Policy Autonomy Across Committees and The Document’s Impact on US Intelligence Community

Aspin-Brown Commission Report
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Number and Name
Instructor’s Name
Abstract
The Aspin/Brown document illuminated the condition of intelligence agencies in the United States in the years that followed after the end of the Cold War. The historical and organizational context of Aspin/Brown, its participants, and methodology, and the central issues highlighted in the document provide insights on the importance of policy autonomy across committees. The recommendations provided will offer significant conclusions regarding the document’s impact on the intelligence community of the United States. Aspin-Brown Commission Report Introduction The period of 1995-1996 observed the United States performing significant investigations into the condition of the country’s intelligence organizations. Conducted by a supreme level committee, the committee was headed by Les Aspin, a retired secretary of defense, and Harold Brown. The central intention of the document was to ascertain how appropriately the Intelligence Committee was shaped in regards to the changing world after the conclusion of the Cold War. Aspin-Brown was designed as a commission on the functions and competencies of the United States Intelligence Community (Brown & Rudman, 1996, p. 6). It was established to consider the impending course, main concerns, and organization of the Intelligence Community(IC) in the post- Cold War era. Besides, the document accomplished various roles, such as national security and domestic politics (Johnson, The Aspin-Brown Intelligence Inquiry: Behind the Closed Doors of a Blue Ribbon Commission, 1995, p. 1). What follows is a detailed discussion of the historical and organizational environment of the Aspin/Brown document, its participants and methodology as well as the major concerns it tackled. Besides, the paper evaluates three of the commission's recommendations appropriate in the management of the US Intelligence Community. Historical and Organizational Context America gripped global duties during the Second World War but neither the White House nor the Congress had a complete visual on how to accomplish them. Truman’s administration had diverse ideas regarding accurate intelligence to reinforce policymakers and commanders. Eventually, the National Security Act of 1947 arranged these ideas and established the direction of American Intelligence (Best, 2004, p. 3). The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) would be at the top of the developed intelligence network to direct information to military policymakers and senior civilians and create national intelligence from the bulk of data access to the government (Nolte, 2012, p. 57). Further, the DCI would report to a committee of cabinet secretaries to guarantee that no single department could excessively shape the form of intelligence established (Snider, 1998, p. 44). Apart from that, the Act merged the armed operations, secretary of Defense, autonomous Air Force, the CIA, and the National Security Council (NSC). President Truman selected Adm. Souers as the pioneer DCI, chairing Central Intelligence Group in January 1946 (Jones, 2005, p. 8).  The DCI was tasked to complete the connection and assessment of intelligence linked to national security and the practical distribution across the government. The DCI also took control of a considerable segment of foreign clandestine operations as well as influential control to synchronize those operations beyond its management after the War. The comprehensive reorganization of American Intelligence from 1945 to 1947 was launched by Truman to reform the institution of national security (Best, 2004, p. 3). In 1948, the identity of the Cold War was recognized making the White House and the Congress launch research into American Intelligence such as the Eberstadt and the Dulles Report (Warner & McDonald, 2005, p.7). Eberstadt’s board established the CIA within the NSC and the National Security Act reformed the CIA's function in defense preparation. The report proposed exhaustive actions to enhance the CIA's internal design and the standard of its operations making the CIA agency the top of the pyramidal intelligence arrangement. Although the authors of Eberstadt of the document identified drawbacks within the military intelligence, they failed to evaluate the challenge and comprehend its causes to recommend solutions (WARNER & MCDONALD, 2005, p. 7). In other words, the report anticipated zero organizational reform in the IC. Dulles report 1948-1949 was launched by the NSC to appraise the intelligence structure establishment after the post-Cold War and conclude how the current NSC should conduct frequent oversight of the CIA (Warner & McDonald, 2005, P.8). Even though placed under the NSC, the CIA had not yet successful conducted its primary function of synchronizing intelligence operations and evaluations regarding the national security. The answer to a successful intelligence network was for the CIA to conduct its constitutional function of harmonizing operations and evaluations. Dulles report proposed an extensive national intelligence valuation to policymakers by permitting the engagement and approval of all main intelligence bureaus. Apart from that, the Dulles document provided vision indications for enhancing stiffer harmonization across communications intelligence, activities, and diplomacy. Dulles report also enhanced human intelligence through the office of the CIA clandestine. The document Improved control of counterintelligence operations within and across the CIA intelligence network. As a result, the CIA and the FBI had to sustain a friendlier connection with each other (Johnson, National Security Intelligence, 2010, p. 2) (Lowenthal, n.d, p. 277).  Both the NSC and the CIA had to engage the Bureau in interagency committees to design and execute stiffer directives to deliver the objectives of the National Security Act (Warner & McDonald, 2005, p.11). In this view, Dulles' report was a significant external appraisal in the chronology of the American IC. However, the CIA failed to anticipate the unexpected takeover of South Korea by North Korea activating changes in the DCI in 1950. The changes were finalized to reorganize the agency and influence teamwork across the United States Intelligence. Another major drawback of the US Intelligence was the defeat from the Chinese troops in North Korea in November 1950. Neither the CIA nor the US IC anticipated the value of Chinese communist involvement in the crisis. As a result, the mistake initiated the necessity of the latest DCI reorganization.  Following Dulles' report, the CIA internal management was reorganized in terms of generating complete intelligence and structured a transparent division of labor within the diverse elements of the IC (DeVine, 2018, p. 4). The Dulles document outline, the national crisis in Korea, and the leadership of the DCI assisted in reorganizing the unequal intelligence agencies into an institution noticeable as the Intelligence Community (Miller, 2011, p. 6). The decade concluding in 1960 observed two influential research promoting additional reforms to the IC. It examined technological channels of pooling data and the White House focused its authority to manage the Cold War. The preliminary research was contracted by Congress and chaired by Gen. Mark Clark (Warner & McDonald, 2005, p.15). It recognized various problem scopes such as the control of IC and its answerability to Congress but its real outcomes were limited. Certainly, research contracted by Congress had very restricted control over the design and the operations of the CIA as well as the IC before the congressional inquiry in the mid-1970s (Johnson, National Security Intelligence, 2010, p. 2).  The second research pioneered by President Eisenhower and assigned by Gen. Lyman Kirkpatrick developed important outcomes. The Joint Study Group’s document identified the drawbacks of defense intelligence and articulated various efforts to reinforce intelligence for policymakers and commanders. For instance, the report assisted to stimulate Kennedy’s tenure to establish Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), NPIC (national photographic intelligence center), and the CIA-Defense imagery analysis position (Brown & Rudman, 1996, p. xxiv).  The 1960s illustrated instant technological advancement and gently the doubling expenditure of military systems and intelligence gathering. The application of computers and satellites for intelligence objectives activated the latest competencies and steered organizational reforms. President Nixon’s tenure in 1970 reviewed the IC. Enhanced collection innovations, telemetry, and electronic intelligence surpassed IC readiness to evaluate them. The president criticized the CIA for political prejudices and its inability to provide data of past operations as well as the errors in the Indochina events (Warner & McDonald, 2005, p.21). Through the Schlesinger Report, the office of a deputy DCI was established to oversee community concerns, and the position of deputy secretary of defense to supervise intelligence.  The blend of the service cryptologic bureau within the NSA, the development of Defense Mapping Agency, and Intelligence Support Staff to help the DCI were influential reforms of the Schlesinger Report. Debates regarding the conclusion of the Vietnam War and the White House Watergate controversy limited decision-makers and intelligence authority to execute the new vision of IC (Nolte, 2012, p. 58). In 1973, Nixon resigned due to offenses and reliable accusations of extreme intelligence crimes such as violation of civil freedom. After that, a series of investigations into the CIA and IC by Rockefeller, Church, and Pike mandated the Congress to conduct counterproductive reorganization. Congress pushed hard with certain Senate and House committee inquiries on intelligence manipulations and practices. Additional three investigations were concluded, one by Congress and the remaining two conducted by the Executive arm. The Murphy document of 1975 considered intelligence as a section of an extensive American overseas policy institution (WARNER & MCDONALD, 2005, p. 25).  The Taylor analysis of 1975 had insufficient influence because the CIA developed it by the command of its overwhelmed DCI, William Colby. The Ogilvie document of 1975 was prepared by the Whitehouse hurriedly but had minimal time to evaluate the complications of the American Intelligence. The evaluations and outcomes of these documents reasonably shaped the continuous growth of the IC. The chief research on intelligence in the 1970s originated from Capitol Hill.  In 1975 and 1976, two congressional inquiries assessed admissions into a series of CIA manipulations that first appeared in New York Times writing by Seymour Hersh. As a result, the Senate appointed a commission to probe overseas and national intelligence operations comprising of claims of abuses and the sufficiency of laws and oversight elements controlling the IC (ZEGART, 2006, p. 34).  The document produced by Frank Church articulated the IC charter as a commitment towards what covert governmental operations are mandatory and how to be carried out within the rule of law (Snider, 1998, p. 49). The recommendations of the final document suggested reforms on structure and control of the IC following recent Executive probes such as DCI function in community concern and hand over the monitoring of CIA to a deputy. After the Cold War, the Persian Gulf War of 1991 illustrated how progress in weaponry and ideologies were shaping warfare and the warfighters' demand for intelligence reinforcement.  Accuracy weapons, real-time, micro-processing, and international reliable communications were aspects converging in the military organization activating joint activities to advance the modernization of military undertakings (Johnson, National Security Intelligence, 2010, p. 4) (Snider, 1998, p. 50). The Gulf Crisis assisted to reform American intelligence in numerous fashions. It uncovered flaws in the military and IC capabilities to reinforce modern air programs. However, computerized and reliable communications across the Central command and analysts in the US moderately solved the challenge. After the crisis, the White House, Pentagon, and Congress agreed that battlefield commanders should be exposed to appropriate national and organic intelligence in anticipated conflicts. The considerable obstacle was how the IC elements established to help the White House could also assist military activities in the field. As a result, this obstacle has steered numerous controversies over intelligence amendments throughout the 1990s and the future (DeVine, 2018, p. 5). .  The Aspin-Brown Report 1995-1996 The next complete probes into the intelligence Community did not materialize until the mid-1990s, over two decades after the Church and Pike investigations.  In this duration, the world had observed the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the Kuwait Crisis of 1991 had initiated continuous controversies to the national security strategy (ZEGART, 2006, p. 36). Spending cutbacks in intelligence and defense throughout the 1990s reintroduced demands for an exhaustive competence and encouraged debates over initiatives to eliminate. Meanwhile, the sustainable progress of military ideology after the Gulf Conflict accelerated the calls for appropriate battlefield intelligence reinforcement. Apart from that, the Aldrich Ames scout gossip and the worry of the expenditure of a modern headquarters for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) encouraged multiple members of Congress that the IC required an exhaustive investigation (WARNER & MCDONALD, 2005, p. 33). Participants and Methodology Congress permitted a blue-ribbon committee to evaluate the IC after 1994. The modern charter presented to President William Clinton to select a group of Congress members and influential private citizens. The organization of the committee was comparable to Murphy's document of 1975. Initially, Les Aspin chaired the Commission but after his unexpected demise, the committee was directed by Harold Brown, a retired Secretary of Defense. The president selected nine members of the committee while the Congressional leadership voted in eight members. Without a doubt, the Aspin/Brown report was possibly the supreme level team to evaluate the Intelligence Committee. This council and its personnel devoted 1995 to studying and writing an exhaustive document which was publicly documented on 1 March 1996 (Johnson, National Security Intelligence, 2010, p. 11). The document was an outcome of previous studies, interviews, a...