WOE IS US?
By Larry Johnson
by
Larry C. Johnson
GWOT, which is now WOT, may soon become WOE. GWOT, which stands for Global War on Terrorism, has been supplanted by the term WOT, War on Terrorism. However, the White House reportedly is mulling over using WOE, i.e. War on Extremism. Conceptually this is the right step by the Bush Administration, which has finally conceded that you can not wage war on a tactic (i.e., terrorism). From a public relations standpoint, however, WOE will provide terrific grist for late night comedy shows. Was Jon Stewart behind this?
The conduct of WOE leaves much to be desired. At home in Washington the work of WOE has been shifted increasingly to contractors. Now, as someone who makes a few dollars from Government contracting, I am not against this concept in principle. But a curious phenomena is underway at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the newly minted National Counter Terrorism Center. Work that was once done by Government employees, such as analysis and maintenance of databases, has been turned over to contractors. Friends still inside and friends who have left Government employment to take jobs with the contractors, tell me that outside contractors have become bigger players in tasks that were once performed by insiders. Let be clear that I'm not voicing sour grapes because I did not get a taste of this contracting effort. I did not apply and have no interest on working on these projects.
The ultimate irony is that talented people who were working for $60,000 a year as a CIA analyst are now making close to $100,000 as analysts doing the same job but working under the authority of a contractor. The biggest benefit, so I am told, is that the managers for the private contractors are not the big boneheads that CIA and NCTC professionals were.
While much of the work on terrorism is being sent outside the Government to private contractors the Government's ability to manage the issue is still in disarray. Since President Bush took office in January 2001 there have seven coordinators of the Terrorsim policy at the National Security Council (these include Richard Clarke, General Wayne Downing, Rand Beers, and Fran Townsend). A nice young man, Mr. Zarate from Treasury has been tabbed to take the helm. Friends in the community, who are eager for some leadership, are voicing disappointment that an inexperienced youth with no background (zilch, zero, nada) in intelligence and military operations is being asked to corral a community of intelligence and military bureaucracies.
Twenty years ago President Reagan established the concept of "lead agency" in a bid to impose some order on the counter terrorism policy community. That system worked well for several years but began falling apart under the Clinton Administration. Under Bush, however, things have gotten worse. Today we have DOD and CIA pursuing independent operations. State Department's ability to "coordinate" this mess has been hampered by a variety of factors, including Cofer Black's tenure as an ineffectual Coordinator and the fact that his position has been vacant for seven months. Now entering the fray are the NCTC and the National Intelligence Director. Frankly, I do not care who is in charge, but for God's sake someone ought to be!
The lack of anyone in charge was on display Monday with Porter Goss's silly claim that he has a good idea where Bin Laden is. I have repeatedly challenged several reporters to ask the White House one question, "Who is in charge of finding Bin Laden?" The answer my friends is no one. If no one is in charge we will not marshall the resources required to find and kill that murderer.
The picture is no prettier on the domestic front. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security continue to struggle over who is in charge. As I noted in a post earlier this week the good news is that the FBI is doing a good job. The bad news, however, is that the White House is allowing unnecessary drift and confusion. Somebody ought to do something!