Security changes easier recommended than done, some say

WASHINGTON – The Sept. 11 commission’s recommendations for improving the nation’s security against terrorism are comprehensive and sensible, but when or even if they will be enacted is questionable, some experts say.

The proposals in the report released Thursday fall into two categories – architectural ones aimed at restructuring how intelligence agencies function and how Congress oversees them, and policy-oriented ones on improving relations with the Muslim world.

Changing how intelligence is gathered, analyzed, shared and transmitted to policy-makers, and pairing that with a coherent political strategy for dealing with what is likely to be a longtime threat to the United States, are seen as critical by those with experience in national security.

“I think the recommendations are solid, and I think a lot of the ideas for how to reorganize the intelligence community are both well thought out and ambitious,” said Daniel Benjamin, Middle East and terrorism analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “However, I think it will be enormously difficult to realize them or to achieve them, for a number of reasons,” said Benjamin, who is a former National Security Council official.

One of the major hurdles is expected to be the sheer amount of power and authority at stake in reshuffling the intelligence-gathering apparatus and relevant congressional committees.

“There is going to be tough politicking ahead. These things involve big money and real people, and there will be people who are fighting for their turf,” said Stephen Hess, veteran political analyst at the Brookings Institution.

Commission members cited urgency in adopting the changes. But three factors loom as potential obstacles:

“ Resistance by entrenched interests that do not want to cede control of policy or budgets, along with the usually slow pace of major institutional change in Washington.

“ Legitimate policy differences over whether specific elements of the various proposals make sense.

“ Political issues, including the fall election and potential partisan wrangling.

However, the strong public interest in the commission’s work and more generally in the terrorist threat could speed up the process. And some of the very factors with the potential to slow the pace could also hasten it; the election, for instance, could keep the spotlight on the recommended changes and compel candidates to embrace them.

The report’s breadth is impressive, said Juliette Kayyem, who co-directs Harvard University’s project on the legal strategy for combating terrorism. She previously served on the congressionally mandated National Commission on Terrorism.

It would have been easy for the commission to focus simply on moving boxes around in Washington, but making the “soft-power type of recommendations” involving U.S. foreign policy is helpful, Kayyem said.

But that very breadth led to a lack of depth and guidance on key matters, Benjamin said, such as how to deal with the Muslim world.

On the organizational proposals, there is a consensus among experts that spreading out authority over various panels has diffused and weakened congressional oversight.

Views are more divided about proposed changes in intelligence agencies. Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., a member of the Armed Services Committee, questions the call for a “czar” to oversee those agencies.

While agreeing that someone has to break down the barriers between the various agencies, creating a new structure might simply add more bureaucracy, Talent said. He suggested the option of giving greater authority to an existing official, such as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Another proposal, to create a national counterterrorism center, is a good one, but putting it under the control of the director of national intelligence is not advisable, said James Carafano, homeland security expert at the Heritage Foundation.

That would divert the new official’s attention and make it harder for him to supervise the intelligence community as a whole, said Carafano, a 25-year Army veteran. Instead, he said, the counterterrorism center should fall under the Department of Homeland Security.

The prevailing wisdom is that political campaigns, the approaching election and the August congressional recess will prevent quick action by Congress or the White House on the proposals.

A delay in implementing the changes may not be bad, some experts say. One reason is the need to get things right.

“Reforming the intelligence community and reforming Congress are the two hardest ones and also the most important to do right,” Carafano said. “You only get to do big changes once in a while, and if you don’t get them right, you’re going to be stuck with them. I wouldn’t rush and try to do these things in a special session. These are very complicated issues, and the devil really is in the details.”