The Conservative Treehouse began a series on "The Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Community."  That series, along with Tucker Carlson's revelation that the NSA possibly spied on him and at the very least illegally unmasked him, has brought the Intelligence Community center stage.  I usually do not think too much about the various security and intelligence functions of the government, other than to marvel that they have managed to prevent a second 9/11.  In doing a bit of research, however, I have come to realize that the security function of our country is a tangled web of bureaucracy.  Is that really what it takes to protect U.S. citizens, or is this a turf-building and protection operation?  

The foundation of any security operation has to be the knowledge that is gathered and analyzed.  In the case of the federal government, that foundation is provided by the Intelligence Community, or I.C., which is "responsible for collecting, analyzing, and delivering foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to America's leaders so they can make sound decisions to protect our country."  The I.C. is a coalition of 18 entities with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) integrating the intelligence gathered; however, the members do not report to the ODNI.  The ODNI is a relatively new entity, created in 2005 at the recommendation of the 9/11 commission.  The commission reported that before the 2001 disaster, there were clues about an impending attack, but no one person had a full picture because information was siloed.  In typical bureaucratic fashion, the response was to create another level of infrastructure and expand government operations.

Below is a list of the 17 other members of the I.C. and their primary mission.  Mission statements portrayed on the I.C. website have been paraphrased for a clearer understanding. 

This is the point where my eyes glaze over and roll into the back of my head.  According to the I.C. website, oversight of the I.C. is provided by the president and ten other entities, including the National Security Council, President's Intelligence Advisory Board, Intelligence Oversight Board, OMB, Privacy and Civil Rights Oversight Board, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, FISA Court, and Inspectors General.  In other words, they are responsible to no one, which is the exact point of the CTH series. 

There appears to be an abundance of duplication and overlap.  With the exception of the National Reconnaissance Office, the members seem to do the same thing — collect and analyze intelligence for various end-users.  Is it really necessary to have a Defense Intelligence Agency as well as a separate division within each of the military branches?  Why do some Cabinet departments have their own intelligence-gathering units but not others?  Does the State Department not trust the work produced by the CIA and FBI?  Maybe the Department of Commerce doesn't need an intelligence-gathering arm for its work but why does the Treasury require its own operation?  There is a whole Cabinet-level agency called the Department of Homeland Security.  Wouldn't you expect to find the intelligence-gathering work being done within the walls of DHS?  Well, they do have an Office of Intelligence and Analysis, but how is that at all different from the work the Treasury Department's Office of Information and Analysis is doing?  Maybe they just don't have as much time to pay attention to intelligence since DHS also has to take care of natural disasters that require a FEMA response and supervise the Coast Guard, which, by the way, has its own department for intelligence.

Let's face it: there is a finite amount of information available at any given time.  It may be a massive amount, but it is still finite.  It seems quite likely that the various entities are listening in on the same conversations and gathering the same information.  By duplicating responsibilities and creating a complicated flow of information and reporting, there are more opportunities for miscommunication, more turf-protecting, and more wasted time and money.  Wouldn't it be much more efficient to have one big organization gathering all that information and then sending it out to those who need to know?  I understand that there has to be a division between domestic and foreign intelligence, although that line seems to be a little fuzzy and appears to be violated on a regular basis.  The point is, there has to be a better way to protect the homeland and its citizens — one that offsets costs with benefits.

Image via Pixabay.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.