American Intel Inc.

"Even if they should be good [character] they would not be sufficient to defend you against powerful enemies and distrusted subjects."
-Machiavelli, on the idea of a Prince hiring mercenaries.


I'd typically just link to the site and comment, but given this report says a lot in a fairly short space, here it is ... from the Washington Post:

WASHINGTON -- Since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, top-secret intelligence gathering by the government has grown so unwieldy and expensive that no one really knows what it cost and how many people are involved, The Washington Post reported Monday.

A two-year investigation by the newspaper uncovered what it termed a "Top Secret America" that's mostly hidden from public view and largely lacking in oversight.

In its first installment of a series of reports, the Post said there are now more than 1,200 government organizations and more than 1,900 private companies working on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in some 10,000 locations across the U.S.

Some 854,000 people -- or nearly 1 1/2 times the number of people who live in Washington -- have top-secret security clearance, the paper said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Post that he doesn't believe the massive bureaucracy of government and private intelligence has grown too large to manage, but it is sometimes hard to get precise information.

"Nine years after 9/11, it makes sense to sort of take a look at this and say, 'OK, we've built tremendous capability, but do we have more than we need?" he said.

The head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, said he knows that with the growing budget deficits the level of spending on intelligence will likely be reduced and he's at work on a five-year plan for the agency.

The White House had been anticipating the Post report and said before it was published that the Obama administration came into office aware of the problems and is trying to fix them.

The administration also released a memo from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence listing what it called eight "myths" and intended as a point-by-point answer to the charges the Post series was expected to raise.

Among them was that contractors represent the bulk of the intelligence workforce. The memo put the number at 28 percent, or less than a third.

The memo said that 70 percent of the intelligence budget is spent on "contracts, not contractors."

"Those contracts cover major acquisitions such as satellites and computer systems, as well as commercial activities such as rent, food service, and facilities maintenance and security," the memo said.

The Post said its investigation also found that:

--In the area around Washington, 33 building complexes -- totaling some 17 million square feet of space -- for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since 9/11.

--Many intelligence agencies are doing the same work, wasting money and resources on redundancy.

--So many intelligence reports are published each year that many are routinely ignored.

"There has been so much growth since 9/11 that getting your arms around that -- not just for the DNI, but for any individual, for the director of the CIA, for the secretary of defense -- is a challenge," Gates told the Post.

Just a couple points. I'm not alarmed by "redundancy" or how large the anti-terror Intel effort became after 9/11. I can't imagine the level of redundancy in each of our war efforts, WWII etc. It's a bi product of government, period. In fact a little more redundancy prior to September 2001 might have been useful.

But what did raise my eyebrow was the following sore: 1,200 versus 1,900. Really? We have over 50% more private Intel agencies in our employ than government? Isn't this tantamount to hiring private armies? I wasn't that overly concerned with the private security corps operating in Iraq et al because their number (& subsequent responsibilities) was infinitely small compared to the United States military presence. But even if it's the lower number suggested in the "counter-memo" above we're talking a full one-third of our Intel capabilities being contracted out, and the more salient point is that number is on its way up, not down. Does anyone else find that somewhat "odd", to say the very least? You may be a bit surprised that I'm concerned by this - isn't private always preferable to public means? Yes, almost. There are a few things the Founders specifically delineated to the government. There's a world of difference between private citizens volunteering to serve their nation versus private groups being contracted. And this is where my concern here is completely consistent with being a conservative/originalist - this is a product of ill-fated fiscal priorities. We have a budget so bloated with entitlements that are not provided for by our Constitution that the few things the feds are bound by our founding document to execute are facing spending dictates that include farming out national security responsibilities.

Is there any example in history in which a superpower was on an upwards trajectory once they began hiring private armies for their national defense? From the Carthaginians, to the last throws of Rome, to Revolutionary era Brits employing Hessians, this story doesn't typically end with, "and after employing a private army to defend their home land, the empire reigned for another thousand years."