Based on this report’s antecedents and the fact that it was leaked, can there be any doubt that it is nothing but a political hack job, cobbled together by a minor Beltway Bandit who was directed as to what to find, rubberstamped by some disgruntled members of the former administration, and leaked to cause embarrassment and thus exact a measure of revenge on their current political opponents? Of course there isn’t.

Owen Johnson, CIA (Ret.), on an intelligence report leaked to Bill Gertz of the WA Times saying that intelligence analysts “missed” the military buildup of China over the last decade. (Via Powerline)

Somewhere, there’s a perfect world where intelligence analysis and politics are entirely separate. A place where politicians and policy makers do nothing except make policy and analysts do nothing except analyze.

This is not a perfect world.

The bottom line is, our intelligence system is a mess, an alphabet soup of competing bureaucracies scrambling to protect their turf and all jostling for the attention of the President. Presidential attention means that your views are listened to. Being listened to by the President means having the power to shape the agenda. Shaping the agenda means you’re a player. Being a player in Washington is an ego trip of the highest degree, something most of the permanent bureaucracy strives for all their lives.

In a town where status is determined by such arcane nuances as how long you can keep someone on the phone without picking up, how big one’s office is, and whether or not you’re invited to the cocktail party du jour, being a player in the policy game is pretty heady stuff. Generally speaking, someone who’s “in” can have their secretary place a call and keep the recipient waiting for minutes. And if someone of lower rank or not on the “list” is unlucky enough to call you, the game can become even more ridiculous. You can choose to keep the poor schmuck waiting forever or you can have your faithful, underpaid secretary take a message. Some sadists do both.

Of course, the chances of getting back to you are directly related to a very specific but unwritten set of circumstances. What’s your title? Who’s your boss? How much good can you do me? If I help you, how much good can I do you? Can I afford to offend you?

And this is the drill for people on their way up. I can imagine what it is for people who’ve already arrived at the top of the ziggurat.

There are exceptions to every rule but this game occupies Washington bureaucrats and is a source of endless speculation and chatter at Washington social events. It’s the #1 game in town.

The #2 game in town is the “stab in the back” game. This game is directly related to #1 in that backstabbing is an art form played to the hilt by those who are usually “out” against those who are “in.” Occasionally, it’s played by someone who’s “in” against someone who’s an “in” wannabe.

Jealousy is the #3 game in Washington.

This Bill Gertz piece in the Washington Times detailing apparent intelligence failures relating to the Chinese military buildup is, according to ex-CIA analyst Johnson, a perfect example of game #2. Johnson’s email to the Powerline boys is an eye opener. The Gertz article quotes unnamed sources criticizing analysts for the failure in intelligence. As it turns out, Johnson takes exception to this because he was one of the primary China hands at the CIA during the time in question. He says he didn’t “miss” anything and I believe him. Especially when he writes what happened to this “missing” intel:

But as often happens, a legitimate debate among analysts was misused by many during the 1990s to either try to inflate the Chinese threat or to downplay it or ignore it for political reasons. This latter group was lead—not by some “close-knit fraternity” of analysts out to fool the government—but by Bill Clinton himself. Clinton went so far as to declare certain collection activities against China as “off-limits” and also put certain topics off-limits as well. In practice that meant, while we knew what was going on, we were not allowed to say some things, or to officially report certain obvious conclusions. Parenthetically, I say this not to justify anything that was “missed” because nothing mentioned in the Washington Times article—and I dare say in the leaked report—falls into those categories. I say it to point out that the former U.S. official who said the report should help expose that “self-selected group” that supposedly fooled the Government by suppressing evidence out of a desire to have good relations with China must be talking about him/her/itself. The quote by this former official is a fairly apt description of Clinton’s China policy, which owed nothing to any group beyond Clinton’s own band of cronies. If anything, it was Clinton who was attempting to fool the rest of us.

That deserves at least a “wow.”

The fact that Mr. Johnson is willing to put his name to this criticism speaks volumes. It reinforces his credibility tenfold. And if you read Johnson’s entire missive, you’re left with the unsettling feeling that politicians – both Republican and Democratic – are fully capable of “fixing” intelligence so that it meets a policy goal.

In this context, the Downing Street memo is thrown into an entirely different light as is the pre-9/11 intel on Bin Laden and al Qaeda.

I always thought that the 9/11 Commission was a waste of time. It’s obscene partisanship in the face of real world problems that needed to be solved was a slap in the face to the nearly 3000 Americans who lost their lives on that horrible day. And their recommendations, well-intentioned as most of them may have been, were mostly cosmetic in nature, simply adding a whole new layer of Washington bureaucratic “players” to the mix.

As for the pre-war intel on Iraq WMD’s, while there were warning signs that something may have been amiss, I can’t get the picture of George Tennant, then CIA Director, sitting in the family quarters at the White House and telling the President that WMD intel was “a slam dunk.” If you’re George Bush and your CIA Chief tells you something like that, I don’t see how you can possibly ignore it.

Tenant should have been fired a lot sooner and left in disgrace rather than given a medal. I said so at the time and I’ll say it again. The intelligence failure with regard to WMD can be laid directly at his doorstep. He not only missed the big one (9/11), but his screw up with Iraqi WMD was the cause for the biggest embarrassment that the US government has ever had to endure.

I can guarantee you that things are no better today than they were on September 10, 2001. Whether they’re worse or not we won’t know unless or until we’re hit again by al Qaeda or some other group. Since most terrorism experts say that this will happen sooner rather than later, it’s probable that we’ll have to endure another exercise in futility like the 9/11 Commission as well as more backstabbing and finger pointing.

Owen Johnson’s email will not change the culture at any of the intelligence gathering agencies into which we pour at least $50 billion annually. But it may wake a few people up to the problems that occur where politics and intelligence come together.

I hope that Powerline post receives the widest possible circulation.

UPDATE

Gary at The Owner’s Manual thinks that the revelation about Clinton’s China policy could hurt Hillary in ‘08:

Those who believed Clinton was in China’s pocket may be exonerated. Hillary’s run for the White House could stumble over the revelations in a retired CIA China expert’s email to the folks at Powerline.

It’s a pleasant thought but somehow I doubt if that revelation will receive much play in the media. Gee…I wonder why?