President-elect Trump continues to dominate the news, now with an unlikely adversary: the U.S. Intelligence Community.
The Intelligence Community (IC) concludes that the Russians interfered with the American election with the clear intent of working against Secretary Hillary Clinton. Trump responds with a classic pivot, insisting that the Russians had absolutely no effect on the result, and it was the Democrats' own fault, "poor security."
Trump misses the point. Neither the Democrats nor the IC has claimed that the Russians were the deciding factor in Trump's victory. The point is that the Russians weighed in with the intent to affect the election. That's very serious and should concern every American. But with all this tough talk by politicians, let's not get carried away and escalate it to military reprisals.
Trump attributes conclusions of the IC to a "political witch hunt," seeing this as an attempt to delegitimize his presidency.
A broader point is that Trump appears to put more stock in the Russian president than he does in our own president and the American IC. All this has brought increasing attention to the IC, its interaction with the president, and its role in American security.
The American IC is an entity that seems to be one big black box in the world's largest bureaucracy, the U.S. government. Even its very organization can be confusing. But let's give it a shot, reviewing some basics.
The Cabinet of the executive branch dates back to the beginning of the presidency itself. It consists of the vice president and now the heads of 15 executive departments. All 15 are important but the "big four" are the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury and Justice. The heads of Cabinet departments are political appointees, nominated by the president, and confirmed by the Senate.
There are several senior executive positions of government that are not Cabinet officers, but have status of Cabinet rank, most of which require Senate confirmation. An exception is White House chief of staff, selected by the president.
Below Cabinet rank are several senior positions that also require Senate confirmation, which brings us to the IC. These positions include the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of National Intelligence.
We generally equate American intelligence activities with the CIA. But during this latest brouhaha, the media refer to 17 American intelligence agencies.
The IC consists of the office of the DNI under which 16 other intelligence agencies function, of which the CIA is but one, albeit arguably the major one. The CIA is an independent agency, ostensibly reporting to the DNI, whereas the other 15 intelligence agencies operate under the aegis of various Cabinet departments. These 15 intelligence agencies are ostensibly coordinated by the DNI. Let's try to sort this out.
Each branch of military service, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, has its own specialized intelligence agency, reporting to its respective service within the Department of Defense. In addition to the four military service intelligence agencies, four other separate intelligence agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, function within the Defense Department, bringing us to 10 (DNI plus CIA plus eight in Defense). What about the remaining seven?
The Coast Guard Intelligence Agency operates within the Department of Homeland Security, as does the Office of Intelligence Analysis, bringing us to 12, leaving five others.
The Bureau of Intelligence and Research is under the aegis of Department of State.
The Office of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence operates within the Department of Energy.
The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence operates within the Department of Treasury.
The remaining two intelligence agencies operate within the Department of Justice. These are the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Intelligence Branch of the FBI.
The DNI position was created in 2002 in reaction to the 9/11 debacle. The law creating this position designated the DNI as leader of the IC. Both President Bush and President Obama issued executive orders strengthening the role of the DNI.
If all this is clear as mud, there is yet another major entity in this mix: the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the national security advisor, or NSC advisor. The NSC advisor, appointed directly by the president, is a senior aid in the Executive Office of the President, based in the West Wing of the White House, serving as chief in-house advisor on national security issues.
Trump's appointee to this post is retired Lt. General Michael Flynn. Where did he come from? He recently was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, one of the 16 other (than the DNI) agencies listed above.
So much for "organization." A major problem, typical of any large organization, whether corporate, academic, or government, is management and coordination to effectively achieve its mission and objectives. This problem is magnified exponentially when the organization deals with national security, international intrigue, and espionage, involving an assortment of attorneys, accountants, spies, spooks, gumshoes, and even a few economists, in multiple agencies all operating beneath a veil of secrecy.
Managing and coordinating such an enterprise is quite a load for a DNI to handle. Add to this the facade of "oversight" by members of Congress, each with their own political agenda.
No doubt, the personnel of these agencies are competent, dedicated people, some serving at great personal risk. The very nature of intelligence is uncertainty and risk. Personnel of these agencies are tasked with providing their leaders and the president the most objective accurate information they can.
Then there is always the temptation of a president to get agencies to "produce" information that serves his specific agenda. For example, President W. Bush was accused of "cherry picking" intelligence data to justify invasion of Iraq.
As the saying goes, "There are either policy successes, or intelligence failures." If it doesn't work out, blame it on "faulty intelligence."
Or, "a political witch hunt" if you don't like their conclusions.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
The Intelligence Community (IC) concludes that the Russians interfered with the American election with the clear intent of working against Secretary Hillary Clinton. Trump responds with a classic pivot, insisting that the Russians had absolutely no effect on the result, and it was the Democrats' own fault, "poor security."
Trump misses the point. Neither the Democrats nor the IC has claimed that the Russians were the deciding factor in Trump's victory. The point is that the Russians weighed in with the intent to affect the election. That's very serious and should concern every American. But with all this tough talk by politicians, let's not get carried away and escalate it to military reprisals.
Trump attributes conclusions of the IC to a "political witch hunt," seeing this as an attempt to delegitimize his presidency.
A broader point is that Trump appears to put more stock in the Russian president than he does in our own president and the American IC. All this has brought increasing attention to the IC, its interaction with the president, and its role in American security.
The American IC is an entity that seems to be one big black box in the world's largest bureaucracy, the U.S. government. Even its very organization can be confusing. But let's give it a shot, reviewing some basics.
The Cabinet of the executive branch dates back to the beginning of the presidency itself. It consists of the vice president and now the heads of 15 executive departments. All 15 are important but the "big four" are the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury and Justice. The heads of Cabinet departments are political appointees, nominated by the president, and confirmed by the Senate.
There are several senior executive positions of government that are not Cabinet officers, but have status of Cabinet rank, most of which require Senate confirmation. An exception is White House chief of staff, selected by the president.
Below Cabinet rank are several senior positions that also require Senate confirmation, which brings us to the IC. These positions include the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of National Intelligence.
We generally equate American intelligence activities with the CIA. But during this latest brouhaha, the media refer to 17 American intelligence agencies.
The IC consists of the office of the DNI under which 16 other intelligence agencies function, of which the CIA is but one, albeit arguably the major one. The CIA is an independent agency, ostensibly reporting to the DNI, whereas the other 15 intelligence agencies operate under the aegis of various Cabinet departments. These 15 intelligence agencies are ostensibly coordinated by the DNI. Let's try to sort this out.
Each branch of military service, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, has its own specialized intelligence agency, reporting to its respective service within the Department of Defense. In addition to the four military service intelligence agencies, four other separate intelligence agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, function within the Defense Department, bringing us to 10 (DNI plus CIA plus eight in Defense). What about the remaining seven?
The Coast Guard Intelligence Agency operates within the Department of Homeland Security, as does the Office of Intelligence Analysis, bringing us to 12, leaving five others.
The Bureau of Intelligence and Research is under the aegis of Department of State.
The Office of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence operates within the Department of Energy.
The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence operates within the Department of Treasury.
The remaining two intelligence agencies operate within the Department of Justice. These are the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Intelligence Branch of the FBI.
The DNI position was created in 2002 in reaction to the 9/11 debacle. The law creating this position designated the DNI as leader of the IC. Both President Bush and President Obama issued executive orders strengthening the role of the DNI.
If all this is clear as mud, there is yet another major entity in this mix: the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the national security advisor, or NSC advisor. The NSC advisor, appointed directly by the president, is a senior aid in the Executive Office of the President, based in the West Wing of the White House, serving as chief in-house advisor on national security issues.
Trump's appointee to this post is retired Lt. General Michael Flynn. Where did he come from? He recently was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, one of the 16 other (than the DNI) agencies listed above.
So much for "organization." A major problem, typical of any large organization, whether corporate, academic, or government, is management and coordination to effectively achieve its mission and objectives. This problem is magnified exponentially when the organization deals with national security, international intrigue, and espionage, involving an assortment of attorneys, accountants, spies, spooks, gumshoes, and even a few economists, in multiple agencies all operating beneath a veil of secrecy.
Managing and coordinating such an enterprise is quite a load for a DNI to handle. Add to this the facade of "oversight" by members of Congress, each with their own political agenda.
No doubt, the personnel of these agencies are competent, dedicated people, some serving at great personal risk. The very nature of intelligence is uncertainty and risk. Personnel of these agencies are tasked with providing their leaders and the president the most objective accurate information they can.
Then there is always the temptation of a president to get agencies to "produce" information that serves his specific agenda. For example, President W. Bush was accused of "cherry picking" intelligence data to justify invasion of Iraq.
As the saying goes, "There are either policy successes, or intelligence failures." If it doesn't work out, blame it on "faulty intelligence."
Or, "a political witch hunt" if you don't like their conclusions.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
