 |
ORCON or All Con?: Institutional Impediments to Intelligence Sharing Before and After 9/11
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
Competitive Adaptation Counter-Terrorism Style 52
This situation has not changed much in the years since 9/11. Military decision-
making in the war on terror continues to be compartmentalized and centralized.
Decisions and information pass through the appropriate chains-of-command, navigating
the procedural currents established by formal military doctrine and rules of engagement.
In September 2004, Larry Johnson, the Defense Department consultant and former high-
level counter-terrorism official, described a military planning exercise in which he
participated a couple of weeks earlier. The exercise was designed to test the ability of
military units in a specific theater to put together a snatch operation in response to an
intelligence “sighting” of a simulated al Qaeda operative in a foreign city where Special
Operations Forces have an established presence. But the process was slowed, for hours at
a stretch, as officials followed formal planning protocols, as called for in counter-
terrorism military doctrine:
Now, Hollywood and the average American would say, ‘Great, this is how you come down to the area, this element will get with the CIA guys and local folks to go out and grab the guy and bring him back to the U.S.’ But here is where the bureaucracy took over. The information was called time-sensitive intelligence, which unleashed a process called time-sensitive planning in the military community. The military units that were responsible for tracking al Qaeda started to plan the operation and then briefed their general: ‘Okay, this is where this country is, this is the plan, this is how we are going to get there.’ The first briefing took place twelve hours after officials received the initial sighting report. Then a subsequent planning process kicked in, which took another twenty-four hours. The process is called time sensitive planning, specifically geared for the global war on terrorism. It’s very bureaucratized and very centralized, because ultimately you do not want anyone to go out and use military force without an authorization and permission. The earliest you would get action out of this process would be forty-eight hours, maybe seventy-two. At this point the concern is did [the target] check out of the motel, how long was he there, has he moved to another place? It is understandable, but when you have these different military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies involved they are responsible to their bureaucratic leadership. It is a centralized process within their own organizations, much less so when refereed at the National Security Council.
82
82
Author interview with Larry C. Johnson, former deputy director of the Office of Counter-Terrorism, U.S.
State Department, and CEO of Berg Associates, Washington, D.C., September 28, 2004.
|
| | Authors: Kenney, Michael. |
|
| |
|
|
Competitive Adaptation Counter-Terrorism Style 52
This situation has not changed much in the years since 9/11. Military decision-
making in the war on terror continues to be compartmentalized and centralized.
Decisions and information pass through the appropriate chains-of-command, navigating
the procedural currents established by formal military doctrine and rules of engagement.
In September 2004, Larry Johnson, the Defense Department consultant and former high-
level counter-terrorism official, described a military planning exercise in which he
participated a couple of weeks earlier. The exercise was designed to test the ability of
military units in a specific theater to put together a snatch operation in response to an
intelligence “sighting” of a simulated al Qaeda operative in a foreign city where Special
Operations Forces have an established presence. But the process was slowed, for hours at
a stretch, as officials followed formal planning protocols, as called for in counter-
terrorism military doctrine:
Now, Hollywood and the average American would say, ‘Great, this is how you
come down to the area, this element will get with the CIA guys and local folks to
go out and grab the guy and bring him back to the U.S.’ But here is where the
bureaucracy took over. The information was called time-sensitive intelligence,
which unleashed a process called time-sensitive planning in the military
community. The military units that were responsible for tracking al Qaeda started
to plan the operation and then briefed their general: ‘Okay, this is where this
country is, this is the plan, this is how we are going to get there.’ The first
briefing took place twelve hours after officials received the initial sighting report.
Then a subsequent planning process kicked in, which took another twenty-four
hours. The process is called time sensitive planning, specifically geared for the
global war on terrorism. It’s very bureaucratized and very centralized, because
ultimately you do not want anyone to go out and use military force without an
authorization and permission. The earliest you would get action out of this
process would be forty-eight hours, maybe seventy-two. At this point the concern
is did [the target] check out of the motel, how long was he there, has he moved to
another place? It is understandable, but when you have these different military,
intelligence, and law enforcement agencies involved they are responsible to their
bureaucratic leadership. It is a centralized process within their own organizations,
much less so when refereed at the National Security Council.
82
Author interview with Larry C. Johnson, former deputy director of the Office of Counter-Terrorism, U.S.
State Department, and CEO of Berg Associates, Washington, D.C., September 28, 2004.
|
|
 Convention | | Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote! | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
