Director of National Intelligence Pushed to Resignation
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on 21 May 2010
by Jim Jarrassé (link to original)
Having come under fire following internal tension and a series of errors in his department, Dennis Blair stepped down Thursday “with deep regret.” This marks the first departure of a high-level official in the Obama administration.
"It is with deep regret that I informed the president today that I will step down as Director of National Intelligence." After 16 months as the head of the United States Intelligence Community, Dennis Blair is saying his goodbyes. This departure, however, is far from voluntary. Despite President Obama paying tribute to his “remarkable record of service,” Blair had long ago lost the trust of the White House, who didn’t waste a minute in interviewing “several strong candidates” as his replacement.
The departure of Dennis Blair, a retired four-star Navy admiral, comes at the end of a markedly troubled period for American intelligence. First came the serious dysfunctions uncovered as a result of the failed Christmas Day attack on an airplane flying between Amsterdam and Detroit. In a report published Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee claimed that “systematic failure” had permitted the suspect, the young Nigerian national Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to board the plane and then attempt to set off explosives. The White House sharply criticized the intelligence community, blaming a lack of information cross-referencing and poor communication between different organizations.
Prior to that episode, the shooting committed in November by an Army commander on a Texas military base — which killed thirteen people — had already placed intelligence agencies under the spotlight, and the intelligence community found itself reproached for not having foreseen early warning signs: for example, the close communication maintained between the killer and Anwar Al-Awlaki, who has nonetheless been under continual CIA surveillance since 2001.
These recent failures aside, Dennis Blair’s departure promises to provoke a debate on the legitimacy of the post of Director of National Intelligence, created in 2004 after the fiasco surrounding the so-called weapons of mass destruction held by Iraq. Originally hoped to lead a vast bureaucracy in a strong new direction, and to ensure cooperation between agencies sometimes in competition, the position of DNI has, paradoxically, never benefitted from direct authority over the members and budgets of various agencies, not even on CIA spy missions.
Behind the scenes, Blair searched elsewhere to gain more control over the famous Langley, Virginia intelligence agency, particularly regarding strikes conducted by drones and other operations in Pakistan, finally finding himself head-to-head with CIA director Leon Panetta. The fight, however, was not an equal one: faced with Blair, whose brusque and direct military temperament clashed with the White House’s sensibilities, Panetta— who was once a member of Congress and Bill Clinton’s chief of staff— called upon his indispensible network at the heart of the American political machine.
Unsurprisingly, in December the White House finally came out in favor of the CIA, maintaining its direct authority over secret missions abroad. Little by little Dennis Blair was nudged towards the exit; he stayed quiet on the attempted May 1 Times Square bombing, leaving the field open wide for John Brennan, assistant to the president for national security.
Brennan, Panetta, Blair… with three men on the same playing field, isn’t infighting inevitable? Thursday, a number of Republicans criticized Blair’s departure, blaming Obama’s handling of national security. “The Director of National Intelligence has never received the authority or the support necessary to make things happen,”* commented Republican senator Kit Bond. “He’s been squeezed out by turf wars.”
*Editor’s Note: This quote, though accurately translated, could not be verified.
"It is with deep regret that I informed the president today that I will step down as Director of National Intelligence." After 16 months as the head of the United States Intelligence Community, Dennis Blair is saying his goodbyes. This departure, however, is far from voluntary. Despite President Obama paying tribute to his “remarkable record of service,” Blair had long ago lost the trust of the White House, who didn’t waste a minute in interviewing “several strong candidates” as his replacement.
The departure of Dennis Blair, a retired four-star Navy admiral, comes at the end of a markedly troubled period for American intelligence. First came the serious dysfunctions uncovered as a result of the failed Christmas Day attack on an airplane flying between Amsterdam and Detroit. In a report published Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee claimed that “systematic failure” had permitted the suspect, the young Nigerian national Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to board the plane and then attempt to set off explosives. The White House sharply criticized the intelligence community, blaming a lack of information cross-referencing and poor communication between different organizations.
Prior to that episode, the shooting committed in November by an Army commander on a Texas military base — which killed thirteen people — had already placed intelligence agencies under the spotlight, and the intelligence community found itself reproached for not having foreseen early warning signs: for example, the close communication maintained between the killer and Anwar Al-Awlaki, who has nonetheless been under continual CIA surveillance since 2001.
These recent failures aside, Dennis Blair’s departure promises to provoke a debate on the legitimacy of the post of Director of National Intelligence, created in 2004 after the fiasco surrounding the so-called weapons of mass destruction held by Iraq. Originally hoped to lead a vast bureaucracy in a strong new direction, and to ensure cooperation between agencies sometimes in competition, the position of DNI has, paradoxically, never benefitted from direct authority over the members and budgets of various agencies, not even on CIA spy missions.
Behind the scenes, Blair searched elsewhere to gain more control over the famous Langley, Virginia intelligence agency, particularly regarding strikes conducted by drones and other operations in Pakistan, finally finding himself head-to-head with CIA director Leon Panetta. The fight, however, was not an equal one: faced with Blair, whose brusque and direct military temperament clashed with the White House’s sensibilities, Panetta— who was once a member of Congress and Bill Clinton’s chief of staff— called upon his indispensible network at the heart of the American political machine.
Unsurprisingly, in December the White House finally came out in favor of the CIA, maintaining its direct authority over secret missions abroad. Little by little Dennis Blair was nudged towards the exit; he stayed quiet on the attempted May 1 Times Square bombing, leaving the field open wide for John Brennan, assistant to the president for national security.
Brennan, Panetta, Blair… with three men on the same playing field, isn’t infighting inevitable? Thursday, a number of Republicans criticized Blair’s departure, blaming Obama’s handling of national security. “The Director of National Intelligence has never received the authority or the support necessary to make things happen,”* commented Republican senator Kit Bond. “He’s been squeezed out by turf wars.”
*Editor’s Note: This quote, though accurately translated, could not be verified.