Fixing the National Intelligence Network

With the fifth anniversary of 9/11 behind us, there has been much handwringing about the national intelligence network. Obviously combating terrorism is dependent on penetrating cells, listening to conversations, interrogating prisoners, making contacts often with unsavory types and, to use a much abused metaphor, connecting the dots.

While there may be consensus on tactics, notwithstanding the objective of civil libertarian purists, there are inconsistencies in strategy that must be addressed.

For example, it is argued that there may be somewhere between 15,000 to 20,000 “sleepers” in the U.S. prepared to engage in terrorist acts. Some of these people are home-grown products, resulting from diatribes in the mosque or imams proselytizing in prisons; some have entered the country legally often as students and then are lost among the teeming masses and others enter illegally across the porous Mexican or Canadian borders. According to recent FBI reports there has been an increase in this last category. Yet remarkably the administration and immigration reformers are still calling for a liberalized immigration policy. Surely security should come before liberalization.

Second, there is only so much the FBI can do with 2500 agents and a ratio of eight sleepers for every one agent swimming in a sea of 300 million people. Therefore, linkages to the Muslim community must be encouraged, but here too the issue is complicated by the fact most agents do not understand Islam, the Koran, or Islamic customs.

Third, there is a difference, in fact, a fundamental difference between law enforcement that depends on apprehension, indictments, prosecution and imprisonment, and an intelligence operation that depends on surveillance, listening, watching, and patience. They are not the same and any effort to conflate the two invariably results in ineffectiveness.

Fourth, perhaps most notably, there aren’t any limits for al Qaeda or allied organizations. They are intent on killing innocents. If done in the name of Allah, everything is permissible. Hence, religious sentiment – however twisted – becomes a justification for the most lurid and perverse acts. By contrast, a nation like ours that values life over death, legal precedents and moral considerations is understandably and justifiably restrained in the methods used to ferret out terror mongers. Hence there is irony in saying every available means will be applied to provide for national security. What we mean is every available means our laws, norms and customs will allow us to pursue against potential terrorist threats.

These inconsistencies raise serious unanswered questions: To whom are Muslims loyal, the laws of the nation or the dictates of religion?; How do we sort out demands of a law enforcement culture and a spying regimen?; Should immigration policy consider security above all other concerns?; What should our intelligence community know about Muslims in our midst?; Is the First Amendment an impediment to active monitoring of mosque activity?

In an age when we cannot possibly safeguard against every vulnerable area in our national lives, it is best to be as well prepared as resources allow and to think about intelligence as armor against attack. However, the enemy has become wily and willful. He waits eager to exploit flaws in our enforcement mechanisms. Therefore, we must address the inconsistencies before he exploits them and we must be initiators rather than responders. Anything less invites the prospect of a disaster that will make 9/11 seem mild by comparison.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to herbert i. london's free mailing list