Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Aug 22, 2004.
Interesting but dangerous....
It is always scary to make sweeping changes to any system...
bureaucracy is the death of any good organization, no matter what party
It's a good thing.
Cause after the Cold War, the CIA became moribund. Risk averse. Concerned 'bout budget 'stead of bad guys. Though it is easy to blame Clinton (especially after he took "the end of the Cold War" to mean that we could suddenly give away our nuclear secrets to our commie enemy Red China -- but that's another story, I mean scandal, for another time) -- for the lack of seriousness in our clandestine services before 9/11, it really is the blight of all bloated bureaucracies. Vision is lost in the all the p.c. paperwork now needed to do their job.
And after the CIA's main focus -- the threat of nuclear war by the Soviet Slave bloc -- was rendered impotent with the fall of the Berlin wall and the unsuccessful military coup by the KGB in 1992, who could blame the CIA for looking the other way and not taking the terrorist threat seriously? The CIA felt it WON the war.
I think restructuring is a good thing. Accountability and bright light getting shed in the dark corners of this organization is always a good way to break up power cliques.
Of course, the totally IRONIC thing is that Truman and Dulles back in '47 thought that what they were creating was an all encompassing intelligence gathering agency by instituting the CIA that year.
All we had to fight the KGB and Nazi infiltration in the 30's was Naval Intelligence and the FBI.
OSS was wartime stopgap until Truman felt sufficiently submarined by Stalin who had outfoxed FDR (with the traitor Alger Hiss's help) when he helped us carve up Europe after the war, helped us organize the UN and then promptly stole our atomic secrets. Too bad we can't just reorganize the CIA by kicking everyone out and starting over.
In this case I will have to agree, even as "liberal" as some may think me...
But will this get rid of a buerocracy, or will it create three new ones?
mac, it will eventually lead to three bureaucracies instead of one, but during the time it takes to get to moribund status we'll have some fresh-blood utility.
In the meantime, the turf wars and power struggles will make dope-gang wars pale into insignificance.
What will the R&D section actually do? Will they actually be effective? They won't have the profit motivation that most R&D sections usually have.
I am glad to see any massive beauraucracy dismantled.. especially one that handles so much of our money.. but still.. I cant imagine they will come up with anything better... 'Rat says it well
You know, I freely admit that this is a piss-poor analysis-by-way-of-analogy, but I could not help but thinking of the breakup of AT&T when hearing about this...
So with monopoly concerns in mind, AT&T was broken up, to encourage competition, innovation and to benefit the consumer in both cost and service-effectiveness...
What happened? Well, phone service still became expensive, and became overly-diversified, confusing and redundant...
most importantly, however, is the fact that the service I expected (and paid for) declined in quality...perhaps because expectations were lowered or mired in comparitive-analysis relativity, or perhaps because there were just more places to "pass the buck" as it were...
I see this as being a step backwards...simplicity is key, at least organizationally...I do not like this at all.
Take as you will...
Remember what happened to Lucent.
what happened to Lucent?
AT&T spun them off. Before they were an excellent high tech production department. After the spun off with no marketing know how their stock went from over 80 bucks a share down to the single digits and they had to file for bankruptcy.
It is my theory that before they were spun off they didn't need marketing people because AT&T marketed the products they produced. After the spin off, they failed because they didn't replace the lost marketing know how in their organization with real talent. Divided they fell.
So I take it that you are (tentatively) against this course of action Leo ?
If so, we find ourselves in rare agreement...I will pause to relish the moment...
For me, while recent history definitely points to a need for a change in these areas, it has to be a productive change...
For me, that would start with the firing/resignation of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in the DoD...as much as the intelligence snafus can be traced to inter-agency competition between the DoD and the CIA, where there should've been cooperation.
Although I freely admit that I fundamentally disagree with the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emption (authored by Wolfy) and subsequently ideologically clash w/ Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, that is not why I feel they should go...
Regardless of ideology, the execution of things regarding the WOT/Iraq have been piss-poor and Tenet, who bears responsibility for the CIA (or did) is gone...Rummy and Wolfy bear responsibility for the DoD side...they too need to be excised...that is a start of meaningful changes...with the leaders.
Leo, I'd guess the R&D section will contract for thingummies and whichits, plus software...I'm guessing that some sections of the various snoop-agencies do that sort of thing now; it would be under one aegis rather than many.
I know from zilch about the inner workings of such as the CIA, but I worked in a state bureauracy for eleven years. I don't care what you do way up topside, the middle-level bureaucrats would still be there, still doing the same old stuff in the same old way.
A violent reconstruction such as is proposed would get a lot of the timeservers out of the way, just by the very nature of the shakeup. Lots of early retirements, too, I'd guess.
An ancient joke from the early days of NASA: They were going to name a new rocket "Civil Service". Why? "You can't fire it and you can't get it to work."
So, you create a new agency. You transfer the deadwood to Thule, Greenland, or to Johnston Island or Elmendorf AFB--and they quit/resign/retire.
The Roberts plan smells awfully fishy to me. It was created in a completely partisan environment in some apparent haste, and is more radical by half than the intelligence services reorganization proposed by the 9-11 Commission, which itself was greeted cooly by the President. Personally, I think this one was designed to fail. Why is anybody's guess, but generally in Washington when something important fails, somebody gets to wear the blame. Who would it be in this case? I'm guessing the Democrats are being set up here to take a hit just in time for the election.
My question is, if we are all somewhat in agreement that the idea is to shake things up long enough for fresh blood to be inserted before the inevitable decline into mediocrity again, why not just do a massive shake up and come out with one mediocre bureucracy instead of three? If we're trying to take the long view of things, why do we want to triple the mess over time?
I'm not sure I follow SlyVol/Leo. Please explain to me how unions are forcing a republican senator to offer up a plan to split the CIA up?
The name is Leo and your trolling. Some people would find such a reply humorous. Guess you don't.
I don't know if they are unionized or not.
Traditionally when dealing with unions, you can't fire people or lay them off very easily. It is easier for the owner of a company to close the company and start up a new business as a means to reorganize. Solves the problem with having to negotiate every little thing with some union rep.
So IOW your post stating only "Unions" was total BS pulled from your nether region to troll with?
If you had no idea whether or not they are unionized, why else would you say something like that, other than to troll?
methinks you need to not only reread my post #19, but also find your funny bone.
Now don't y'all go to fussin' like the children over at THR! I come here to get away from that...
Anyhow, out of curiosity, now that this humorous curve ball is upon us, I wonder if the rank and file of the CIA folks are in AFCSME or whatever that government-employee union is? I dunno. Regardless, they'd have no say in reorganization as such, and their membership is irrelevant.
Whether for it or against it, I'm certainly for the far-ranging discussions which will ensue.
Ahh that was a joke. What a sly guy you are!
This is VERY BAD.
It is a good idea to get it all under one roof.... fine... but that roof needs to be primarilly under the DOD. Why? DOD is prevented from operating within the USA without specific authorization from Congress and suspension of the provision that keeps it on a leash. Taking the paramillitary parts of the CIA away from DOD and lumping all simillar agencies under an appointed Executive lackey with NO limitations on use of power (the agency is neither Law Enforcement nor Defence in nature under this model) creates a secret police on par with the Gistapo.
I repeat: Due to the nature of this "independant" agency when combined with Patriot's waiver of standard protections it is a SECRET POLICE WITH UNLIMITED POWER AND INHERENTLY CLASSIFIED OPERATIONS. If anything like this happens I'll WALK north if neccessary.