Eliot Sherman: Leave intelligence to the intelligence officers

I could say a lot about the controversy over the Bush administration leaking the name of an undercover CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak. But instead, I'll let someone more qualified do it. Larry Johnson, former CIA employee who trained with Valerie Plame, had this to say about the whole thing:

"I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision-making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this."

Unfortunately, this incident is merely the most recent in the saga of strained relations between the CIA and this White House. It is indicative, though, of the source of conflict: the Bush administration is making the intelligence fit their preordained policy, instead of the other way around. By doing this, they are violating the sanctity of intelligence work, defeating its very purpose.

Examples of the egregious amounts of pressure put on the CIA by the White House to match its intelligence assessments with the administration's worldview are legion. This summer, in a near-unprecedented move, Vice President Dick Cheney made several visits to low-level CIA analysts studying Iraq, with a message about as subtle as a rampaging Texas steer. Said one agency official, the visits "sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here."

Before that, in October 2002, the Pentagon set up its own intelligence team with the intention of finding "Iraq's hostile intentions or links to terrorists that the nation's spy agencies may have overlooked." That big middle finger to the CIA not only further strained relations, but it was headed by Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy and a "strong advocate for military action against Mr. Hussein," according to The New York Times. The very idea of an intelligence analyst making those sorts of public declarations on policy is a little bit suspect, to say the least.

This is not to say that CIA analysts, if left unmolested by Washington, will produce entirely objective intelligence assessments every time. But this kind of blatant influence only further complicates an already complicated process.

It doesn't help either that George Tenet, the current director of Central Intelligence, is by many accounts utterly beholden to this White House and is attempting to make his subordinates act the same. As The New Republic put it: "In case after case during George Tenet's tenure, the CIA's official verdict has not represented the best judgment of its own analysis."

Article 4, Section 23 of Karl Rove's edition of The Republican's Guide To Everything™ (I stole a copy from Dan Gomez) states specifically that, if unfortunate events in the realm of national security or intelligence are to befall this country during Bush's tenure, immediately blame the Clinton administration (in the book, there are also approximately 317 other instances in which Republicans are to blame Clinton, including the Chicago Cubs' loss and bad weather on the eastern seaboard).

The fact is, if we get broadsided by al Qaeda again, this administration is going to have to ask itself whether they spent a little too much time distracting themselves from their own war on terror by committing to Iraq.

The Bush administration believes it is doing the right thing in the war on terror. They believe that by creating a democracy in Iraq, they will bring stability to the Middle East and make America more secure (it has to be true -- it was Fred Barnes' idea).

But it seems more and more that Iraq and the war on terror have less and less to do with each other (oddly enough, despite the fact that Bush finally declared this, Dick Cheney is still giving speeches to the effect). The best way to fight the war on terror is to let our professionals do it, no matter how many neocons want to get involved.

It is easy to stop believing in the whole concept of intelligence. The CIA is like a shutdown cornerback in the NFL -- when they're doing their job, you never hear about them. The only time you do is when they're victimized for a long touchdown pass; or in the case of the CIA, when the country is victimized by a terrorist attack. It seems like a thankless job, which is all the more reason that we should respect the work they do by leaving them alone to do it.

Eliot Sherman is a junor English major from Philadelphia, Pa.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.