Our New 'DNI'

So, past human rights abuse allegations aside, what do you guys think the chances of Negroponte succeeding in creating a unified national intelligence community? Personally, I think it was a pretty savvy move to appoint a career diplomat to a post that is going to require the stroking of some seriously over-developed egos (and anything that makes Rumsfeld squirm is a welcome sight in my book.) According to the Washington Post, Negroponte’s success—and that of the DNI post in general—is going to depend on the close backing of the president. Having Bush’s nod is the only way to get a handle on all the divergent interests, agendas, and resources of the 15+ agencies he’ll supervise. Close affiliation with the president will lend credibility to the post, but as is suggested in this NY Times article, it can also lead to suggestions of collusion between the DNI and the administration, and the manipulation of intelligence data to suit administration policies. So, basically, Negroponte is looking at a situation that—to borrow from Dan Rather—would “give an aspirin a headache.” No matter what the relationship between this new DNI and the president, someone is going to find fault.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about bringing all of our intelligence agencies under one national directorate. If it means a better utilization and deployment of resources, better coordination between agencies, more information sharing, and an increase in the overall quality of intelligence generated, then I guess it’s a good thing. Of course, the skeptic in me distrusts centralized authority. Whereas before it might have been hard for a dozen separate agencies to organize themselves into a civil-rights eating, Big Brother type action; having someone coordinating them could put civil liberty at even greater risk in this country.

In general, I would like to see more transparency built into our intelligence gathering abroad and domestically, and specifically into the monitoring of private citizens. Surprising even myself, I would probably consent to some level of monitoring, as long as I knew what it was and for what purpose. Obviously, this also means the bad guys know too, but isn’t that the definition of a deterrent? I object to government monitoring of my activities when I don’t know about it and don’t know why they’re doing it. I don’t think it would cost them that much in capability to keep the public informed, and would probably make their jobs a lot easier in the end.

I know there are a lot of issues covered here, but any thoughts? Feelings?