April 12, 2005, 9:10 a.m.
Army of One
A Georgia Republican seeks to streamline intelligence gathering.

By Eric Pfeiffer

Imagine for a moment you are John Negroponte stepping into your new job as director of National Intelligence. Rising tensions with a rogue state have raised concerns at the CIA and Pentagon. It is your duty to provide the most accurate and updated intelligence to the White House. When it comes time to deliver that intelligence, would you feel more comfortable receiving your information from 15 different agencies, or one four-star commander who has already spotted several conflicts of opinion for you?

As confirmation hearings for John Negroponte begin today, that is the question being asked by Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss. Chambliss has introduced legislation that would streamline the proposed command structure of intelligence gathering for the new DNI.

Under the Chambliss proposal, a four-star military commander would serve as the primary contact between the Pentagon and the DNI. Under the currently proposed system, the DNI would receive their intelligence reports from 15 different agencies, eight military and seven civilian.

In his office last week, Senator Chambliss explained the proposed restructuring to NRO in layman's terms: "A way to look at information gathering is like any business. This bill would consolidate the information into one location, instead of relying on 15 different locations. It would allow that one manager to be responsible. You'll get a better result when you have the agencies reporting to a single four-star commander."

An advocate of the Chambliss proposal within the intelligence community tells NRO, "The success of this issue is to have the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved. It elevates intelligence to the level it needs to be."

However, not everyone is so gung-ho about the Chambliss proposal. One major reservation concerns whether or not the proposal would take authority away from military commanders in the field. However, Chambliss tells NRO, "This bill would be the ideal choice if you are someone like [CENTCOM Commander] John Abizaid. The proposal streamlines command without taking away power from commanders in the field."

Chambliss says he wants Pentagon officials to see his proposal more favorably than the current command structure. "We want to give the Pentagon as much leeway as possible — and this proposal increases their leeway in decision making." What Chambliss didn't mention was also the likely preference of military intelligence gatherers to report directly to a four-star commander as opposed to a civilian official.

Chambliss says he hopes to have his plan discussed in the intelligence committee and included with this year's Defense-authorization bill in early May.

"I had a lot of reservations when I heard about this," one high-ranking Pentagon official tells NRO (he wishes to remain anonymous since the Pentagon does not have an official position on the proposal). "First and foremost, was it going to take away authority from commanders in the field? Whether it's the president himself, or the soldier in the field somewhere in Iraq, the top priority is getting accurate information on the ground as quickly as possible."

Still, the source notes that the more he becomes familiar with the proposal the less controversial it seems. "Future differences between the DNI and Defense secretary are inevitable. Having this four-star command might allow those differences to be spotted early and addressed before reaching the president. There are instances where the current construct might not allow for the complete Defense Department perspective."

From Negroponte's perspective, the most viable concern is budget control. As he is heading into his confirmation hearings today, Negroponte could not comment publicly on the proposal. However, Chambliss notes that he has spoken with Negroponte, who was concerned the proposal would take too much power away from the DNI. "We did some massaging on the bill to ease his concerns," Chambliss says with a laugh. Chambliss and his staff went back and adjusted language to make sure that while the four-star would organize a budget, it would still require the DNI's approval.

So, then, who is supporting the proposal? The room where I interviewed Chambliss was in was a large conference hall full of mostly empty chairs. That's about where the proposal stands. Chambliss acknowledges he and his staff have not yet actively lobbied members of Congress. "Some colleagues have come up on their own with questions or support, but we are waiting for now before we begin to actively push this with my colleagues."

Chambliss notes that, "as with everything," momentum will build for the legislation if it receives public support from the White House. Pentagon support still appears somewhat mixed, but leaning in favor of the proposal should the immediate concerns of command authority be addressed in the way Chambliss promises. Should the bill receive a successful hearing in the intelligence committee and included in the Defense Authorization bill, it would all but be assured of passage. To that end, Chambliss already has one Democratic cosponsor of the bill, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson.

Finally, I asked Senator Chambliss what he sees as the possible ramifications of not enacting his proposal. The senator clearly did not want to strike a foreboding note, but when I persisted, he said, "Under this proposal, the ability to analyze intelligence will be more efficient and will deliver better results. It will give the customers and consumers of intelligence the information they need in a more timely and accurate manner. Failure to act could result in the opposite effect."

— Eric Pfeiffer writes the daily "Beltway Buzz" column on NRO.

*   *   *

YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital!