INTELLIGENCE FAILURE - Printer Friendly

'INTELLIGENCE FAILURE'

An American Tradition

Ed Ross | January 11, 2010

From Pearl Harbor to 9/11 to Christmas-Day 2009, the term most often heard in the aftermath of attacks on the United States and our interests abroad that we were unprepared for is 'intelligence failure.'

Time and again we discover that it's not what we couldn't know but what we should have known that would have prevented catastrophe. And it’s become an American tradition in the wake of these events to focus on the shortcomings of organizations and agencies in government more than the people who run them.

Intelligence failures, however, or as President Obama calls them, 'systemic failures,' are almost always leadership failures.

This should come as no revelation to anyone; and it should be no surprise that President Obama, in the wake of the most recent incident, is focusing more on systemic issues than on the people in charge.

In his statement on January 7, 2010, President Obama said, “It appears this incident was not the fault of a single individual or organization but rather a systemic failure across organizations and agencies. ... I am less interested in passing out blame than I am in learning from and correcting these mistakes to make us safer.”

When you are the President of the United States, admitting that one or more of the people you appointed to high office have failed reflects poorly on your judgment. Admitting your judgment was flawed can be politically suicidal. It’s much easier to say “the buck stops with me” and tell the country what steps you plan to take to fix the “system.”

Replacing a senior official in the wake of a crisis, especially one that requires Senate confirmation, is a messy affair. The president and the departing official are pilloried in the media. Confirmation hearings are drawn out and painful for the administration and the replacement nominee, many of whom don’t survive the intense scrutiny. It’s no wonder presidents do everything they can to avoid them.

No doubt the measures President Obama outlined in his January 7 statement on why the government failed to prevent the Christmas-Day attack on Northwest Flight 253 are necessary. They are intended to better analyze and distribute intelligence reports on potential terror plots, ensure they are followed up on, and more quickly add people to the No Fly List.

What’s also necessary, however, is for the president to hold the people leading his homeland and national security team accountable for results. He can tweak the system all he wants, but unless he holds individuals personally responsible more failures like what happened on Christmas Day are inevitable. Accountability is important because it imposes an obligation on individuals to do what’s lawful and necessary and because with that obligation goes the authority to direct and take necessary action. Without accountability there is chaos.

The US intelligence community, which consists of 16 different agencies, is a large, complex bureaucracy. Effectively leading these agencies and the departments they report to in the politically charged Washington, DC, interagency arena is an extremely difficult and challenging task. It requires highly skilled, experienced, and capable people with the right temperament. Not everyone appointed to these offices measures up; and when there's crisis, we discover who they are.

Ask any experienced Washington hand, what’s the single most important thing to know about a particular agency or department, and the answer you’ll most likely get is, “Who is running it.”

How each of these organizations performs on a day-to-day basis and during a crisis is directly related to the personalities, skills, and management styles of the man or woman at the top. They have broad latitude in how they organize and structure their staffs, the priorities they set, and the performance standards they demand. Most important, they delegate authority and responsibility and empower their immediate circle of subordinates, who in turn delegate to and empower theirs, to accomplish their missions. Anticipating threats and problems and reacting to them before it’s too late is part of their job descriptions.

Every single mistake outlined by the president that allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board NW Flight 253 and attempt to detonate the explosive devices in his underwear should have been anticipated and prevented. The fact that they weren’t wasn’t because a system failed, it was because leadership at multiple levels failed.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CIA Director Leon Panetta, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, and Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Terrorism John Brennen all share some responsibility for what went wrong. All serve at the pleasure of the president.

Whether one or more of them, or some lesser official, should step down is an issue reasonable people can debate. Ultimately that decision is up to the president. Janet Napolitano has been the target of most critics; and many expect she will resign in a few months after the dust has settled.

Regardless who stays and who goes, it should be unacceptable for our presidents, Democrat or Republican, to continue the fiction that it was the system that failed, not the individuals responsible for it. The US armed forces hold commanding officers responsible for everything their commands do or fail to do (see sidebar). Our presidents should apply no less a standard to the civilian and military officials who hold leadership positions in our homeland and national security departments and agencies. We will be much safer when they do.