'Post 9/11 Intelligence Reform Impact and the Way Ahead\r'

'Final seat 9/11 science regenerate carry on and the Way Ahead Daniel Ratner INTL 444 Professor Mead October 8, 2012 Introduction later 9/11, an event so shocking, and humiliating to some(prenominal) the Ameri croup people, and the U. S. Government, vast reforms were identified to discipline that an effort of this magnitude never happened again. From the ashes of this despicable act came ii study pieces of k directledge reform. These documents were the 9/11 relegating Report and The experience Reform present and Terrorist resist morsel of 2004 (IRTPA).Both documents worked to reform the erudition lodge (IC), and streamline current figure outes to improve the sharing of countersign activity knowledge, and products. With the wholesale changes mainly by dint of the ITPRA the Intelligence Community is intimately on its modality to being the major heftiness group we conduct it to be acting as a single unit as irrelevant to separate and psyche muscles each arduous to wind up the same heavy weight.With the findings of the 9/11 charge, the implementations of the IRTPA vex taken long strides, barely what plunder be done advance? We impart look at the two pieces of regulation, and then comp ar and contrast the brush changes, and if the are deprivation in the correct direction. The 9/11 guardianship Report In the combust of the 9/11 attacks, a group of politicians twain Re worldly concernan and Democrats came together to identify shortf onlys and introduce a call for reform. According the plow, â€Å"Our aim has non been to charge individual blame.Our aim has been to bequeath the fullest account of the events skirt 9/11 and to identify lessons learned. ” When we as Americans read a major event in the get together States, we al slip focussing look for a scapegoat, the ideas behind the 9/11 commission was built as a bi-partisan group for middling this reason. The calculate takes the events of 9/11 and attempts t o paint a picture of a major lack of beneathstanding of the threat we face from floor Islam, as well as other disappoint with is around the world.The 9/11 report goes thick target into the history of the events surrounding 9/11, barely real only spends about 25 pages of the 450 pages report identifying the shortcomings, and way ahead. Now while this is a macro scene of the reforms necessary, it does leave some(prenominal) to the imagination. Post 9/11 Reform As we look at the reforms recommended we apprehend that the commission broke the recommendations into major groups, they divided them into ways to give overall Government Reform.This is subdivided into five categories, a new Unity of swither between inappropriate and Domestic operations in an attempt to rule primacy in different types of operations to batten down the right(a) elbow room is doing the correct job, A Unity of Effort for the Intelligence Community, Unity of Effort in sharing Information, Unity of E ffort of in the Congress, and finally how to improve organizing Homeland defenses. trance these are all important, the major issue was the lack of ownership and sharing of perception between governmental agencies.As the 9/11 commission pushed for counter curseism reform, it overly pointed to a need for news parade reform. the IC reform was aimed at the way we compile process and disseminate intelligence. The 9/11 commission potty to identify, â€Å"whether the government is organized adequately to direct resources and cook the intelligence capabilities it will need non just for countering terrorism, but for the broader range of topic security challenges in the decades ahead. This viewpoint looks at the study Intelligence Agencies and contact to focus their power to be both effective, and differenced. bring together with these factors the 9/11 commission identified half a dozen major problems, the structural barriers to performing sum intelligence work, lack of ve rnacular standards and practices across the fo command- home(prenominal) divide. dissever prudence of national intelligence capabilities, weak capacity to set priorities and move resources, alike many a nonher(prenominal) jobs, and too mazy and secret. Structural Barriers To acting Joint Intelligence WorkAlong with the issues of trying to keep ahead of our enemies, we moldiness also be able to share our randomness with other intelligence agencies, and our allies. As the 9/11 report shows: â€Å" content intelligence is still organized around the accretion disciplines of the home agencies, not the joint mission. The importance of co-ordinated, all-source depth psychology cannot be overstated. Without it, it is not possible to â€Å"connect the dots. ” No one component holds all the relevant reading. ” plot of land all agencies collect data, only done joint integration can we truly paint an exact assessment of the facts.As a reference, the report cites the Goldwater Nichols legislation of 1986, in which Operations as a whole were better envisioned though joint co-operative training. It shows the strengths of these types of events and why we must incorporate more joint intelligence to be productive. Lack Of greens Standards and Practices Across the Foreign-Domestic Divide This pot of the report goes on to show the issues we choose in the cases of both database reign overment and dissemination of information. In cases of information ga thered both home and abroad, there are issues with integration and synchronization of this workflow.Many have cited and shown how across the IC there are multiple databases, of which there is no conduit to share information, multiple programs collecting the same data, but are not cross-matched, and in many cases unnecessary entries are made, and then not served creating an abundance of information unable to be processed repayable to a lack of manpower. Divided Management of internal Intelligence Capabilities As the IC swelled in the part World struggle 2 and Cold War eras, we saw the abilities of many agencies in collections dwindle and collapse.The report shoes the degradation of the CIA’s capacity to collect IMINT, and SIGINT. As the NSA, NRO NGIA, and other have been created, the HUMINT, OSINT and other intelligence collected by the CIA has had issues being validated due to the inability to task other agencies assets. Some of these issues were work out through their acquisition of their own satellites and some reform, but again we see information that is collected by a sole agency, which is not easily dual-lane or validated by an outside source. calorie-free Capacity to Set Priorities and instigate ResourcesThe task physical com function of the IC and the way in which it is sleep togetherd fell on the Director of Central Intelligence, giving the CIA free reign in many cases, and also in many cases too often ability to mis bonk or squander resources. As t hey struggle to manage these resources, and ensure all members of the IC are covered for what they need, there was little oversight in the ability to range collection efforts. Moreover, there was little though presumptuousness to how to best manage , â€Å"what they collect or the way they collect it. ” Too Many Jobs As of the while of the 9/11 report the DCI had ternary jobs.Running of the CIA, manage the other members of the IC, and head analyst for the prexy of the fall in States. Any one of these positions is a capstone to a conquestful career; in the days of 9/11 it fell on one person. As the report goes on to show, is the fact that, â€Å"No recent DCI has been able to do all three effectively. normally what loses out is management of the intelligence community…” This overtasking of an individual is not only reckless, but in many cases gave too much power to the CIA. The report finds that the DCI has three major shortcomings.They find that the DCI l acks the ability to control the funds allocated to the IC, the ability to remove or replace agency heads, and the ability to set the quality control and normalization of collection efforts. Too multifactorial and sneaking(a) As if all the previous five findings were not enough, we also see the issue of a cumbersome and transcendental group of organizations. At the time of the 9/11 report, the IC was comprised of 15 agencies, mainly managed by a single entity. This coupled with no clear roadmap to how the groups interact, whom they report to, and how they fund operations.Intelligence Reform and Terrorism barroom Act of 2004 (IRTPA) Out of the ashes of the events of 9/11 and the reforms brought forth by the 9/11 mission report, came the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA). This legislation cognize as S. 2845 was introduced by Senator Susan Collins of Maine. The bill was enacted by and by being signed by the chairperson on celestial lat itude 17, 2004. This legislation strove to take the 9/11 Commissions findings and implement them into law. As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, we mentioned vi major problems the IC faced.Being that the IC was managed mainly ground on the discipline Security Act of 1947, the IRTPA brought changes to the IC by taking the bad and refining the healthy of each item. The major change seen in the IRTPA was the unveiling of the Director of internal Intelligence. As we had seen in the 9/11 report, the DCI was way too overtasked, and the need for an Intelligence Community to have a director. The Structural Barriers to Performing Joint Intelligence Work In the sex of 9/11 the Joint Intelligence Community Council.This council Chaired by the Director of National Intelligence, is comprised of all major Presidential advisors. It is chartered to â€Å"…assist the Director of National Intelligence in developing and implementing a joint, structured national intelligence effort to protect national security…” This council also in the matter of advising the legislative branch, may make recommendations to improve the IC. Lack of Common Standards and Practices Across the Foreign-Domestic Divide With the creation of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) came the call for a â€Å"performance of common services. This charge stands to ensure that services previously not shared, managed, or understood are standardized. It also stands to provide a set of â€Å"standards” for the agencies to follow, and hence stay regulated. Divided Management Of National Intelligence Capabilities Under the National Security Act of 1947, the DCI was the head of the IC, but under the IRTPA, a new position was enabled. The new position Director of National Intelligence, appointed by the President of the fall in States. This change gave the DCI more oversight of the CIA, and gave the President a subject matter expert, one who had a single focus job.This also gives the DNI the ability to manage the tasking of national collection assets, a job not really performed before. Weak Capacity to Set Priorities and Move Resources In the case of the ability to set priorities, one time again the charge goes to the DNI. He is charged to â€Å" set in motion objectives, priorities, and guidance for the intelligence community to ensure well-timed(a) and effective collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination…” This charge gives the DNI the ability manage resources, requirements, conflict resolution between agencies to include the subroutine of assets, and collection platforms.The only person the DNI must bear to the President. Too Many Jobs plot of land we had an issue of the DCI having too many jobs before, some might say that the DNO now has too many jobs. This is a misconception, since the DNI has no intelligence agency to manage, rather he has department heads to manage that job. He instead focuses on the seamless and integ rated manager of the whole gambit of intelligence. Too Complex and Secret The final goal of the IRTPA served to take the whodunit and lack of oversight out of the IC. The establishment of an tester General to the DNI was enacted under the IRTPA.This office serves to manage honorable matters, settle complaints of favoritism, and ensure civil liberties are upheld through the actions of the IC and concurrence with National and International Laws. separate Changes Driven by the IRTPA The four findings recommended by the legislation are the following: (1) Long-term success in the state of struggle on terrorism demands the use of all elements of national power, including diplomacy, military action, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, stinting policy, international aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense. 2) To win the war on terrorism, the United States must assign to frugal and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that is appoint to military capabilit ies. (3) The legislative and executive branches of the Government of the United States must commit to robust, long-term investments in all of the tools necessary for the foreign policy of the United States to successfully accomplish the goals of the United States. (4) The investments referred to in paragraph (3) will require increased funding to United States foreign affairs programs in general, and to priority areas as describe in this title in particular.By breaking these findings out, we can better see how the IC can convert and flex the major muscle it has the ability to do. While there were pages and pages of changes, and background these four findings standout as the major players in policy reforms. Long-term Success in the War on Terrorism To be successful in the war on terror, we must hold all possible assets and allies assets to our advantage. To do this we need to focus our efforts by sharing information, and ensuring that agencies are receiving incidentally and relevan t updates to collected intelligence to ensure overall success.This sharing is critical to both foreign and domestic inte awaits. Balance of Diplomatic, Economic and Military Influences The even balance of lethal, non-lethal and Humanitarian actions must be monitored and controlled. Too much use of any of these can degrade the ability of the United States and it’s ally’s do in foreign actions. It is also important to look upon that even in an attempt to show ourselves as a â€Å"hard target” we must show compassion and understanding to those less fortunate than us.This is a necessity if only because we must show the rest of the world that we are not so impoverished of emotion that we can relate with their plights and ways of life. Overall Governmental Commitment to Success The war of terror is a marathon not a race. provided though the applied funding, legislative drive to ensure resources, and the executive branch push to allow success of the IC can we succ eed in the war on terror. We cannot allow political infighting, election cycles, assent polls, or other media-like reports to stop our drive for the end-state.While not always pretty, cost-effective, and popular, the needs of the IC to gather afflictive data must be protected. Added distractors such as political infighting in cases such as the passing, or re-authorization of the Patriot Act are great examples of the dangers the IC faces in achieving its goals. Commitment to Success and its Costs As stated above, this marathon is not always going to be cost-effective. Emerging technologies, payouts to sources, replacing of equipment, and other costs, not always made privy to the general public must be supported.Failure to the fund the IC can be detrimental to their success. While oversight is needed to ensure embezzlement is not a factor, the reckon increases the IC requests should not be delayed or jeopardized by political adversaries, nor used as a talking point. This is current ly seen in the $500 million defense cuts enacted by supercommittee legislations as face now. decision As we see the changes made in the prehistorical 8 years since it’s inception, the IRTPA has helped the IC, but has not fixed it yet.While the DNI creation was a good thing, we do still see cases of the DNI have too much responsibility, and too much work. In some cases the added changes have brought more costs in bureaucratic startup, oversight, and staffing. While the need to separate the DCI from the rest of the agencies was important, the IRTPA has limited the CIA’s abilities an a variety of ways. Other advantages have been the information sharing of intelligence. The sharing has instituted policies and procedures as well as shared technology serves to better share information in a common platform.All things being combined, the IRTPA has been a game changer for the IC, only through reform, and through lessons learned will we strengthen and improve our practices, retentivity our country safer. Bibliography 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Report, Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government mental picture Office, 2004. Andrew, Christopher. For President’s Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush. tonic York: Harper Press. Beckner, Christian.Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations: An Analysis. http://www. hlswatch. com/sitedocs/Implementing%20the%20911%20Commission%20Recs. pdf (accessed October 03, 2012). Congress, 108th. intuition REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004. December 17, 2004. http://www. nctc. gov/docs/pl108_458. pdf (accessed October 03, 2012). GovTrack. us. H. R. 1 (110th): Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. August 3, 2003. http://www. govtrack. us/congress/bills/110/hr1 (accessed October 3, 2012). S. 2845 (108th): Intelligence Reform and Terro rism Prevention Act of 2004.December 17, 2004. http://www. govtrack. us/congress/bills/108/s2845 (accessed October 03, 2012). Jr, Richard A. Best. Intelligence Reform After volt Years: The Role of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). June 22, 2010. http://www. fas. org/sgp/crs/intel/R41295. pdf (accessed October 03, 2012). Rosenbach, Eric. Organization of the Intelligence Community. July 2009. http://belfercenter. ksg. harvard. edu/publication/19145/organization_of_the_intelligence_community. html (accessed October 03, 2012). ——————————————†[ 1 ]. 9/11 Commission.The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Report, Washington, D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office, 2004. , p xvi. [ 2 ]. ibid. , p. 407 [ 3 ]. ibid. , pp. 407-410 [ 4 ]. iBid. , p. 408 [ 5 ]. iBid. , p. 409 [ 6 ]. iBid. , P. 409. [ 7 ]. GovTrack. , S. 2 845 (108th): Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. , Website. , Washington D. C. accessed October 3, 2012 [ 8 ]. iBid. , Sec. 1031 [ 9 ]. iBid. , Sec. 1001 (r) [ 10 ]. iBid. , Sec. 1001 (i) [ 11 ]. iBid. , Sec. 7101\r\n'