With regard to terrorism, how do we want to approach it?

Questions about the war on the terrorists

By Martin Petersen

If the West wins, the intelligence agencies must find answers

For all the ink that has been spilled over intelligence and interrogations in the last year, three critical questions have not been addressed and need to be soon, especially in light of recent events in Paris and the horror that is the Islamic State: What is the mission, what are the rules, and what is the tolerance for risk? Former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recently said the threat “is beyond anything we’ve faced,” and it is foolish to think an attack like we saw in Paris cannot happen here.

I have been an intelligence officer for more than 40 years, and I know that these are questions that can only be answered by elected officials, opinion makers and the American people. The answers are political decisions and have far-reaching implications that we as a nation must be willing to live with.

The mission question is really two questions: Where do you want the intelligence community to focus its limited resources, and how do you want to deal with the terrorism issue, specifically? If you see the United States as a global power with global interests, then you want a global intelligence capability and a global presence. It must be resourced accordingly.

If you believe the United States is principally threatened by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction — and we should not collect intelligence on friends — then the intelligence community needs to be structured and resourced to focus on those issues, much as we focused on the Soviet Union and Communist world during the Cold War. This, of course, increases the likelihood we will be surprised by Arab Spring-like developments in areas where we are not focusing.

With regard to terrorism, how do we want to approach it? Although we will always do some of both, do we want to play primarily defense or offense? If we see the terrorism threat as primarily a law enforcement problem, then we need to focus resources on the FBI, the larger law enforcement community, first responders, border security, infrastructure protection and public awareness. It is about preparing for and reacting to a threat, investigating after an event, and apprehending and prosecuting offenders. A defensive orientation also means we fight the war primarily on our own soil.

If we define the problem not as a law enforcement one but primarily as a war, then our approach — including the intelligence community’s — needs to be “taking the fight to the enemy.”

...........

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com