Lawmakers, experts say Obama should boost Intelligence director’s power

President Barack Obama must boost the powers of the director of
national intelligence to reduce the risk of repeated intelligence
failures, key lawmakers and intelligence officials say.

Last week’s sacking of Dennis Blair, the third director to leave in five years, has intensified debate over the role and powers that come with the office.

{mosads}Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, is working on legislation to give the director budget and personnel authority and a five-year term.

But critics, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), say legislation will take too long and Obama must delineate the office’s authority in the intelligence community as soon as possible.

“I have long been concerned that the director of national intelligence had more responsibility than authority, and DNI Dennis Blair’s resignation raises the issue to the fore,” Feinstein said in a statement to The Hill.

“After five years and three DNIs, it is clear that the law calls for a leader but the authority provided in law is essentially that of a coordinator. The president needs to decide what he wants the DNI to be, and then work with the intelligence committees to see that the necessary authority is, in fact, in law.”

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) echoed Feinstein’s call. “What is needed now in order for the [Office of the DNI] to realize its potential is strong presidential leadership,” he said. “The [office] will only be effective if the president clarifies its authorities and defines its roles and responsibilities.”

The White House on Friday pledged to name a new director soon. Administration officials say James Clapper, the Pentagon’s top intelligence official, is the leading candidate to fill the post. Another candidate is Mike Vickers, the Pentagon’s assistant secretary for special operations.

In a likely preview of questions she could raise during the confirmation process, Feinstein said she is concerned about handing the job to anyone too beholden to the Pentagon’s intelligence needs.

“No one agency, particularly the Department of Defense, should control the flow of intelligence to the president,” Feinstein said. “The majority of the intelligence budget is already executed by the Department of Defense, and it will always have a strong influence over the intelligence community’s operation. That should be balanced, however, by the need for the community to provide strategic intelligence beyond what is necessary for the war fighter. It will be important that any nominee is not beholden to the Pentagon’s interests and can, as needed, provide balance to civilian and military interests in carrying out the nation’s intelligence missions.”

Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, have for months been calling on Obama to strengthen the DNI with more budget authority and power to hire and fire staff, as well as set priorities for the entire intelligence community. The position lacks these powers, and smart career intelligence officials who have held the position have fought battles with the CIA, Defense Department and other intelligence agencies.

Talking to The Hill on Monday, Hamilton said, “I’m all for strengthening the law and removing ambiguities.”

Referring to Lieberman’s legislative push, he added, “But I don’t think that can be done quickly. We have an immediate problem and that’s how to strengthen the intelligence community.”

Hamilton said the existing statute should allow Obama to strengthen the post by granting authority over budget and personnel issues by executive order.

Hamilton acknowledged that some powerful intelligence figures, including Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta and White House National Security Adviser John Brennan, have direct access to Obama. Putting someone in authority over these strong personalities will cause more friction, Hamilton said, but Obama must end the squabbling.

“If you’re going to have seamless sharing of information and the ability to connect the dots, you’re going to have to have someone in charge,” he said.

In December Obama told his intelligence advisory board to look into how the director would best serve counterterrorism efforts — as the leader of the intelligence community or as a coordinator — but he has yet to make his own view plain.

In a statement to The Hill, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said: “I think it’s necessary to start with the president and find out how the administration thinks this position should function and how it should be empowered.

“Intelligence reform is a process, and we’re clearly not done. I think we need to maintain the DNI as a sole integrating force for the intelligence community so that we can harness capabilities and leverage them in a beneficial way. But we simply can’t return to a situation where 16 separate entities are working in their individual lanes, possibly contradicting one other.”

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert and professor in security studies at Georgetown University, added, “This is a position that has no teeth yet and is still having teething problems. With a DNI with no real powers, each agency is going to go in its own direction and answer to its own boss.”

Mark Lowenthal, an intelligence veteran, views Blair’s departure as a wake-up call. “We can’t tinker around the edges anymore,” he said. “I think it’s time for a brutally honest conversation about whether the job is working — not just make marginal fixes and try to muddle through.”