The WSJ has a fine summary of factors going into the resignation (removal?) of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence. One thing of note in this piece is the discussion of bureaucratic structure. Washington has an addiction to bureaucracy, as we all know. The problem is that once a bureaucracy is created it creates constituencies and defenders that make it immune to serious reform, much less elimination, should it be called for. So what we do is layer one bureaucracy on top of another, creating a mish mash of incomprehensible and unworkable government.
Example: In the late 80s we got all excited about drugs. The federal government had numerous agencies involved in the "War on drugs." I play this game with my students: name every federal agency that might have anything to do with fighting drugs. They can usually name fifteen without much effort. So what is Washington's (more accurately, George H.W. Bush's) brainstorm? Create an Office of National Drug Control Policy with a director nicknamed "the drug czar" (or tsar, if you are old school) to coordinate our drug fighting efforts. So what happened? The Office of National Drug Control Policy became just another part of the bureaucratic duplication in the effort to combat drugs. The same has happened with the Directorate of National Intelligence, as the WSJ notes. No actual coordination of intelligence. Just another bureaucracy.
Imagine a Wal-Mart or Kmart or Target that could order new product lines but could never get rid of old ones. If, say, Hoover comes up with a new vacuum cleaner, Target must carry the old model along with the new. Imagine this goes on for a decade or three? Won't your Target be a mess of products, a chaotic mess with useless products along side the few really quality new ones? At a certain point won't it be difficult for Target to do anything new and big, because they have to take care of the old? That is the state of our federal government.
Recent Comments