One of the fundamental tenets of of rational government and non-political bureaucrats is the idea that (much like the capitalist economic system) productive job behavior is good, and that non-productive behavior is bad. In other words, do a good job and get raises and promotions, do a bad job and get no raise and no promotion (or even fired). This is critical to how our system of government works. Bureaucrats who do their jobs professionally and non-politically get rewarded, while those that are less competant are demoted or fired. The bureaucrats have to be professional and non-political: if the entire bureaucracy were politicized, we'd have to replace them all (from park rangers to dog catchers to secretaries) every time their was a change in party in power. No one likes "bureaucrats", but a professional class of non-political government workers is critical to running a democracy for over 300 million people.
This was what was so worrying about the "Did Bush force the CIA to manufacture intelligence" debate. The country will survive even serious mistakes by Presidents (see Kennedy & Johnson on Vietnam, just for one example). The much more significant problem is if Bush politicizes the intelligence system so it no longer gives accurate forecasts and analysis. If the system works, and Presidents make bad decisions, we can get around that (solution: replace the President). If the system is broken, then by definition every President (regardless of party) will make bad decisions, because every administration will be operating with bad intelligence. No one will make good decisions at that point.
Hence, it is worrying that some of the analysts who made faulty intelligence assessments regarding Iraq are being rewarded, not fired or demoted. This is fundamentally wrong, no matter what political party you are from. A non-political intelligence service is critical to the country, not any particular party. This is not just an isolated case, either:
Pentagon spokesmen said the awards for the analysts were to recognize their overall contributions on the job over the course of each year. But some current and former officials, including those who called attention to the awards, said the episode shows how the administration has failed to hold people accountable for mistakes on prewar intelligence.
Despite sharp critiques from the president's commission and the Senate intelligence committee, no major reprimand or penalty has been announced publicly in connection with the intelligence failures, though investigations are still underway at the CIA. George J. Tenet resigned as CIA director but was later awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bush.
So, these individuals are representative of all the intelligence analysts: not one single person has been demoted or fired as a result of one of the greatest intelligence failures in the modern history of the United States. This isn't a political argument - if we don't fire or demote people who are demonstrably wrong (and, at least on a prima facia case, get promoted or rewarded for screwing up in a politically expedient direction), we hurt the country. This is just wrong.
Posted by baltar at May 28, 2005 08:48 AM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsLet me play Devil's Advocate for a moment, after a preliminary agreement.
First, the agreement. Yes, it seems untoward that failure should be rewarded. And yes, given that these folks were particularly singled out for failure, that they were subsequently - and repeatedly - rewarded is puzzling at the least. Particularly troubling is that (according to the article) they were chastised for not following proper professional procedure, suggesting that their errors might have a political foundation.
Now, the devilment. Are these people being promoted over their peers, or in excess of their peers who were not deemed to be failures? Could it be that they are getting thrown a bone in the form of the bonuses, while others have moved up on a more permanent and rewarding track? That is, are these "rewards" really "rewards" or simply short term salves (the bonuses) or "dead wood" promotions? I'd be curious to see what the context shows about their treatment. The suspicious part of my brain makes me doubt my alternate case, but it's worth checking facts.
On a different track, I wonder about the relationship between failure and advancement in general in the intelligence services. When even the best professionals are dealing with incomplete information, deliberate misinformation by the "enemy" and scads of other reasons why their rationality is bounded, wouldn't there be a high rate of "failure" to predict accurate results as compared to some other predicting professionals with "perfect" information (say, an actuary). I'm not suggesting that this was the case we're discussing now, but I worry that setting the precedent of saying to intelligence people "you failed, you're out" might not bring an opposite but just as dangerous type of misinformation, in which no intel folks would be willing to take risks with a long shot prediction, and we'd be left with a too conservative (in the dictionary not political sense) intelligence service.
And finally, the danger is not that "we'd have to replace them all (from park rangers to dog catchers to secretaries)" (italics mine), but that the replacement process would become a highly politicized process that would put uncles, nephews, cousins, loyal party retainers, etc etc in offices AND that the removal of the existing functionaries would become a political witch hunt. Both of these make the short tenure in bureaucratic jobs more attractive as a way to line pockets than serve the people. The connection between nepotism and corruption is one that governments all over the world continue to battle. Witch hunts to remove politcal opponents from government is divisive and wasteful, among other things. This is why many countries have tried - some more successfully than others - to institute meritocratic civil services.
Posted by: binky at May 28, 2005 10:24 AM | PERMALINK