Intel Agencies Test Another Terrible Idea

I‘m skeptical of the notion that the effectiveness of the nation’s intelligence agencies will be helped by opening up their operations so that Americans feel better about them:

A top intelligence official says he wants to pull back the curtain of secrecy to let Americans see more clearly what it is intelligence agencies do, and how they do it. “We’ve allowed our detractors to frame the national debate and cast us as the villains,” said Donald Kerr, the No. 2 official in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “We in the intelligence community are not winning hearts and minds in the U.S. We’re not even trying. That’s what bothers me most.” It was a wistful call to restore public trust in a community tarnished by its own actions and by allegations of misdeeds that feed on secrecy… Kerr said he was thankful there hasn’t been a poll asking people about their feelings on the intelligence community. “The number might be depressingly low,” he said. “It’s because they don’t understand what we do.”

I would move in the opposite direction: rather than more openness, I’d like more secrecy–particularly given the fact that Langley seems to leak like a sieve. I’d rather not get an accounting of exactly how many suspects have been waterboarded. I’d rather not hear members of our intelligence community say things like “I consider myself a citizen of the world” (no cite; that’s a personal experience). And when someone asks an intelligence official whether the United States had the hand in the demise of some terror suspect, I’d rather the answer be a wry smile, along with a simple “you know I’d never disclose that — even if we did.” Wouldn’t the intel “community” be more effective if it was a little less understood?

Related Content