The mission of the vast U.S. intelligence network in a world without a Cold War may be at stake as President Bush and his advisers sit down to select a new director of central intelligence.
In a confrontation with the Soviet Union that lasted more than four decades, the U.S. developed an intelligence capability that stretched from satellites to submarines, employed tens of thousands of workers around the world and was rivaled only by the Soviets` KGB.
But with the Soviet empire breaking apart and Moscow`s attention turned inward, the future of parts of the vast U.S. apparatus is in doubt.
Some critics question why at a time of huge budget deficits the U.S. still needs to spend $30 billion a year on a network of intelligence. They point out that much of the world`s non-military information is available and open and could be studied by cheaper and less clandestine agencies.
”Of all the rusting relics of the Cold War, none lingers on with more irony, more resistance to its growing anachronism than the Central
Intelligence Agency,” Roger Morris, who worked for the National Security Council in the Johnson and Nixon administrations, wrote last summer.
Referring to moves by the CIA to expand into counterterrorism and counternarcotics work and a proposal by retiring CIA Director William Webster to begin gathering economic-related intelligence, Morris said, ”Peace, it turns out, is going to be even more expensive than the Cold War, and by all odds a growth industry for the intelligence community.”
But the defenders of this vast bureaucracy that includes the National Security Agency, which conducts electronic eavesdropping, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the intelligence branches of each military service maintain that in the more fragmented and problematical world of today, the intelligence agencies may remain as vital as ever.
Some concede that the rapid growth of these agencies over the past several decades has created waste and overlap, particularly among the intelligence branches of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
Former National Security Agency Director William Odom told Congress recently that although the performance of the U.S. intelligence community has been ”remarkably good,” it now has ”serious structural problems.”
Rep. Henry Hyde (D-Ill.), who served six years on the House Intelligence Committee, said: ”There is much to be said for competitive analysis. But a line is reached where redundancy overtakes competitive analysis.”
Nonetheless, Hyde said the war with Iraq and the need to prevent others like Saddam Hussein from arming themselves with chemical and nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles provides adequate justification for keeping the intelligence budget at $30 billion, a level that reflects a slight reduction made during this fiscal year.
”I think a general figure of spending 10 percent of what we spend on overall defense for knowing what is going on in the outside world is not a bad general measure,” said Bobby Inman, a former director of the National Security Agency and deputy director of the CIA.
Other experts agree that the U.S. may no longer need as much intelligence about Soviet military capabilities and may not need to resort as often to covert action programs as Moscow places less emphasis on competing for influence in other countries. But they say top U.S. policymakers also have a much greater need to understand what is happening in Soviet society and the politics of numerous other volatile countries around the world.
To that end, Webster over the past two years has intensified efforts to hire a broader range of experts on the Soviet Union, recruit native-speaking agents in troubled spots around the world and train more CIA personnel in Arabic and languages other than Russian.
He also has placed new emphasis on developing intelligence that could help stop the proliferation of all types of weapons in the Third World.
In a further bid to expand the CIA`s usefulness-and, critics say, to preserve its budget-Webster has set up centers to coordinate the government`s fight against terrorism and narcotics trafficking. He also has made a controversial proposal to use the agency to gather intelligence vital to U.S. economic interests and to counter foreign efforts to steal U.S. business secrets.
But even many supporters of the intelligence community felt that Webster, who has run the CIA since 1987 and restored its integrity after the Iran-contra affair, was not moving quickly or imaginatively enough to implement such changes. Last week Bush announced that the 67-year-old former judge and FBI director would retire.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees are holding hearings this spring on proposals to reorganize the intelligence agencies and examine what members believe was a failure to anticipate properly Iraq`s invasion of Kuwait. Senators are likely to raise these questions in confirmation hearings for Webster`s successor.
Some members also said it is vital that Webster`s replacement act more boldly than he did in revamping the operations of the entire U.S. intelligence community. (By law, the CIA director also coordinates the spending and work of the National Security Agency and the military intelligence units.)
”Where we go in the future will be determined by the strategic vision of the next director,” said Rep. Dave McCurdy (D-Okla.), the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. ”If the man or woman, whoever it is, has a global vision, an intellectual curiosity, a willingness to challenge the status quo, and access to the president, then I believe that despite declining resources, the quality of intelligence can improve.”
Some observers said the need for reorganization makes it imperative that Bush choose someone with a strong background in intelligence.
White House officials have floated the names of several possible candidates for director, including two who have substantial experience as intelligence officers: Robert Gates, now Bush`s deputy security adviser, and James Lilley, who is ending a term as ambassador to China.
But the experts also concede that reorganizing the intelligence agencies will not be easy and could trigger bitter turf fights.
Even so, members of Congress from both parties agree that it is worth trying to eliminate waste as a way of finding money to expand the types of intelligence the agencies gather without increasing the overall intelligence budget.
McCurdy and Hyde said the increased demand for political, as opposed to military, information points up what they see as a major ”deficiency in human intelligence,” the old-fashioned spies who infiltrate foreign societies or turn against their own countries.
Both said the intelligence community has not tried hard enough to develop such agents over the past decade or two because of increased reliance on satellites and other less-risky technology.
While the satellites are vital for tasks such as verifying Soviet compliance with arms-control treaties, they provide no help in understanding the political and societal pressures that have led to revolts or in understanding a leader`s intentions.
Similarly, McCurdy said, the CIA needs to expand substantially its staff of economic and political analysts watching the Soviet Union and other nations.
”There will be a shift, but it takes time” he said. ”More importantly, it`s not the same people. You don`t say to a Soviet expert, `Guess what?
You`re now a China expert. Just move east.` ”
Other Democrats have raised strong objections to the CIA becoming more involved in economic intelligence, and some experts have questioned whether this duplicates the work of the Commerce Department and scientific research agencies.
But McCurdy said he favors hiring specialists at the CIA to collect
”technical and scientific” papers ”and understand trends and what other governments are doing” to compete with U.S. interests.
McCurdy also said the CIA should concentrate on providing policymakers better long-term analyses.
”What`s the Pacific Rim going to look like 10 years from now-economically, politically and culturally?” he asked. ”Where does China go after the octogenarians leave the scene? Does it make sense to coddle them now, or should we be developing relationships with the next generation?
