Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Rest Assured—We Will Now Have “Good Intelligence”

Since the founding of the CIA in 1947, it has been under attack, mainly from the right. Although left-center charges that the CIA has engineered...

Print Friendly

Since the founding of the CIA in 1947, it has been under attack, mainly from the right. Although left-center charges that the CIA has engineered coups against democratically elected governments and trained death squads have received more public attention, a phalanx of right-center forces have been the CIA’s most implacable foes.

For more than five decades, the militarists and right-wing ideologues have charged that the U.S. government’s intelligence apparatus, led by the CIA, has downplayed the national security threats posed by the Soviet Union, China, and “rogue states” such as Iraq, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Libya, and Syria.

Through the decades of the Cold War and into the 1990s and first Bush administration, the hawks and conservative ideologues have complained that the CIA and other intelligence agencies, along with the State Department, are bureaucracies overrun, variously, with liberals, “pinkos,” communists, anti-American internationalists, and Arabists.

According to the hawks, the CIA and other liberal strongholds in government have distorted their “threat assessments” of U.S. real and potential enemies. In the view of the right-wing’s intelligence reformers, the goal of intelligence is not truth but victory. What high administration officials and leading Republicans in Congress consider to be “good intelligence” is what the intelligence hawks call “strategic intelligence.”

Intelligence reformers on the right can point to two major achievements in their campaign to seize command of the government’s intelligence apparatus. First was the appointment of Porter Goss (R-FL), the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a longtime ally of Vice President Cheney, to head the CIA and direct its reform. Second was the nomination of John Negroponte to be the first Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

The Negroponte nomination, preceded by that of Goss, signaled the end of the CIA’s dominant position among the government’s 15 intelligence agencies. A diplomat with a four-decade history as a ruthless and highly effective foreign policy operative, Negroponte has most recently served as the ambassador to Iraq. Negroponte, who received quick Senate confirmation for his positions in Iraq and at the UN, can count on bipartisan support for his latest nomination.

As a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act passed by Congress in late 2004, the newly created office of DNI—with a staff of 500—will exercise oversight over the budgets of the diverse intelligence agencies.

As the government’s first national intelligence director, John Negroponte has proved an adept provider and user of strategic intelligence over the past four decades. Negroponte, 65, comes well prepared to his new position, after having served as a junior officer in Vietnam during the war, and as ambassador to the Philippines, Honduras, Mexico, the United Nations, and most recently Iraq.

Since the mid-1960s Negroponte has moved around the globe doing whatever is required to further what successive U.S. administrations have defined as U.S. economic interests and national security—including such diverse roles as advising the puppet U.S. government in South Vietnam during the war, supervising the Reagan administration use of Honduras as its logistical center for the counterinsurgency and counterrevolutionary campaigns in Central America, ensuring good U.S.-Mexico relations during the NAFTA negotiations, managing relations with UN Security Council members in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, and overseeing U.S. nation-building and counterinsurgency operations in the lead-up to the Iraq elections in January 2005.

Critics charge that Negroponte has—both as a member of the National Security Council and during his various ambassadorships—covered up damaging information so as to further bad policies. Melvin Goodman, a former CIA official, warned: “Negroponte is tough enough. The question is: Is he independent enough?” Referring to his history of covering up human rights abuses in Honduras, Goodman said: “I think the role of intelligence is telling truth to power” and then Negroponte’s appointment “doesn’t fit.”

The nomination of Negroponte as DNI comes at a time when new CIA chief Goss has signaled that he intends to rid the agency of those who do not fall into line with Bush administration policies in the Middle East and elsewhere, leading some high officials to leave the agency and to widespread morale problems. In the view of one former intelligence official, “The CIA is a wounded gazelle on the African plain. It’s a pile of bleached bones.”

Negroponte is not an ideologue, and certainly not a neoconservative. Since the 1960s Ambassador Negroponte has earned a reputation as a ruthless and determined political operative who always gets the job done—however “dirty” or undiplomatic. Unlike most of President Bush’s foreign policy team, Negroponte has no direct connections with the network of conservative policy institutes, think tanks, or foundations that have set the administration’s foreign and domestic policy agenda.

Not a theorist or strategist, Negroponte instead is commonly regarded as a pragmatic realist with decidedly hawkish inclinations. Negroponte has throughout his career maintained a low public profile despite his high-profile positions—rarely writing or speaking about U.S. foreign or military policy, apart from diplomatically worded statements issued by his office. Ever the flexible diplomat, Negroponte has proved comfortable in adopting whatever foreign policy language—from idealist to realist—is deemed most appropriate and effective for the job he has been assigned.

As a practitioner of “strategic intelligence,” Negroponte for four decades has focused not on truth but on victory. Typical of other hawks, Negroponte blames the defeat of South Vietnam on the liberals and moderates in Washington–not on any misguided notion of U.S. national security or self-deception by the “war party” in U.S. government.

But Negroponte has presided over numerous short-term victories, such as deceiving the world about Iraq’s purported ties with terrorism and its mass destruction weapons, crushing the leftist guerrilla and popular movements in Central America in the 1980s, and implementing NAFTA and the “Washington Consensus” in Mexico. Problem is that they were Pyrrhic victories at best. Any intelligence worth its name would better describe Negroponte’s history of representing U.S. interests as a series of wrong turns, dead ends, and deadly collisions.

Tom Barry is policy director of the International Relations Center (IRC), online at www.irc-online.org.

 

For More Information Basic Instincts, "Not the Truth: Iraq War Product of Neocon Philosophy of Intelligence"

A Philosophy of Intelligence: Leo Strauss and Intelligence Strategy

Right Web of Intelligence Reformers

A History of Threat Escalation: Remembering Team B

Decentralizing U.S. Intelligence: Office of Special Plans

Right Web Profile: John Negroponte

 

 

Citations

Tom Barry, "Negroponte and the CIA’s Eclipse: Rest Assured—We Will Now Have 'Good Intelligence'," IRC Right Web (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, April 7, 2005).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share