For now, leave bad enough alone

WASHINGTON -- The sad thing about all the gnashing of teeth and clashing of cymbals and demanding action in rebuilding the cornerstone of the war on terrorism -- intelligence -- is that so far there is very little intelligence in anything that is being proposed. In fact, at this juncture it might be best to just leave things alone.
Does anyone who has been around this town for more than 10 minutes believe that all those proposals from the White House, the 9/11 Commission and the self-declared experts of Congress will do anything but make things worse? Of course they don't. After all, that would require setting aside the most important consideration in any act of bureaucratic and legislative management -- turf.
Never mind that the history of intelligence gathering has been more about failure than success and that the monumental mistakes of the three main agencies leading up to 9/11 have been documented ad nauseam and that it probably is a miracle that we haven't been attacked again by the cave-dwelling religious Neanderthals who hit us the first time. What is most important is that someone doesn't lose control over his little piece of the action.
It would be a real tragedy if the Pentagon's huge slice of the $40 billion annual intelligence pie went somewhere else or that the Justice Department (read that FBI) had to give up some of its control over counterintelligence or that the CIA might have to be dismembered or that the White House might get too close to the cloak and dagger to employ plausible deniability or if some two bit lawmaker lost his politically lucrative influence over the budgets of the CIA or the FBI or the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency or any one of the other 15 national intelligence units.
Heaven forbid!
But why should we be surprised? Territorial rights have always been the problem. The FBI didn't want to share with the CIA or the DIA with NSA (that super secret arm of the Pentagon that eavesdrops on half of the world and tries to pretend it doesn't exist) or the House with the Senate. The certifiable result was the most devastating outside attack on America since the War of 1812.
So what are we doing about it? Well, first we talk about creating a new intelligence czar but without any budgetary authority or White House presence. Then we talk about one with such authority, but not entirely, and without an office in the White House. Then we propose all but dismantling the CIA but not the FBI, which opposes any change at all, and is lobbying like hell with those beholden to it in Congress to preserve the status quo. Then we say there has to be a new clearinghouse that is located in the new Department of Homeland Security. Then we propose that Congress set up a joint House-Senate intelligence oversight committee that has budgetary authority. But the guys and gals on the Appropriations Committee make it clear that isn't going to come about anytime soon.
Meanwhile, the 9/11 Commission is lobbying Congress for adoption of its series of recommendations while at the same time some of its members are having second thoughts about some of those suggestions, realizing that establishing the new intelligence director's post might be more difficult than first imagined.
Definition
It probably is appropriate here to quote Webster's dictionary: "Confusion -- a) disorder, b) bewilderment, c) embarrassment, d) failure to distinguish between things." While all this is taking place, the cavemen must be doubled over with laughter despite some major setbacks inflicted on them (sort of miraculously given the circumstances) under the old system, which, while still not good, is certainly better than it was pre-9/11.
The one suggestion that seems to be mostly ignored now but that still has promise is to put all intelligence gathering and analysis, foreign and domestic, under one new MI5-like operation that reports directly to the president with congressional oversight. It would mean shifting responsibilities and manpower, but if it was done for the Homeland Security Department, it certainly can be for this. Perhaps that solution is just too simple for the administration and Congress to absorb.
But until everyone decides that it is in the best interests of the nation to put aside territorial considerations, it probably is better to see if we can't just improve what we already have. It would be far less confusing.
XThomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.