Is the CIA too broken to fix?

The Weekly Standard published a lengthy treatise today (The Sorry State of the CIA) written by former CIA agent and regular contributor, Reuel Marc Gerecht, that argues that the CIA has been broken for several decades and that it can't be fixed. The reason, the writer argues, is that too much emphasis is placed on recruiting foreigners for the "real" spy work (and promotions are based upon how many you recruit) and not nearly enough emphasis is placed on Americans doing the dangerous work of infiltrating the enemy's organizations. Gerecht claims that the CIA was broken this way long before Casey took over in the '80's, and it's been broken ever since. Not only that, but both the press and Congress are focusing on the wrong problems.

I don't know about you, but I want a CIA that works, and if that means we have to scrap the present organization completely and start over from scratch, then I say, let's start the demolition. We need an organization that has the speed and mobility to adjust to modern threats which, unlike the nation-threats we used to face, are amorphous, adaptable and borderless.

What we don't need is organizations that are driven by (or infected with) politics. Not surprisingly, Gerecht states:

(Neither case officers nor analysts are as overtly political as the average American diplomat, who is more often than not staunchly Democratic. But they are not politically neutered creatures, tenaciously holding on to some all-American civil-servant middle ground. Case officers tend to be more earthy and politically incorrect than analysts and diplomats, but such a disposition doesn't necessarily produce hawkishness in foreign affairs or skepticism about the welfare state.)

The fact that the State Department is solidly Democratic is well known by those in Washington but perhaps not so well known in the American heartland. The vitriol Joe Wilson directed at Bush is just a symptom of a much larger problem. The State Department sometimes actively undermines the efforts of the Bush Administration simply because they disagree with his political philosophy.

In a report publicized last year, the State Department expressed "deep skepticism that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East". According to the official who released the report to the LA Times, the report stated that "this idea that you're going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible." This is in direct contradiction to Bush's stated goals for the war in Iraq - "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region".

The last time I checked, the Department of State was part of the Executive Branch. Their job is to serve the President. I see nothing wrong with issuing reports that disagree with stated policy or take a contradictory view of the facts. After all, passionate back and forth discussion is necessary if the President is going to make informed decisions. But what is the point of publicizing reports that are generated to support that process? In my mind, it can only be one thing. Once you've lost the argument, you release the data to the media in the hope that external pressure will work in your favor and the decision will either be rescinded or the Administration will be replaced by one that's more in line with your thinking.

Washington is famous for its leaks. Some would argue those leaks keep the public informed and are a necessary part of a democracy. But are they really? Or do they undermine support for the administration and foment controversy in the press? I'm not arguing against whistle-blowing by any means. But the revelation of documents that disagree with stated administration policies should not happen without repercussions. There's been a lot of speculation in the press and on the left that if Bush is re-elected he will put hardliners in the State Department in an effort to root out the political types and shape a State Department more to his liking. Perhaps he should follow their advice.