One half should focus on the technical/electronic suveillance, as well as general data collection and analysis.
The other should focus on “humint” - building clandestine networks of operatives and human sources of information.
Why do I think this might work? Traditionally, the CIA has had a problem integrating these two fields. They really don’t seem cross much. The former requires extensive technical skills and a lot of budget outlays. It can be done on schedule by engineers and analysts in offices. It requires openness between departments to keep things running.
The latter takes a lot of bribes and time. It requires a totally different mindset - closedness and secrecy, even to the government which sponsors it. And you certainly aren’t going to see a “bribe money” line item appearing in the budget outlays.
So, why not cut it in half? The former part can work alongside DoD intelligence and the NSA. The latter can get some quiet digs in West Virginia. Plus, this reduces the political power of the position, and makes it less important as a source of patronage.
Two seperate ones. I think they should retain links between departments (sideways links as opposed to vertical links) in different agencies, but that they should be totally separated.
I would disagree. I think you need a cadre of security professionals to direct the branches aiming for specific targets. For example Humint gets a name of a terrorist leader and the directors office informs the electronics people to plug in the name on their surveillance. Analysis should cover both inputs as well.
Two separate agencies will lead to competition as well, compromising the exchange of information.
There’s no limit to that argument. by that case, we may as well fold the DoD int, NSA, and FBI all into one mammoth organziation. But we don’t because they have different missions, different goals, and different methods. And I believe those three I just mentioned are vastly superior to the CIA because they have a more focused operation.
I didn’t say they couldn’t communicate across department lines; I have no problem with it. But at the same time, I think things need a much lower level of organziation to maintain flexibility (mostly the humint section). Frankly, the CIA is just too bureaucratic to deal effectively with humint.
Assumes facts not in evidence. What do you base this opinion on? My guess is that you’re looking at the CIA’s bygone role as being the coordinator – or maybe first among equals, depending on how you look at it – of the intelligence community. The CIA no longer has that role, as it has been taken over by the Director of National Intelligence.
While it’s something of a seperate topic, I also think that needs to change. Internal Intelligence Oversight should be under one house, internal coordinartion, aside from whatever contacts individuals feel the need to make, etc should be under another.
But hey, I’m in general fan of little things. Smaller, more focused departments with fewer administrators and bureaucrats, particualrly where the employees feel a strong sense of mission, get better results IMHO.