Intelligence
Some would say no other area of the U.S. government is so misnamed
as the Intelligence Dept. It is responsible for the collection, analysis
and dispersion of information on just about anything relating to the
security, safety and planning of the American government. But it involves
little intelligence in the exercise of that function. In fact, those
critics would say, it desires to eschew the use of any intelligence,
being rather the arm and echo-chamber for the politics and ideology
of whoever is in power. It depends on internal watch our back
style cohesion and timidity in creativity and telling the truth.
Yet we find, in the Intelligence community, some of the most knowledgeable
and dedicated persons in government. They might have a better and more
sure pension than in the military, yet we will never know the names
or the services of the men and women of this community. By its nature,
they must remain sequestered and secretive. Success is simply noted
in the negative - - nothing happened to us today - - and
failures are all too frequently displayed in headlines. And through
all our history, as well as that of other modern nations, we have attempted
to down size or disband sections, even whole agencies, every time we
seem to have won or passed some confrontation or crisis.
Over our history we have had to re-form the Intelligence branch each
time we entered war, or we have had to beef it up from an inter-conflict
period of cuts and cutbacks.
Now I have not read the 9/11 Commissions report. I cant
afford the hard copy and I dont have time, even if it is available
online. So the suggestions I tender are my own. And I do not pretend
I know much about what all goes into intelligence. I start, as usual,
as simply an American who has tried to think out all possibilities and
how things have worked in the past. And I have done a little study historically
of the subject, and I keep in mind this new technologically sophisticated
era is largely unintelligible to me, so please bear with my ignorance.
There are some things I have noticed recently, however. One is that
there was not a lot of Intelligence experience on the 9/11 Commission.
I found that rather remarkable, especially in light of what has been
discussed and done in the past to rectify perceived problems with this
area. Even as far back as President Kennedy, a whole section, the DIA
(Defense Intelligence Agency), was created because of problems he associated
with CIA analysis regarding the Bay of Pigs. Obviously, if we are to
believe the Commission, that and other consequent reforms, did not help
the correctness and ability of that and other security agencies. In
fact the CIA was itself formed in an attempt to reform and refit the
W.W.II OSS for entrance into the postwar Intelligence game. It might
also be well to remember it is only about seven presidents ago that
the FBI finally left the suzerainty of J. Edgar Hoover to enter a wider
world of operations then that gentleman ever conceived of. And it is
also well to remember that the other agencies, both military and nonmilitary,
have only recently entered a sphere of both technological and teleological
capabilities which are not by any means completely understood by any
agency of the government or by many persons in the world.
Perhaps, before we look to drastic reform, we should look at what we
already have. And by this I mean the inner-relationships that develop
in the Intelligence community as a whole. I do not mean at the level
of agency rivalries, but at the basic competence levels of analysts
or field agents or directorates across the whole spectrum. I think it
might be reasonable to presume that an analyst for the NSA in a particular
section, has much the same background, function and concerns as an analyst
in the CIA. In fact there is probably more similarity between these
analysts than between them and a director of their respective agencies.
Strange as it sounds, perhaps we should look at an Association of Analysts,
and also of field agents and directors, which would informally and formally
trade ideas, capabilities and methods of doing that work, as well as
socializing in a secure but wide social net. This allows not only fertilizing
ideas into the agencies, but it also allows a level of fraternity and
normalization that not only puts members in a more relaxed and connected
framework, but also serves to make recruiting easier. In fact by outsiders
belonging to auxiliaries of these fraternities, without the security
clearance and access of the active members, it also gives
a pool for that recruitment, as well as being a transition state for
those leaving, writing about or researching those agencies. Presently
these backdoor old boy networks already exist, though usually
restricted within a particular agency, but it may be a useful concept
to use, and it conforms to an already existing skeleton
that exists in the agencies' closets.
Another thing the community has is the need for secrecy and security.
Again, at least as far as concerns basic clearance and even document
handling, it might be wise to have, to a certain level, one agency handling
just that. And not an existing agency, but one created for that specific
purpose. Secrecy, especially when many agencies hold the same of secrets,
often without each others knowledge, generates redundancy and mounds
of paper or disk space. Might it not, at least at lower levels be good
to gather all that under one umbrella? Information on those levels could
be shared easily, especially if a number of clearances were created
across all agencies, thus spurring creativity, information handling
and sharing and reduction in waste of time. In fact this could be done
at several levels, and simply correct clearance could be the entry point
of any agency getting any information. That might perhaps break down
rivalries and separation of activity and spur a cycle of each agency
trying to add to the bulk of that information, rather than hoarding
it. This idea might be compared with the present interdisciplinary agency
which holds fingerprints and criminal profiles, and the agencies, usually
local police departments, which use those files. The prints and bios
are dispensed to the various police, yet the dispensing agency does
not share in the local files, except in certain special cases, and the
local departments do not share in the holding agencys files, as
in internal FBI files for instance. Creation of such a holding
agency for Intelligence need not step on anyones toes, yet
could provide efficient information for all.
Loyalty is also a trademark of this community, both in terms of fealty
to the country, but also in loyalty to members of the community. It
might be well to build on that, and when we set up clearance standards
and back checks, that we do them always at one level higher than needed
for the person involved. If there is a separate agency to do this, then
the time in doing this is not taking from the work of any of the actual
Intelligence groups. It also might make oversight, both within agency
and by Congress, easier. If the Seucritizing agency could
report for the agencies up to a certain level of clearance, then heads
of operating agencies could make far fewer trips to Capitol Hill and
Congress would have far better ability to keep running track
of what was going on in the community. In fact the Securitizing
agency could even do it blind, not knowing what it was delivering to
Congress, only that it was at a certain level of clearance. If the secrets
the Intelligence Community holds and the operations it performs, are
the real purpose and meaning of intelligence, then why not give Congress
lots more product and less explanation. And if something has to be further
explained then that is the time for testimony. It seems to me this would
result in far fewer surprises, a truly worthy conduit for oversight
in a republic like ours and most importantly a two-way street
over which Congress could express concern over something they think
is being overlooked. In fact, through Congress, security concerns even
amongst the public, relayed through legislators, could make even Intelligence
responsive to the will and foresight of the American people.
These ideas might even extend to funding. Like the suggested securitizing
agency, there could be pot to draw from and this reservoir
could be what the Intelligence Czar has control of. In other
words, if you want performance and accountability, then controlling
the purse is one way to get it. As will be apparent later, I do not
like strict business methods in any area of government, yet it is a
tool we can use. Perhaps the job of the overseer should be to allocate
resources according to need and performance. This would be done in association
with liaisons from the agencies and Defense. And priorities, in part,
could be used to shift emphasis in the types of and operations of intelligence,
aided by the allocation of funding. You want more field ops, you fund
that more heavily, and expect performance for that heavier funding.
You could even force the creation of areas that intelligence
has ignored or downplayed, by allocating money and setting up a criteria
for success in those areas that rewards agencies for paying attention
to what is desired. True, this makes intelligence responsive to the
Legislative branch of government, yet we are a republic and if any area
should have control, it is that one. And if we fear that such an arrangement
would make intelligence a political puppet, then we have
a far greater and more dangerous situation than we have so far acknowledged.
I prefer the peoples representatives in charge than any other
branch of government. And, perhaps, a result of this, placing our intelligence
in the hands of our representatives, will help sober the legislators
into taking care of business, not floating political flags
which look good in press releases but do little for the governing of
the republic. After all, they have a responsibility for what happened
on 9/11 too. And so far, that responsibility has not been accepted.
As far as I know, no member of Congress has apologized for 9/11. In
fact I dont think any member of government, at all, has really
apologized. Perhaps as we wrestle with reorganizing, we should expect
such admission of responsibility first. But then Im probably just
projecting on them the type of responsibility that most Americans have
to accept everyday of our lives. Hmmm? Do you think maybe its time our
triad of government branches did the same?
Now those reforms would be homegrown so to speak. Grown
out of tendencies in the agencies themselves and their communities.
This next suggestion is a bit different. In my study of the history
of the military, I have been taken by their use of the Aggressor Corps
in training for certain operations. I am sure, on the think tank end,
such contrarian groups already exist in the Intelligence Community,
but what I humbly submit is the existence of an actual operational Aggressor
within Intelligence. Using various levels of clearance, duplicating
hopefully similar states of information in real world enemies, this
group would not simply think out, but would act out operations to test,
one, several or all of the agencies. It would be like a running diagnostic
of our capabilities. It could be used even in Homeland Security or against
any of the various industry, transportation and information sectors.
Successful or not with the incursion, it would be constant feedback
and training for the community, especially keeping them on their toes
during periods of quiescence. Staffed by persons knowledgeable in intelligence
and also with mavericks, perhaps like visiting professors,
borrowed from somewhere for one-shot missions, it would be the ultimate
in creativity and preparedness. It would be a way to test across the
agencies, even across the nation, in a way that would make readiness,
forethought and preparedness the very practical essence of our Intelligence
Community. In fact if proposed reforms do not achieve the results expected
in this latest set of intelligence problems, the very existence of the
Aggressors might give a hint to the means of acting on those problems.
If the members of the Aggressors are borrowed from the various
agencies, then might their methodology when operating under Aggressor
label, be a formative template itself for reform of the agencies themselves?
Just a suggestion, and one which may take some time, given the situation
we are presently in.
Now any intelligence gathering ability is finite, yet the plethora of
information, especially in cyberspace, is climbing toward the infinite.
How many hundreds of nations? How many thousands of technologies? How
many billions of messages, how many millions of potential enemies? And
all that is multiplied against itself. And it is not simply in counting
numbers that the problem grows, but in magnitudes of forces in evidence.
Chemical, biological and nuclear are simply the basics. We are entering
an age when weather, solar and extra-solar forces may impinge on our
security concerns. It might be wise to set up an intelligence clearinghouse
and information repository. A place that not only holds the magnitudes
of information needed but also does at least preliminary work on the
information to prepare it for use. And, at the same time, we might investigate
on how to help agents to become better able to use that information.
Mnemonic systems, heuristic arts and special brain-synchronized learning
methods are floating around in various disciplines. Might it be wise
to see if they really work and can be used to increase capability in
areas humanity presumes are its limitations? When I was a child, the
four minute mile was not yet breached, now there are teenagers doing
it. Humanitys presumptions are often its limitations. Maybe it
is time to try to systematically breach the barriers. And if we do,
what a wonderful gift to give our children in their own education system.
James Bondian powers for everyone.
One last thing before we leave the last three suggestions. I think the
use of a liaison board or liaison staff should be available to Congress.
During hearings I have watched on C-Span, I have been amazed at how
many times a legislator has had to ask an intelligence representative
for important information and was simply promised well try
to get back to you. Sorry, this is America. The persons on oversight
committees are entitled to such information, and by the principals of
our republic we are entitled for them to be informed. A liaison board
or individual liaison agents for Congress is perhaps a long overdue
idea. And, again, it would help make the intelligence community a lot
more responsive to the people who pay their salaries, which is the American
people. In my humble experience I have found average Americans often
have more insight and more creativity than those we entrust our government
to. It may be time we take steps to ensure some two-way communication
of our concerns and desires.
There is also one area of intelligence that I think has gotten too little
attention. It is in keeping with the idea of knowing ourselves. I am
sure there is some examination of the totality of our own nation that
takes place, however it may not be enough. After all, thinking about
our present terrorist situation, wasnt international banking,
especially the offshore banks, one of the ways our enemies have been
able to launder money? Hasnt our tremendous growth in shipping,
coupled to globalization, aided our enemies in being able to select
massive amounts of targets that might cripple us? Isnt our unbridled
need for speed and capability in microcomputers the very capability
our enemies need to plan against us? Isnt the dependence on point-sourcing
and on-demand shipping, the very structure which insures we can be mortally
wounded by very few attacks? Even in energy, if we really decide to
turn away from oil, is not the options we have given ourselves, like
nuclear, an actual target that our enemies wish to make use of? It seems
in almost every area of the American governance and enterprise, we either
have or are or will be opening up more weaknesses to our opponents
thrusts.
Perhaps attached to Homeland Security, there needs to be an American
Information Agency, one which gathers facts and statistics, creates
study projects and forecasts in numerous ways the trends and futures
we may face. I am reminded of the groundbreaking Futureshock
book of a few years ago, it looked at the future in ways none had before.
After all, we must remember the first think-tank only dates to the opening
years of the 1900s, and a set of rules for such operations has never
really been worked out. One only has to think of the startup think tank
that advised the Brazilian government to start cutting and burning the
rain forests, to realize the damage a too rigid view of how to project
into the future can produce. Thus such an agency would take in hard
facts but put out a plethora of soft designs from
those facts. And an unclassified version of the agencys findings
could be used as research and development fodder for everyone from student
to world class business. It would also be an invaluable aid in the future
needs of the American public, as it comes to grips with the challenges
of our future. Despite the sloganeering and ideology of today, I think
in very short order we are going to come up against problems of such
nature that all the resources of our citizenry will be needed in order
to continue in existence. Terrorism is, I feel in my gut, only a symptom
of far greater dangers we are likely to face. I think having one resource
which can give you the facts needed to cut through the baloney that
abounds in politics and business is a true service to all of us.
And if my instinct is true, then my last suggestion is to give Intelligence
a truly universal and worldwide, maybe even other worldly, scope. This
is another borrowing from the military called Operational
Art. Now I dont pretend to totally understand the concept, and
it doesnt seem to have a standard definition either, but I do
kind of understand what it is pointing at. And I can best
give an idea of it by dealing with the areas of military concern. Tactics
is generally regarded as the approach to combat, maneuvers and uses
of men and materials within the context of a battle or series of battles
and the attack and defense in those battles. Strategy is generally the
use of circumstances, technology and forces and maneuvers over large
areas and long periods of time to produce battles, positionings and
outcomes of multiple groups or armies, over an entire war even if it
occurs in widely separated places. Operational Art is an almost quantum
leap above either of those. It takes into account the aims, both geopolitical
and military of the war and the peace, the factors both military and
outside the military which impinge on that effort, and an overall general
and changeable plan to outmaneuver and defeat the enemy in areas both
military and in other applicable areas like financial, psychological,
propagandal, logistical, positional and technological. And it is called
an art because unlike some systems of strategy and tactics it is a work
in progress. It might have meant one thing in W.W.II but a radically
different thing in Vietnam. And in the actions against terrorists it
will definitely mean something different from either of those. There
may be basic ideas about it yet it changes as the conflict changes.
Confused? I am too, but have heard on good authority that this is the
way to fight a war. If so, then can we not apply the art to intelligence?
After all, our intelligence already outstrips that of the terrorists.
They can only buy satellite photos, not launch satellites. They must
use present forms of communications, not create their own. They have
limited non-human resources for information and reconnaissance, we have
many and can create many more. They are nearly, at least at present,
operating in one theater of warfare - - land - - we operate
anywhere even space. Their manpower is limited, ours orders of magnitude
greater. They are restricted by ideology, in other words they cannot
deny Allah to get into our ranks anymore than we can murder in order
to get into their ranks. (This is not quite true as there is a form
of adoption of contrary beliefs they can do, however there
are tenets they dare not cross without endangering their souls.) They
are restricted in resources and research and we are not.
With such innate capability, if we adopt Operational thinking, then
hopefully we will be in places they wish to go before they even know
they wish to go there. We will be co-opting resources before they even
need those resources. Planning countermeasures before they even launch
the first attack. Selling them sting operations before they even realize
they are their own worst enemy. For we know what they want, both ideologically
and militarily and in terms of weaponry. We should be the one to make
sure they get what they desire. Operational Art in Intelligence
probably has the ability to do that. I am sure there are persons in
the military who can clue the rest of the community in to the aims and
practices of Operational Art and its applicability to Intelligence.
I think it might make the most use of our immense resources to bring
quick and definite end to the present conflict. Besides, if I am right
about the future, we will definitely need such an art in intelligence
for the next series of crisis's.
One more thing before we leave this subject, an example in both the
intelligence sphere and the geopolitical sphere that goes back centuries.
It is a lesson for us today that one of the possible solutions for our
present situation was worked out in the 1400s by no less a personage
than Henry the Navigator. His country of Portugal, as well as other
Christian nations, was faced by a militant Islamic foe enervated by
the incursion of the Crusades. They were also faced by an Islamic near
monopoly on trade too, thus facing injury both militarily and monetarily.
Henry, using the findings of voyages along the African coast and what
he could ferret out of Islamic merchants themselves, created a grand
strategy to find alternate routes to the markets of the Far East and
to encircle the Islamic powers by extending influence around
them in an early kind of Christian Curtain. It was only
put into practice after his death, yet it was a brilliant plan, one
which may have born fruit centuries later with the isolation and eventual
economic overpowering of the Muslim civilizations. Today that should
not be our purpose, Islam is not the enemy, yet the terrorists may be
susceptible to the same type of planning. If this inhabitant of the
early Renaissance could have formulated such an idea, should we be less
creative and able in our own planning and execution? Let us remind ourselves
of that old adage that if we do not learn from history we are doomed
to repeat it. And I do not think any of us wish to repeat that September
day or experience even a worse attack because we ignore such historical
signposts.
One last thing before we leave the area of Operational Art in intelligence,
and that is the present developing situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We are hopefully in the process of helping them rebuild their own intelligence
networks, as well as everything else in their societies. I think it
is wise that we are aware of the potential for moles to
inculcate themselves into that framework. It would be very dangerous
if suddenly we found that in the intelligence sector, or any other for
that matter, that sleeper agents had wormed their way in. Perhaps even
networks of sleepers. As future crises arise in those countries, it
would be the failure of all our efforts to suddenly have such persons
or networks undermine all that we worked for. We need only remember
the Philbys and the Burgesses of recent history to understand the potential
damage. And if they are in positions which are vital, such sleepers
could do far more damage than either of those examples, sending two
nations down into the pit of failed states and perhaps even fundamentalist-based
nationalism. Years of work and untold billions of dollars and American
lives, perhaps even survival of our nation, are the stakes of such a
failure. It behooves us all to make sure it does not happen.
So these are my suggestions and cautions. I have tried to think them
through as best as I could. There is one final subject, however, and
that is ethics. Now some have said such an idea as ethics in espionage
is a contradiction in terms. I do not intend to deal with the application
of any ethical guidelines for intelligence, I believe that is a discussion
and a decision that must be made by the whole public and their representatives.
Rather I wish to deal with the existence of ethical behavior in those
we choose to serve in the intelligence community.
In the Reagan administration, there were many who thought Wm. Casey
was a very good pick for the directorship of the CIA. Many in the CIA
believed his OSS connections and his past experience suited him for
director. How then did we come to the Iran-Contra Affair with all its
attendant illegalities and harm to the perception of us throughout the
world? Could the confirmation hearings have held a clue as to what was
coming? We should remember the questioning, even by those of his own
party, of Caseys past business deals. We must also remember that
nothing illegal was found.
Perhaps it is time to realize that what is legal and what is moral or
ethical are often two different things. Despite recent ranting about
our nation being built on religious principals, there are some who would
remind us that no nation is built on such principals. One has to only
read The Prince to realize nations are not moral instruments.
The citizens are the moral fiber of any nation, and if they remain moral
and ethical, then their governments actions will at least have
a chance to be so. Yet nations, by the very fact they are extra-personal
entities, are seldom moral, religious or ethical in their actions or
policies. I know of no supposed Christian nation which practices all
of the ten commandments, and even the Vatican State has spawned war
and persecution. However that does not prevent the citizens from being
sure that ethical, moral, even religious persons are selected to lead
that state. And I think we need to examine closely the ethical background
of those we select, especially in this age were most of our leaders
and representatives come out of a business background.
Casey was not a felon and he was a businessman. Business, any business,
is very similar to a government. It may have ethics yet
I wonder if our common citizen would recognize them as such? In business
it is legal and ethical to take away peoples livelihoods, reduce
their living standards, defund their pensions and do away with any benefit
including health care. These are legal and ethical for them to do by
their lites. Business has no conscience and little memory. It will take
what is freely given, often from the government it claims to despise,
and turn and sell it for whatever the market will bear. Bankruptcy,
crashes, boom and bust, usury, stock bubbles, overselling, bait and
switch, strike breaking and layoffs are just a few of the words in its
vocabulary. We have been coarsened, however, to the implications of
such words by their constant use. Seldom do we think of the millions
affected by business actions. Real persons made homeless, hungry and
ill, perhaps even put at deaths door. We are taught an economic
based mantra of personal responsibility and market
driven causes that is used to form or criticize public policy.
Yet, when scandal strikes, when markets go awry, suddenly there are
vast legal havens for the business gurus, yet almost nothing for the
employees and small investors.
There has been some talk about competitiveness and market forces being
applied to the Intelligence community. Perhaps it is wise to remember,
in other areas of government where business ethics have crept in, what
a disaster it has sporadically been. And unfortunately the disasters
are seldom corrected and often compounded. One need only remember the
1960s and the attempt to curb our oil dependence and redirect our energy
structure. Mileage targets were selected, speeds limits imposed and
types of fuels mandated. Within a few years the market driven
auto sector and oil industry had convinced our legislators to repeal
all of that, except some of the fuel mandates, perhaps because even
they could not explain away smog. Was this good for the health of ourselves
and the energy dependence we suffer under? Doubtful, yet it was done
in very businesslike manner.
I speak only for myself, yet I cannot say that I really practice the
business principal of personal profit which we are told
will cure all ills and from which all good flows. I doubt the majority
of Americans practice that principal, family, friends and community
are too real to us. If we continue, in the intelligence sphere, to put
in place business principals and business people, we are edging toward
the dissolution of the public good. Dickens reminded us a long time
ago that the business of mankind is Mankind, we are looking
at a bleak future if we ignore that reality. Especially in Intelligence.
It functions almost as a brain functions, giving us vital information
we need to survive. It helps direct our movements, our planning and
our dreams. These are not areas of balance sheets and cost benefit analysis.
They are areas of human concern, and just as with the terrorists, areas
of individual choice. Intelligence must somehow filter down to each
of us so that each of us can make decisions on how to live our American
lives. It must give us options to support our government and rationally
plan our future. Let us all pray that is what happens.
An example of how such market based thinking can lead to problems, is
the recent hoopla over container fees. Since ports are a possible danger
area for us, security agencies have had to plan on beefing up port safety
and container tracking. This resulted in a possible $30 to $50 hike
in container charges. Many businesses began clamoring about such hikes,
saying they would cripple the shipping industry and drive up costs for
goods throughout the economy. As far as I know, they have finally accepted
the raises, I hope. However, the very fact they tried to avoid such
fees, shows the contrast in their concerns versus the security of the
American people. They must know, as most of us do, that there are hundreds
of nuclear missle warheads loose in the world. When the
Soviets collapsed, they left ballistic missles in their former satellites.
These are probably in the ten to fifteen megaton range and they might
well be on the black market. They do not even have to come into our
ports to endanger us. Such a warhead, secluded in a container ship on
its way to South America and outside territorial limits, could well
take out a 150 mile semi-circle of the Eastern or Western Seaboard.
We must have accurate container tracking worldwide, for our sake and
the worlds.
And lest you think I am totally anti-business, let me clarify. Business,
as practiced in its highest form and in the spirit of Adam Smith, is
the servant and the benefiter of Humanity. Even Smith noted that there
were merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to
be, the rulers of mankind. We should take that caution from the
father of modern economics to heart. It may be too late to get business
out of politics, policy and international associations, but we can prevent
its entry into and dominance of the Intelligence community. Using a
previous metaphor, if intelligence is to government as the brain is
to the body, then we are fighting a general infection. It is now reaching
to breach the blood-brain barrier and to multiply through the very survival
mechanisms that sends messages to all areas of the body politic. If
those messages are distorted by profit and cost-benefit analysis, then
be prepared to hear of only half-measures and economically stunted efforts.
For Humanity, America carrying some of its most advanced efforts, this
is a time of decision. We may either allow a segment of society with
wealth and power to rule all areas of our lives, or prevent it from
infecting our information agencies, so that we may in time begin to
get a realistic picture of what we are facing. And we may be facing
much.
Only recently, in part based on information from satellite surveillance,
we are finding the Arctic and Antarctic are melting at alarming rate.
We are seeing a change in climate and species dispersion. It may be
global warming, it may be natural process, yet there are those in the
seamier sections of business who are trying to say it is not happening.
Let us not quibble over the reason, as my Pappy said, pictures dont
lie. Neither do the evacuations of islands and the rising sea levels.
And this may be only one crisis we face. Some astronomers, again based
on satellite information, have theorized that our Sun is really a variable
star. If it is, then we are on borrowed time unless we accept the possibility
and begin to plan. If the Sun is variable, then it can reduce or increase
its output by amounts capable of eradicating life on this world. And,
if as some astronomers have postulated, that it is also a Flare Star,
then if such a flare is emitted in our direction, all life on at least
one side of our planet could be wiped out in a day. And these are rather
simple scenarios, not some of the more intricate of possibilities. These
include the possible polluting of natural genomes by bio-genetically
altered species, the introduction of cloned species into the food or
medicine chains and the actual altering of the genome of Humanity itself.
Intelligence, especially if we can make it more responsive to the education
and will of the American people, and the world, is a last bulwark against
such self-seeking and selfish manipulation. It is capable of forming
our national interest with factual information to set us on a path,
not only of victory, but also of reasoned decision. Let us not have
this last, somewhat secretive enclave, co-opted by an influx of financial
decision-making. Intelligence should have as close a connection to facts
as possible. It should not have to consider supply-side philosophy before
delivering those facts, nor need to justify a needed but expensive investigation
to some third-rate clerk doing percentages. And if we do rescue intelligence
from such a fate, in turn Intelligence must expect that it must truly
serves its masters, the American people. Thus the above suggestion that
we need an information clearinghouse that can guide the decisions of
average Americans as well as that of their government. There need be
no animosity between Americans and their secret agencies, they can both
be coworkers together in the strengthening of America. They can both
be beneficiaries of that association.
|