An IC Too Big to Fail?

As many may know, The Washington Post has been running a series on the growth of the Intelligence Community (IC) following the 9/11 event.  It includes a database of IC Agencies and IC Contractors.

There has been some discussion out there as to if this has given our enemies information they they did not originally have or if it has been boon to those in our own nation who think this is a mess that now needs to be cleaned up.

An example of that second line of thinking is this comment (Note, NSA stands for either No Such Agency or National Security Agency):

[A]fter the past few years it should be obvious to everyone that the the concept of "too big to fail", does not protect from failure.  It just makes the failure that much bigger when it hits.  That said, the fact that fear is not front and center in the development of the IC, means that we just don't learn.

Also, the IC and the NSA cluster in particular is now a living breathing organism that will take on a life of its own, as all large organisms do, and its natural instincts will push its primary mission to grow and protect itself.  I lived through this the past 18 years with the defense biz, and the results are self-evident.  Formerly, agile, dynamic companies, are essentially bloated bureacracies who now don't make appeals as to the superiorty of their technology, but how they need the work to keep the people employed.

But, my favorite comment is:

FWIW, I did hear last night from a friend that the database is the best job hunting tool he's ever come across, and hopes the Post will maintain it.

Before I comment I should note that I have relatives who have been or are currently involved in the IC or supporting the IC.

But, back to the issue at hand, the cost and competence of the IC.  I think that concerns about the IC being too big is correct.  It does take away from the agility needed to be an effective intelligence gatherer, analyzers and reporters of information.  As for duplicate reporting, in the past I found that to be an advantage, as it provided a wider perspective on issue.

The real question is, how safe do we need to be?  It is my assumption that Intelligence will never make us perfectly safe.  The question is, what does the curve look like.In this chart, notion security is on the Y (Vertical) Axis and notional cost on the X (Horizontal) Axis.  As you can see, we never get to perfect security—or that is my take on the topic.  We can not spend our way to perfect security.

But, I don't think it is all about money.  It is also about educating and training the analysts and empowering them to put forward their real analysis.  That is to say, no shooting of the messenger, even when he or she may be wrong from time to time, and no shooting of the messenger for analysis that is not politically incorrect or doesn't follow the conventional wisdom.  All of this will take a certain reorientation of the attitude in DC.  I would suggest it means investing time and money in sending analysts to school and maybe even sending them to visit or live in parts of the world that is their area of expertise.

Regards  —  Cliff