Director of Analysis Branch at the C.I.A. Is Being Removed

Nytimes ^ | 12/29/04 | DOUGLAS JEHL

[GSlob]

Don't know about that. In my former workplace big layoffs happened on non-holiday Tuesday and then, a year later, on equally non-holiday Thursday.

[SunkenCiv]

thanks for the ping. :')

[mikenola]

As pleasurable as it is to celebrate the purge at CIA, we should remember that the so-called "failings" of the intelligence community were the result of policy decisions made at the top level.

99% of the CIA staff are good people who will perform admirably given a competent leader. If the president, congress, and the DCI reverse the policy trends that led to the breakdown on 9/11, the analysts will come through for them.

The new intelligence director post is a big-government, bad joke. The "C" in CIA stands for central, and the government should create policy reinforcing that role, not creating yet another redundant agency.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Ping

[dk/coro]

I can agree -- up to a point.

But, the system in place, even with the CIA and the FBI purportedly now dancing to the same sheet of music, leaves much to be desired.

A good analogy could very well be the results of Nichols-Goldwater. When I was coordinating (and fragging) Alfa Strikes for CTF-77 at 7th Air Force Hq at TSN (many years ago), General Momyer was barely civil to my boss, Vadm Hyland -- and PACAF was dedicated to paving Tonkin Gulf!

Cooperation at the highest levels was virtually nonexistent! The patently obvious result was mission degradation and needless loss of pilots and aircraft.

The Rolling Thunder strike mission against NVN would have been markedly enhanced by unification of aviation combat command at the theater level. This is unquestioned!!!

The classic successes of both Desert Storm and Tommy Franks' remarkable Baghdad caper proves the validity of this approach.

Is this structural analogy transferable to our national intelligence tasking? Quite possibly.

It surely could not have been any WORSE in the run-up to 9/11. Let's keep an open mind on this organizational realignment. I am against over centralization in any form. But, at least these intel turkeys must be forced to break down their fiefdoms for the good of the nation. At this juncture, Porter Goss should swing a broad sword -- and let the heads roll! Incompetence must not be rewarded. And, to that end, Tenet should never have been given the door so gracefully!

[CyberAnt]

Probably another Hillary stooge.

[Stentor]

The August report described the analytical branch as having "never been more junior or more inexperienced"

Anybody run screaming in the 90s?

[Southack]

Outstanding! Go, Porter!

[rawhide]

Goss for 'director of national intelligence'.

[elfman2]

" Why leave the whole gang in place for 3 years and then start the heads rolling? "

Just a guess, but maybe they were being worked 70 hour weeks to support the WOT.

[zerosix]

Another Christmas present to conservatives, cleaning away of Clintonian appointees.

[Grampa Dave]

[Grampa Dave]

[Blue Collar Christian]

"The "C" in CIA stands for central..."

Much as I hate to say it, even the Republicans like big gov't. Quite evident with the passage of Homeland Security, and now this. There is a sincere effort here though, to knock the rivalry log jam apart between agencies by making them more of "equals" than of subordinates reporting to the "Master" agency. Still, how many times can you re-centralize something?

That rivalry was nicely used in the story telling of "Enemies Foreign and Domestic".

[Blue Collar Christian]

You spelled it out Bubba!

[WidowWind]

Thank God we have an 'Office of Special Plans' to catch what they all missed!