Intelligence 007 Style: Picking the Right Person

Here is an article worth reading and discussing among President-Elect Obama supporters. Traversing the forest of the Intelligence community will require an all hands approach.

We need to help the transition team with our our input and research with positions as pivotal and important as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the CIA.

We absolutely do not want our President-Elect or his staff to step on the same land mines and quagmires as President Clinton and President Bush encountered.

If you have information and ideas be sure to post them at change.gov in Homeland Security section, under the AGENDA tab of the President-Elect's new website.

Read this article, by David Ignatius of the Washington Post, it is worth discussing:

A Spy CEO for Obama

By David Ignatius

Thursday, December 11, 2008; Page A25

What should President-elect Barack Obama do about the intelligence community? He has appointed the other top members of his national security team, but intrigue still surrounds his choices for director of national intelligence and director of the CIA. Prospective nominees are caught in a rumor mill that's worthy of Beirut.

As usual with anything involving intelligence, the left and the right are trading blows -- with the professional spooks caught in the middle. The only people who looked really happy at the CIA Christmas party last week were the journalists, who were feasting on the hors d'oeuvres and spicy gossip.

Rather than rush to answer "who" questions, Obama should spend some time thinking about what he wants from the intelligence agencies -- and whether the structure that's in place makes sense. More than any part of the government, the intelligence community needs good management, but that requires more clarity about the mission.

Administrations that don't know what they want from intelligence often pick the wrong people. Under Bill Clinton, for example, the clamor for a conservative Democrat led to the appointment of James Woolsey -- a smart lawyer, but someone with so little White House access he might as well have communicated by carrier pigeon. Clinton's next choice was John Deutch, who wasn't sure he wanted the job and, by most accounts, did it poorly. George W. Bush made a string of mistakes with intelligence, but among the worst was his appointment of Porter Goss, a former congressman who further demoralized a battered agency.

The "what" questions are crucial now because the intelligence community is still reeling from a messy reorganization in 2006. That ill-considered "reform" created a big new DNI bureaucracy while leaving everything else intact. The result was like a lumpy pudding. The CIA has gotten the brunt of the DNI's often duplicative supervision, partly because the other big intelligence agencies (the FBI, the NSA, etc.) are all protected by Cabinet officers.

The DNI's hand got heavier in July with a new executive order that specifies his authority -- especially to second-guess the CIA. The spy world is now in a dither about a new directive that would allow the DNI to designate a non-CIA person as his representative in foreign capitals, gutting the authority of the local chief of station. These bureaucratic machinations have left foreign intelligence chiefs wondering who's in charge.

Should the Obama administration continue the DNI structure? The answer is probably yes, because yet another reorganization would drive everyone bonkers. But what should this intelligence czar do? In a perfect world, he would be the Warren Buffett of intelligence. That is, the DNI would be the chief executive of a diverse portfolio of intelligence agencies. The director would maintain accountability and quality control but let the agency heads run their businesses.

What's needed is an experienced, first-rate manager "who is less interested in briefing the president in the morning than in ensuring that the community has the best tools and processes to make the PDB [President's Daily Brief] a world-class product," says one former top-level intelligence official.

I would add that the left-right slugfest -- in which liberals stress accountability and conservatives emphasize performance -- is wrong. The intelligence community needs more of both, urgently.

To avoid duplicating functions, it would make sense to move analysis into the DNI's shop -- and let a leaner, more aggressive CIA focus on spying. "We should be thinking about CIA the way the British think about MI6, with a career intelligence professional at the head who has a fixed term that transcends elections," the former top official argues.

The Great Mentioner (whom we pundits consult about who's being "mentioned" for top jobs) continues to spin out names for intelligence posts: Former CIA officer and Obama intelligence transition chief John Brennan was thought to be a likely CIA director until he was vaporized by left-wing opposition. Retired Adm. Dennis Blair is a leading candidate for DNI, but some wonder whether the community needs yet another ex-military official. Rep. Jane Harman gets high marks for strong oversight, but some worry about the Porter Goss problem of appointing a politician.

The right answer? Find the Buffett-like manager who can create a truly great U.S. intelligence system at DNI, then let that person pick a CIA director who will be nonpolitical. And then, as the late CIA Director Richard Helms liked to tell his trench-coated colleagues, "Let's get on with it."

The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address is davidignatius@washpost.com.

The Best and the Brightest but Please no Retreads Mr. President Elect

The test balloon has been floated, and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is being fleshed out in the public while the transition team thinks over who would be the best and the brightest as Secretary of State, while other cabinet posts are being vetted behind the scenes. The great benefit of such a leak is that it works to publicly vet highly public figures like Senator Clinton. But if more leaks of less notoriety follow then staffers and transition team members, the transition process, and the Podesta team is in danger of showing to be weak, suspect, and undisciplined.

Change was the platform that Senator Obama ran on for President. How can he epitomize change when in essence he is re-creating or creating a third Clinton Cabinet? One of President Elect Obama’s favorite saying by MLK is “The arch of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Obama’s MLK quote addendum can be, “The arch of change is long…” “…How long, not long…” in other words change won’t be much, if he continues down the same well travelled path. If he continues doing the same things over and over again can we expect a different result or do you think we will get the change he promised?

Speaking in the wisdom of others President Elect Obama and his transition team should consider these wise words:

We are most effective as a team when we compliment each other without
embarrassment and disagree without fear. - Unknown

What we need to do is learn to work in the system, by which I mean that everybody, every team, every platform, every division, every component is there not for individual competitive profit or recognition, but for contribution to the system as a whole on a win-win basis. - W. Edward Deming

Individual commitment to a group effort, that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work. - Vince Lombardi

The ratio of We’s to I’s is the best indicator of the development of a team. - Lewis B. Ergen

The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don’t play together, the club won’t be worth a dime. - Babe Ruth

Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success. - Henry Ford

Build for your team a feeling of oneness, of dependence on one another and of strength to be derived by unity. - Vince Lombardi

It is better to have one person working with you than three people working for you. Dwight D. Eisenhower

It’s easy to get good players. Getting them to play together, that’s the
hard part. - Casey Stengel

Lincoln’s chutzpah in selecting “a team of rivals” was overstated he had to do a lot of convincing and endured countless hours agonizing and analyzing ways to prove his leadership, to his team of rivals. He had to undo distrust, disdain, and contempt, from discordant factions within his cabinet which he accomplished. The downside is that dissonance spilled over to his military leaders, and that almost became his undoing. It was evident with the lackluster insubordination he received from generals like McClellan. President Elect Obama absolutely can not waste time undoing the disparagement, nor does he have the time, treasury, or life to spare from hidden dissension from his cabinet or from commanders on the field as President Lincoln did.

“Why retread an old politician into a new role”

Selecting Hillary is a dam good player but she can easily be considered either a bad or bold choice. Offering Senator Clinton the post creates obvious and not so obvious deliberations. First when you get Hillary you get Bill whether you want him or not so the questions to ask is do I want Hillary enough to get Bill? Keeping Hillary’s interest as Secretary of State will be enough for her to succeed, but keeping Bill Clinton engaged beside Hillary is the other challenge. You just can’t emasculate a person like Bill Clinton and not expect any drama, no on the contrary Bill Clinton must have something to do. What can Bill do at the side of Hillary if she is Secretary of State?

Hillary has a lot of good qualities she is hawkish and can be megalomaniacal. She has ambition and allegiance. She is smart and skillful, but her baggage trails like Zsa-Zsa Gabor’s. The question the transition team needs to ask is: Are they willing to re-hash and re-live the public drama of the Clinton’s and risk ludicrous embarrassment? Will she be able to devote her interests truthfully and completely to President Obama, or will she divide them between hers, Bill’s, and President Obama?

Why fish in the same pond? Nixon was successful with Kissinger. Carter was successful with Brzezinski even though Brzezinski served as National Security Advisor. Clinton was successful with Albright. Why retread an old politician into a new role, when President Obama can have an assertive intellectual at his side to provide him with day-to-day advice and guidance on foreign policy decisions. How about Thomas Freidman for Secretary of State, he speaks and writes Arabic, and Hebrew. The point here is to think out of the box.

David Ignatius, of the Washington Post raised an even more cogent point, on MSNBC’s 1600 with David Gregory:

“Just to say one thing about this issue we are all talking about Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in my conversations with foreign leader’s people abroad who are watching this amazing election. The sense of excitement they have about this new President, about his ability through his personality. His amazing history – to turn a page – to show the world a different face of America is crucial. The one thing I think for Obama should be careful about is not dissipating that opportunity by having a superstar as the Secretary of State. The game in the world right now is Barack Obama. It’s Barack Obama who has the ability to meet with people – make things happen, and go through doors that wouldn’t exist but for him, and if he gives it – if he sub-contracts that to Hillary Clinton, I worry that the impact he could have might be lost.”