Изображения страниц

people about the intelligence function. Well, I think that's a very important part of it.

The third point I'd make is that there is value in the debate itself even if you don't reach a conclusion. I really think that's the case. We've all seen that in the democratic process. The mere fact that General Odom and I may have a difference of opinion about what you do with the DCI, we're not probably going to resolve that to either one of us's satisfaction. But the fact that you discuss it is important and makes each one of us more sensitive to the other's point of view, which I think has been terribly important here.

The final word would be George Shultz's statement, who said nothing is ever finally decided in this town. And there's a lot of truth in that.

Chairman Goss. Thank you. General.

General ODOM. I would just make two points. I think Senator Rockefeller has already preemptively answered a lot of your questions. You don't need a big public audience to get these things done. You need the people in charge who use the intelligence to do it. So I even have wonderment about this endeavor in this way.

Second, that takes me to my second point. May be we didn't have the information because the trend over the past ten or twelve years and even more recently has been to make our intelligence activities a lot more transparent. I could tell you as an intelligence operator if I were running al-Qa'ida, with what I could read in the American press, I could see how to evade you. So I think the publicity approach to intelligence ought to be seriously scrutinized in light of the intelligence failure vice 11 September.

Chairman Goss. My time has long expired. That's a subject of great debate. Can a democratic, free, open society that plays by the Marquis of Queensberry rules exist in a globe where not everybody else is playing by the Marquis of Queensberry rules. But my time has expired and I'd love to take that up in chapter two.

Chairman GRAHAM [presiding]. We have now completed round two and we're now at round three, which I think will be the conclusion of our imposition on your time.

The question I wanted to ask, which has haunted me from September 11 and before September 11 but particularly since then, it seems as if the Intelligence Community had a difficult time recognizing that the cold war had ended and that some of its practices which were the product of the cold war were not relevant or not the most relevant to the new world in which the Intelligence Community would be called upon to provide information to decisionmakers.

I would put just as a few characteristics of that failure to evolve the fact that we had big struggles over whether to use a satellite architecture that seemed to be more aligned to continuing to look at the Soviet Union rather than the flexibility to look at multiple issues, the continued decline in human intelligence which had started at the end of the cold war and continued after the cold war, when it would appear that the nature of our adversary would be such that we need more emphasis on human intelligence, some of the problems that NSA had in the 1990s, including one period where it went black for a while, with it said that our technology was falling behind the technologies with which we had to compete.

A-do you believe that in fact we have what I call the Darwinian problem of failure to recognize that the environment in which we're living is changing and by that failure almost consign ourselves to a death spiral and, B-if that is an accurate, maybe a little overdramatized, statement, what can we inject into these big intelligence agencies to give them a great capacity to recognize changes and to respond to them? Because it's my thesis that if there's been significant change in the world in which the Intelligence Community operates since the end of the cold war, if you project an equivalent period of time into the future there will be even more change during the next eleven or twelve years.

So what can we do to try to not require a 9/11 incident to shake us that the world is changing and we need to change and adapt to it or we will die of irrelevance?

Mr. HITZ. Well, if I may be so bold as to start, I lived through part of it, Mr. Chairman, as did all of you on the dais. And the shift over after '91 I think you are accurate in saying took a long time.

Part of it-and there's no blame to be levied here-part of it was the notion that the Intelligence Community thought it, like the military services, was going to pay a peace dividend. We cut back substantially on the recruitment of new personnel. We wanted to get smaller. When we did that, with the whole changeover in targets that Presidential Decision Directive 35 led us to, a good many seasoned operatives decided they had won the cold war, they had enjoyed working against the Soviet target, and they didn't necessarily want to shift over to the next sets of targets.

At the same time, we were going through-again it just happened that way-a revolving door at the top of ČIA. I served, in the period of eight years, under five different Directors of Central Intelligence. That's an awful lot of change at the top of a major corporation. And each Director, in good faith, had his own ideas of how he wanted to do the job and sent out a lot of directives and stirred up a lot of commotion, as happens in a bureaucracy. So we were slow on that, but 9/11 was the wakeup call and, as I'm sure it's been chronicled before this Committee to an extraordinary degree the response has been heartening in the sense that new people have applied. The new targets have been measured.

But there was a lot of time lost.

Mr. HAMILTON. I would agree that the community, Intelligence Community, has had a lot of rigidity in it and has been slow to change. It focused early on, for example, a few years back principally on an attack by ballistic missile and there were a lot of other things out there other than ballistic missiles and we learned about them, to our regret. It focused very heavily on military threats and overlooked the terrorist threat for a long time.

It was focused on advanced technologies and overlooked the importance of the human spy. It focused on collection and not enough on analysis. It had a lot of bureaucratic rigidities.

Now all of that is in the past, all of that I think is conventional wisdom that we need corrections there. How do you bring about those corrections? Well, you bring them about exactly the way you've been doing. You've been calling people in here from the Intelligence Community and pointing out a lot of these things to

them and changes are beginning to occur. When a Director of the FBI comes in and says we're going to start emphasizing prevention instead of law enforcement, that's a revolution. Now it's going to take a while to carry it out, but it's quite a change.

So things are happening and I think they're happening positively. The process works too slowly, I am sure, for all of us, but your job, which I think you are fulfilling is to call these people up here and put them on the spot and let them know what you think the changes are that are occurring in the world and in the country, put a little sunlight on it, make them respond. And the system will move, maybe a little too gradually, a little too slowly, but it will


General ODOM. The comment I would add to this is to make a distinction between policy issues and structural issues. The hearing started out focusing on structural issues, and most of Mr. Goss's comments, those were policy issues more than structural issues.

We're going to make mistakes, and that's corrective feedback. Sometimes you pay a higher price, sometimes you pay a smaller price. In the military we have a tradition. When you screw things up, we relieve the commander, which leaves me puzzled about the behavior of the Administration in the intelligence area. I consider intelligence, as I said earlier, a military engagement, and I would hold the commanders as responsible as I would ship commanders who run their ships aground. They don't stay around after they've run them aground, even if they are not very guilty.

And I've seen people relieved in Vietnam who you wouldn't believe how little they were relieved for. But the example turned out to quicken the responsiveness of people below. So I think that's the policy issue you're facing on the redress here.

The business of shifting adequately, I didn't live through it, but let me explain some of the things I know about it just from old friends and hearsay. You had these big organizations. They had to make programmatic decisions to downsize. They didn't do that very well, in part because of internal management incompetence and also because the community at large does not have a PPBS system. It has a kind of everybody's playing, pulling his chips in and trying to beggar the other fellow.

And the DCI, unless he builds some kind of system to do that, you're not going to improve that very much. This is a structural issue, and it was the second point of my comments in my statement this morning, how you relate input dollars to intelligence output. And the absence of that system I think explains some of the slowness and viscous reactions within my old Agency, NSA, and other parts of the community in the 1990s.

Chairman GRAHAM. Congressman Goss.

Chairman Goss. No.

Chairman GRAHAM. Senator Rockefeller. Mr. Condit.

Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I can't resist this. I know it will get a rise out of the panel, but I want to go back to the comment the General made about transparency. I don't have the benefit of serving in the Intelligence Community like some of you have and Chairman Goss has, but it just seems to me what's the problem with opening this up? I mean, everybody knows that everybody's watching everybody and that we're going to monitor people, we're

going to monitor weapon systems, we're going to monitor actions and so on and so forth.

If there was more transparency it just seems to me it would be more openness, more sunshine on the issue, everybody would be aware of what's going on. And the fact is, as we're doing the terrorist thing right now there's not much that is not in the newspaper already about what goes on with that. So why wouldn't we just 'fess up and just say this is what we're doing, this is what we're going to do, and if we catch you doing this we're going to do this? Why wouldn't we do that? It seems to me it's an honest approach to protecting ourselves but doing it in a transparent way so that people know we are.

General ODOM. Let me answer that very briefly. If we did that, we don't need the Intelligence Community. That's called a news service. We have a lot now. I'd say 90 percent of the intelligence that affects policymaking in the government comes out of the media. The media is our best new collection agency. Even some military collection comes out of it.

General Vessey, when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, would look over at the television and see CNN on someplace and say, Bill, why can't you do that for me. Well, I said, I don't need to because CNN is doing it free. And the Intelligence Community really needs to take advantage of that. We should.

The second point is, people have short memories and even though something's published and made information today, they don't keep it in mind. And what they are exposing, what they close up from having been alerted, sometime later they may open up again. And if you go around reemphasizing openness you keep educating them how to defeat your intelligence collection.

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Condit, I think there has been over a period of years a kind of set of mind in the Intelligence Community to keep more secret than is necessary, feeling that we know best how to handle this and it's not a matter that really should be discussed in public.

I think the Congress and the oversight committees have done a lot to try to change that perception on their part, and my view would be you want to maximize openness and transparency to the extent that you can. But you do have to recognize you are dealing with a very special business and you do have to be careful about methods and sources and all of the rest of it.

So it's not an easy kind of a balance to strike. In general, I think the Intelligence Community has erred on the side of too much secrecy and not enough openness. I do think that's changing now, in part because of the Congress and the oversight. There needs to be a greater appreciation by the national security community that the more information that is out there about their job and how tough it is to do, the obstacles they confront, I think the American public understands that pretty well, especially in light of September 11. But I agree with your premise that more transparency is needed, with a very major caveat that you are dealing with a special business here.

Mr. HITZ. I tend to echo that. For the one or two percent of information that is acquired from a source or by a technique that we would not want to have revealed in order to be able to use it again,

I'm sure that we go to a great extreme to protect things that don't need to be protected. But you do have to protect that essential core.

Mr. CONDIT. I agree with that point. I just also would underscore that it seems to me all the work that the three of you and Judge Webster have done on making suggestions, that transparency may be the thing that forces us to make the necessary changes to reform the Intelligence Community, and it's the very thing that we seem to frightened of. I just think we maybe should take a look at embracing it a little more than we have in the past.

I thank you.

Chairman GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

Again, thank you to each for your very significant contribution today. We have learned a lot from the wise men, and I anticipate that you will represent a well of wisdom and insight that we will want to come back to again. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »