The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Crackdowns

11.16.04 @ 12:01AM

LIP GOSS
Re: Jed Babbin's How Dare They?:

Amen to Mr. Babbin's heartening summary of the President's campaign to subdue and nationalize the rogue organization the CIA has become.

This is a crucial task, and the outcome is by no means certain. The Agency's failures in its nominal mission are legion and well-known, but it is formidably competent at self-preservation and in advancing its institutional interests.

CIA is a brand, and like the vintners of Bordeaux, somehow always gets the consumer to buy next year's product no matter how lousy last year's really was. Note how everybody swallows the so-called Dalfour report whole, in between choruses of complaint about the credibility of the Agency that employs Mr. Dalfour.

Mr. Goss has been sent on a dangerous mission against a wily and resourceful foe. He'll have to take Draconian steps to win. He can win, but he'll need the unwavering support of us all, starting with President Bush. That support must included a relentless and skeptical audit of all Mr. Goss does, because he's the very one the Agency insurgents will try hardest to play. If Goss succeeds, he'll have earned our deepest gratitude. If, in addition to succeeding, he survives, maybe he'll agree to be seconded out to the next Secretary of State and engineer the draining of that swamp, too.
-- Paul Kotik
Plantation, Florida

Jed Babbin is mistaken in his piece entitled "How Dare They?" There is a very good excuse for what the men of the CIA are doing; it is called fear. And what they are doing, leaving, was largely unavoidable.

Following the intelligence debacle of the 09/11 attacks, a multitude was screaming for the heads of the CIA and to a lesser degree Defense Intelligence and State Department Intelligence, actively seeking a scapegoat for the single most devastating attack upon American citizens within the borders of the United States of America. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, stood behind the Agency and its counterparts in Defense and State. George Tenet remained as the Director until his voluntary retirement in 2004. There were no firings and no purges. The administration stood behind the Agency. Even when they had to acknowledge inaccuracies in its intel and eval functions, no changes were made. The senior staff of the Agency repaid the President by either allowing or coordinating informational attacks upon the President and his administration.

Following his re-election, the current administration has embarked upon a program to redirect the focus and the energies of the Agency. This is similar to what happens when a new CEO enters a failing company or a new coach takes over a struggling sports franchise. He is hired for his vision and those below him will either adopt that vision or, at least, adhere to that vision, or they will seek employment elsewhere. What you are seeing is the backlash from entrenched interests within the Agency toward the new CEO. For better or for worse, it will all sort itself out.

Now the following excerpt from Mr. Babbin's piece is confusing to me, to say the least:

"In the hope that some of those who are thinking of resigning may read this, I want to address you directly. Each of you should ask yourself the following questions. Do you think your job is important to the war against terrorists and the nations that support them? Do you believe you're good at it, and are making a significant contribution to the nation's defense? Do you think that, by your hard work and experience, you may save one American's life or give the president one more option in any decision he has to make? Do you believe that your subordinates rely on your leadership and mentoring? If you answered any of those questions with a "yes," and you still dare to resign, you should hang your head in shame for the rest of your born days. It's all about duty, honor and country. If you think your personal gripes are more important, then go ahead and resign. And good riddance to you."

I have to assume that Mr. Babbin has some inside knowledge of the situation within the Agency which is unknown to me and which he did not impart in his article. Otherwise, the relevance of this passage is largely incomprehensible. I have served for three decades in public service under a variety of leaders and I have never considered resigning. Nor have I ever gone outside the circle of my peers to criticize the policies and actions of my superiors. I could be wrong, but I do not believe that we have to fear that the dedicated men and women of the Agency will react any differently. A certain type of person is drawn in large numbers to "public service"; they are willing and motivated to make large personal sacrifices for little or no recognition. These people are not to be judged by the standards of that other group of people drawn to "public service," the politicians.

The upper echelon members of the Agency may feel that they are not receiving the respect that they deserve from the new Director, Mr. Porter Goss, and his staff, but considering the current public activities of the Agency, within the political arena, they should not be surprised. The Agency is not the fourth branch of government, but merely a subdivision of the second branch and therefore answerable to its chief, the President.

The Agency will survive this tempest in a teapot. We can hope that the subsequent realignment will result in a re-focusing of the energies of the Agency on the procurement and analysis of accurate intelligence. As the war on terror continues, the Agency and her counterparts in Defense and State will become crucial to the effective waging of that war. No longer will it be like shooting fish in a barrel. The terrorists will retreat underground. Their glaringly evident ties to established national states will become muted and as tenuous as spider web. To identify, locate and neutralize these people will require intelligence organs of extreme dedication, strength, determination, sophistication and subtlety. The men and women who will compose those agencies will have to embody all of those attributes and others, including vision and the will to sacrifice for the good of society. I think that they are already in place and more will answer the call. The senior staff members who are threatening to resign can either remember their calling or retire and write their memoirs. The winds of change will sweep through the halls of the Agency, one way or the other.
-- Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

THE COMEBACK SENATOR
Re: Tim Carney's Unfit for Command:

The wringing of the hands and the gnashing of the teeth among conservatives since Senator Specter's recent foray into issuing (unsolicited) opinions to the president about future judicial appointments should be read as part of a piece: Senator Specter was just reassuring his constituency he was still, well, Senator Specter. Who but the most naive and jejune would ever question that allegiance, which has stood him in such good stead for nearly a quarter of a century as Defender of the Liberal Faith? But for those who were genuinely surprised, allow me to remind you of a colleague's criticism of Viscount Montgomery during World War II: "In dealing with him, one must always remember that he is not quite a gentleman."

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Health Care, Sports, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Military, Russia, NATO, Oil, Unions