIA.



    The problem with the DNI is that it did not replace the Director of the CIA as the head. It just made an awkward power struggle between the CIA and the DNI for power over the Daily Brief, who controls or oversees which agencies, etc. Oh and the DNI has no budget power, making it really hard to change things.

    The DNI was supposed to be a small, streamline office that would coordinate all the 16 intelligence agencies. The problem was, and this is from my old professor who start at the Office of the DNI in 05, is that it grew too big and did not hammer out a proper strategy to deal with the CIA. Also, the Defense Department and CIA strongly resisted the DNI, and the Defense Dept still kept the DIA, NSA and military branches.

    So, it did add a layer of bureaucracy and was poorly implemented by Bush and now Obama it looks like. It is a good idea in theory, but no one has really figured out how to do it and make the Defense and CIA go along with it.
  • majorspark
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: So, it did add a layer of bureaucracy and was poorly implemented by Bush and now Obama it looks like. It is a good idea in theory, but no one has really figured out how to do it and make the Defense and CIA go along with it.
    This is my point. Creating another layer of useless bureaucracy instead of fixing the root problem. There was no need to ever created this dept.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    majorspark wrote:
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: So, it did add a layer of bureaucracy and was poorly implemented by Bush and now Obama it looks like. It is a good idea in theory, but no one has really figured out how to do it and make the Defense and CIA go along with it.
    This is my point. Creating another layer of useless bureaucracy instead of fixing the root problem. There was no need to ever created this dept.
    I agree somewhat. Blame Rumsfeld, who did not want to give up the DoD intell agencies and budget and CIA Porter Goss, who did not want to give up power.

    I think it has helped better coordinate the intelligence agencies, but still suffers from this fundamental flaw.
    There was a need, as before this, and per the 9/11 Commission, the intelligence agencies were too fractured. The DNI has helped that, somewhat. It still has a far way to go, but it is better than the system we had.

    Think of it like the National Security Council. It was created in 1949, but did not really hit its stride until Kennedy in 1960 and Bundy. So, the DNI, given the right person and structure can really turn into an effective tool. It just might take some time.
  • majorspark
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I agree somewhat. Blame Rumsfeld, who did not want to give up the DoD intell agencies and budget and CIA Porter Goss, who did not want to give up power.
    This is an example of the root problem. Competing interests within the federal government. The interest of these agencies should be the service of the American people, period. I understand budget concerns but these agencies were created at taxpayer expense to serve the American people.

    The answer is not to create another level of useless bureaucracy, but for the president to use his authority to to chose people that will put the American people above bureaucratic pissing matches. Ultimately this problem rests at the feet of the chief executive.
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I think it has helped better coordinate the intelligence agencies, but still suffers from this fundamental flaw.
    There was a need, as before this, and per the 9/11 Commission, the intelligence agencies were too fractured. The DNI has helped that, somewhat. It still has a far way to go, but it is better than the system we had.
    The 9/11 commission is not infallible, so no offense but they lend no credibility to me. I still do not think that at the added cost of 50 billion annually of taxpayer dollars is needed to right the ship. IMO that lies in the hands of the President to put solid leaders in place. Those that place America above the bureaucracy they manage.
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Think of it like the National Security Council. It was created in 1949, but did not really hit its stride until Kennedy in 1960 and Bundy. So, the DNI, given the right person and structure can really turn into an effective tool. It just might take some time.
    IMO this is a clear level of unnecessary bureaucracy. I would think with the right leadership the structure we currently have in place is more than adequate. When there is failure the tendency is to blame the structure.
  • believer
    majorspark wrote:
    ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Think of it like the National Security Council. It was created in 1949, but did not really hit its stride until Kennedy in 1960 and Bundy. So, the DNI, given the right person and structure can really turn into an effective tool. It just might take some time.
    IMO this is a clear level of unnecessary bureaucracy. I would think with the right leadership the structure we currently have in place is more than adequate. When there is failure the tendency is to blame the structure.
    This is a perfect example of why I and so many others disdain the growth of Big Government.

    Rather than taking the the tough and sometimes draconian steps to "right-size" the organization when costs and efficiencies get out of balance (as is the case in the eeeeevil for-profit private sector) the "fix" by the Feds for inefficient bureaucracy is to create another layer of bloated inefficient bureaucracy to control and monitor the other bloated inefficient layers.

    Rather than righting the ship this "solution" creates in-fighting, turf wars, and confusion. Who's in charge and who's responsible?

    In the end, the goal of each layer of bloated inefficient bureaucracy is self-preservation rather than servicing the interest of the American people in an appropriate and expedient manner.

    All done at taxpayer expense of course. No problem though. We'll just raise taxes or borrow from the Chinese to pay for it.
  • Mr. 300
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/21/lawmakers-slam-white-house-blair-resignation-spy-chief-scapegoat/

    More proof of the scapegoat!!!