The wife of this fellow, Kathy, has a good book from U.C. Press, on Palestine and the USG from Woodrow Wilson to Clinton. Good reading, I'd say, for those that reflexively posit an a total consensus within the USG for Israel. Michael Pugliese
------- Start of forwarded message ------- From: "Eric V. Kirk" <kirk at humboldt.net> To: Polichinello - <polichinello at hotmail.com>, terrace504 at hotmail.com, debsian at pacbell.net, jimver at wt.net Cc: Donald.Schuck at VerizonWireless.com, meinbeef at yahoo.com, hankosaurus at worldnet.att.net, nolte at stargate.net, technocrat6400 @technologist.com, kronos at datastreamcowboys.net, blackdresss at juno.com Subject: Fwd: Proposals for reform of CIA Date: 5/24/02 12:24:38 AM
Former top CIA analyst on 9/11 intelligence failures, says
Big Changes Needed by Bill Christison
The CIA was established 55 years ago. The entire U.S. intelligence community today includes at least a dozen agencies and, contrary to general perception, the CIA does not actually control any of the others. Over these 55 years, the multiplicity of agencies has led to inefficiencies, duplication, waste, and internal rivalries. Everyone should remember that the CIA was created for the express purpose of preventing a second Pearl Harbor from ever happening. Half a century later, last September 11, a second one occurred, and it occurred because of an inexcusable failure to exchange information within the intelligence community.
As far as I can see at the moment, there is no "smoking gun" that would clearly point to dereliction of duty personally by President George W. Bush, although it is possible that evidence will appear in the future to change this judgment. But the evidence emerging this past week makes it clear that the U.S. government has suffered a massive intelligence failure. If the CIA report delivered to the President on August 6 had been supplemented, either then or at any later time before September 11, with other information that was available to the FBI, the president would have a more direct responsibility. The evidence available today is that the CIA did not receive that additional information until long after September 11. So the massive failure, as far as we can tell at this point, is within the intelligence community itself.
That brings us to a dilemma. If the United States wants an intelligence apparatus of maximum efficiency, it would require a CIA, or some new organization with a different name, that would be truly "central" and have real control over all the components. The danger would be that the resulting organization could be a monster--a body too powerful to accept within what is supposed to be a democracy.
My own belief is that the country does need an intelligence service, but that there should be a lot more public discussion of how big and how "centralized" it should actually be. My own vote would be against creating a CIA organized as it now is that would dominate and control the rest of the U.S. intelligence community. I also believe that the big increases in the amounts of money that seem to be going to the CIA and other intelligence agencies (reportedly rising from some $29/$30 billion to $35 billion annually) are not necessary.
In any event, the U.S. intelligence community, and specifically the CIA, should be changed in a major way. The most serious problem facing this "community" today is that the individual agencies far too frequently provide biased analyses that reflect the preferred policies of the agencies. It's difficult for the intelligence components of the Defense Department, for example, to present analyses of foreign military capabilities that might undercut the desires of Defense budgeteers for more money. To one degree or another, similar difficulties face analysts in the intelligence components of the State Department, the FBI, the Energy Department and elsewhere.
Even the CIA analytical components, which sometimes pride themselves on having the only intelligence analysts without policy axes to grind, cannot claim pure objectivity. They can be influenced by their own superiors and by White House officials who want analytical backing for both overt policies and covert actions they desire to pursue. You should add to these pressures the turf rivalries and differing agency cultures that at their best and with no malice can make th4e exchange of information imperfect, and at their worst can make one or another agency deliberately selective in such information exchange..
The CIA itself, not having one of the government's major established departments (State, Defense, etc.) behind it, flourishes or fades depending on its relations, and particularly the relationship of its director, with the incumbent president and his national security advisor. Very important in this regard is the fact that the CIA has two halves: a covert collection and action half and an overt analytical half. Of the two, most recent presidents have regarded the covert half as the more important. It is the half that allows an action-oriented president--and what president wants to be identified in any other way?--to "take action". That tends to make many directors of central intelligence (DCIs) reluctant to present analyses to the president that differ from the president's policy and covert action preferences. There have been exceptions; a few DCIs have been very strong. But I do not think the evidence supports a conclusion that the present DCI is one of those exceptions.
I'd like to see new legislation that would completely split the analytical half of the CIA from the operational, or spooky, half. Even without control over the other intelligence agencies, the CIA with its two halves is, in my opinion, too powerful. The operational half should become a body with a new name and be run directly out of the White House, and by law every covert operation should require written approval of the president, designated committee chairmen of the Congress, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court. All three branches of the government should be represented here. No covert intelligence operations abroad, other than high-altitude reconnaissance and certain other technical intelligence functions, which should remain Defense Department responsibilities, should be carried out by any other intelligence agencies.
The analytical half of what is now the CIA could either keep the present name--CIA--or not. It doesn't matter. But the new "director of central intelligence," or give him a different title if you like, would be the head only of this analytical body. A key and critical change here should be that under new legislation the head of this analytical body should be appointed for a 10-year term. This would give a new "director of central intelligence" a higher degree of independence than the present and previous incumbents have had. Senior officers of this new agency would be assigned to every other intelligence agency, and should by statute have access to every substantive piece of paper produced by the other agency.
Other intelligence agencies should have the right to produce and disseminate any intelligence analyses they wished, but the new government-wide analytical intelligence agency, with access to all sources, would produce any reports it wished, and would be responsible for answering any and all requests for analyses from the White House, the Congress, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
My sense is that such independence is the most important thing now lacking in the analytical components of the intelligence community. Obviously I have no access to, or any detailed information about, the hundreds of specific things that the present DCI tells the president and other top leaders of the government. But I have read very carefully the unclassified parts of the present DCI's recent briefings to committees of the Congress. As far as I can see, he has not said anything that President Bush would not have liked to hear. In a world as complex as the one we live in today, I find that somewhat alarming.
Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit. His wife Kathy also worked in the CIA, retiring in 1979. The Christisons are regular contributors to CounterPunch.
Other CounterPunch articles by Bill and Kathleen Christison:
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/nation_christison0410.htm
Globalization and The Root Causes of Terrorism With William Christison Former CIA Director, Office of Regional and Political Analysis Wednesday, April 10, 2001; 10 a.m. EDT
"Four people, including a Manhattan attorney, were indicted Tuesday on charges they provided support to the Egyptian-based terrorist organization known as the Islamic Group.
The indictment accuses the defendants of supporting the organization by passing messages regarding Islamic Group activities "to and from the imprisoned Sheik
Omar Abdel Rahman." Read the full story, Terrorism Indictments Handed Down (AP, April 9, 2002).
William Christison a former director of the CIA?s Office of Regional and Political Analysis was online Wednesday, April 10, at 10 a.m. EDT, to discuss
globalization and the root causes of terrorism.
Below is a transcript.
Christison joined the CIA in 1950 and has served the CIA for over 28 years working in the analytical side of the Agency. He was a former analyst on Soviet affairs early in his career, and later served in both Germany and Vietnam. In
the 1960s, he worked on the global nuclear proliferation problem, with particular emphasis on France, Israel, India, and Pakistan. In the 1970s, he served as a National Intelligence Officer and as a principal advisor to the director of Central Intelligence for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa. In his final position, he was the director of the CIA?s Office of Regional and Political Analysis, an office overseeing 200 persons with experts on all nations, regions, and global problems of the world. In this position he developed an abiding interest in global and supranational problems. He retired in 1979. For the last decade, Christison has focused his research on the root
causes of terrorism and the U.S. drive for global political and economic hegemony.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Bill Christison: Thank you all for this chance to address your questions. The only thing I would like to add to the information you have on my background is that I am presently an analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, a very fine think
tank in Washington D.C. I'm ready now for your questions.
Harrisburg, Pa.: You have studied the root causes of terrorism. From your perspective, what are these root causes? How much does poverty emerge as a factor? If it is a factor, will assistance in raising communities from where terrorists are from out of poverty help? Also, if poverty is a factor, what does it mean when some recent terrorists have been from the middle class and with families?
Bill Christison: A litle introduction might help first. My strongest belief is that military action will not solve the problem of terrorism against the United States (or Israel) more than temporarily. However great the military success of the U.S., a couple of years hence new extr5emists just as clever as bin Laden
and hating the U.S. even more will almost certainly arise somewhere else in the world. That's why I think we need to understand the root causes behind the terrorism and do something about them.
I have six root causes on my list, Four are major issues in the Middle East, and two are more global in scope. On the Middle East, I'd include the Israel-
Palestine issue, the continued bomings of and sanctions on Iraq, the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, and the anger of many Arabs and Muslims with their own authoritarian and often corrupt governments. My two global issues are the U.S. drive to spread its own hegemony and its own version of unregulated,
freemarket globalization worldwide, and (2) the very kind of war the U.S. now
wages, On the globalization issue, poverty is THE main factor.
U.S. foreign policy: Mr. Christison,
Thanks for being on-line today. Last September, including 9/11, I was in Ecuador. Afterwards, I was talking with a very educated, thoughtful resident of Quito, and he expressed tremendous frustration with U.S. policies in Latin America. He was especially annoyed at our financial and military support of repressive right-wing governments, and CIA involvement with these governments. He then said he was suprised the events of 9/11 hadn't happened before.
While this man is not a terrorist, it made me think that our foreign policy has caused alot of anger, and some of it is justified. We've meddled in democratic countries (like Australia's elections), spread misinformation (like hiring reporters in Europe to write positive stories about the neutron bomb), and tend to look the other way when our friends violate human rights.
What do you think of this? What role has perceptions of U.S. foreign policy had in creating anger towards the U.S.? By the way, I don't mean to imply that anger towards the U.S. in any way justifies terrorism.
Bill Christison: I, too, and many officials in the U.S. government I think, were surprised that serious acts of terrorism against the U.S. had not happened earlier. All you need do to see this is to read the Hart-Rudman report that came out considerably before the acts of terror on Sep 11 happened. What no one anticipated, of course, were the precise timing and kind of actions that occurred on that date.
You're absolutely right that anger toward and hatred of the U.S. in no way excuses terrorism. But what we need in this country is more public debate over whether the U.S. government should change come of its own foreign policies in
order to make FUTURE terrorism against the U.S. less likely.
Vienna, Va.: Hello Mr. Christison!
Were we to dissect the causes of terrorism and attempt to find those points at which people make conscious decisions that terrorism is a path to pursue, in which policy areas do you believe we should focus our attention? Poverty, starvation, and disenfranchisement drive people to seek solutions (or explanations) to their lots in life ~ some turn to religion (as did the slaves in American history) to fill voids; some turn to violence (as in the French Revolution); others turn to a legal system. In the end, terrorism always seems to reflect a symptom, rather than present the case for unjustified and unlimited violence. In your opinion, can terrorism ever be stopped without first addressing the root causes that drive people to these actions? Thanks for your thoughts!
Bill Christison: I think you are absolutely right in all your comments, and I
do not believe that terrorism can ever be stopped without first addressing the rood causes that drive people to these actions.
Gullsgate Minn.: Bill Christison: Thank you for two recent papers...yours is the voice of reason. Debates on our crisis situation, goes on across this nation in small pockets, usually extremely academic; and with a small showing
of public interest. How can we effect positive change when those in 'command'
continue to shuffle slowly toward more military intervention or tip-toe around Sharon while ignoring Arafat?
Bill Christison: Thanks very much for your comment. This reader is commenting
on two recent talks I've given, the texts of which are available on www.counterpunch.org.
Pittsburgh, Pa.: Hello Mr. Christison:
In a response you stated "the very kind of war the U.S. now wages."
Could you elaborate on what kind of war that is?
Thanks.
Bill Christison: On three recent occasions--the Gulf War of 1990-91, the Kosovo War of 1999, and the present war in Afghanistan--the U.S. has easily achieved victories by relying heavily on air power and bombing. The U.S. has taken very few casualties, but those against whom we have fought have suffered sizable casualties.
This overwhelming U.S. military invincibility intensified frustrations abroad
and makes terrorist acts even more likely. Is's an issue that goes to the heart of future U.S. foreign policies. For the next ten years at least, any U.S. government will be tempted to enforce whatever foreign policies it chooses by
going to war--including preemptive war that we will claim is for "self defense." Incidentally, please read in the the April 1, 2002 issue of the New
Yorker magazine the article by Nicholas Lemann entitled "The Next World Order," if you wish to be scared by what major elements within the U.S. government now seem to advocating for future U.S. foreign policy.
Another thing the U.S. is already doing is to militarize the United States to
an unprecedented and I believe wholly unnecessary degree in comparison with other nations. An editorial of 3 March in the NYT puts it bluntly. Here's a quote. "If Congress cranks up the Pentagon's budget as much as President Bush
would like, the U.S. will soon be spending more on defense than all the other
countries of the world combined." To me this is absurd, but there you are.
Since America's greater willingness to initiate and fight wars intensifies hatred of the U.S., it is in my opinion in the U.S. interest to show restraint and voluntarily stop employing warfare based on bombing in order to combat future acts of terrorism.
Washington, D.C.: Bill, was your wife in this chat a few days ago? Not to open a can of worms for you at home, but do you find your views differ with hers on the Middle East and, if so, how and why?
washingtonpost.com: Kathleen Christison, former CIA analyst, was online Monday, April 8, at 10 a.m. EDT, to discuss the Mideast conflict.
Bill Christison: Happily, my wife's view and mine are practically identical.
Pittsburgh, Pa.: What does the term "globalization" really mean?
Bill Christison: The first thing I think we should all understand is that globalization does not have to be based on big corporations and unregulated free markets. Webster's dictionary definition of the word is totally non- political and simply defines globalization as the "process of making something worldwide in scope." Nothing says it has be based on a particular economic system, be it free-market capitalism and free trade, Soviet style Communism, Scandinavian-style socialism, or any other "ism."
The U.S. version of globalization is based on our own economic system, and because the U.S. is the dominant world power, it has succeeded in expanding the reach of its version of globalization to more and more areas of the world. But the gap between rich and poor people in most countries has grown wider during
the last 20 years of this U.S. version fo globalization. And animosities against America have grownas the poor have watched the U.S. expand its hegemony and wealth, while they themselves have received scarcely any benefit. This has intensified feelings among the poor of being oppressed by the U.S. The same kinds of feelings, of being oppressed by the Allies after World War I, made it possible for Hitler to arouse the fear and hatred among Germans that led to World War II and the Holocaust.
Arlington, Va.: You've identified what you believe to be the causes of terrorism. How would you propose we address them? I notice that about half of
problems you identify are things we don't have much control over. While we could pull out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, we can't do much about the Israeli- Palestinian conflict as long as both sides prefer to fight. Similarly, there's not much we can do about corrupt governments in the Arab world without the sort of hegemonic intervention that you cite as another cause of terrorism. I don't really disagree with most of your conclusions, I just don't see how they lead
to a way out.
Bill Christison: We could do A LOT about the Israel-Palestine situation if the U.S. govt. were willing to put pressure on Israel to end the occupation immediately. You're right, we should stop the bombings and sanction on Iraq, and get U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. We should also, gradually and over time, reduce our ties with the present governments in many Muslim states, and
try to develop improved relations with opposition elements there, actively seeking out democratically inclined groups. AND, we should start a major "Marshall-Plan aid program in the third world. The amount of such a plan might be $350 billion spread over three years, not the tine $10 billion President Bush proposed recently in Monterrey, Mexico. $350 billion is less than the U.S. military budget proposed for the next ONE fiscal year.
Arlington, Va.: Why can't Israel learn from the United Kingdom's example? They tried and failed miserably to fight terrorism with military force in Northern Ireland. All the military there succeeded in doing was give rise to new generations of terrorists, because of the ineffective methods they used under the guise of combatting terrorism. Your thoughts?
Bill Christison: You're right, of course. But the tensions between Palestinians and Israelis are so high now that NOTHING will stand a chance of working unless the U.S. involves itself deeply and takes an even handed approach to both sides--something it has not done for the past many years. I believe the U.S. must press for a solution based on two truly sovereign nations, with strong treaty guarantees from the United States for BOTH of these nations.
Park Point, Minn.: Bill Christison: Would you say we are being 'held up' politically and diplomatically by the mediocrity of an administration-- the likes of Ashcroft, Bush etc., the self-interests of Cheney etc., the Chamber- of Congress style of Powell, or am I being too harsh?
Bill Christison: My answer is yes, and I do not think you are being too harsh.
Bill Christison: Thank you all for the great questions, and I am sorry I have left so many unanswered. I have to be at another meeting in 20 minutes. You have made me think a great deal, and I hope that in a small way I've done the
same for you. Thanks again.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.