The Security-Industrial Complex Run Amok
July 23, 2010
This week, the Washington Post ran an investigative series on the growth of America’s intelligence institutions, called “Top Secret America.” The Post investigation found after 9/11 the United States government outsourced intelligence duties to private groups thus turning core national security functions into a multi-billion dollar industry. The result is the creation of a massive security-industrial complex.
Private contractors performing government work is nothing new and there are potentially significant cost savings and performance benefits to using them. However, there are certain government functions that are deemed to be too important to be outsourced, labeled “inherently governmental.”
According to the Office of Management and Budget, “inherently governmental” is defined as, “an activity that is so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance by government personnel.” Most intelligence functions would be defined and treated as “inherently governmental”, or at least one would reasonably think so. Yet, that has not been the case since 9/11.
Since 9/11 there was a strong push to hire as many qualified people into intelligence agencies as possible. However post-Cold War personnel reductions and a slow security clearance system forced agencies to hire private contractors who already had clearances and expertise. This resulted in an explosion of contractors involved in intelligence work.
A 2008 study by the National Director of Intelligence found contractors constitute 29% of the Intelligence Community’s (IC) workforce, but nearly half of its budget. Independent reporting by investigative reporter Tim Shorrock found those numbers may be higher: he claims several agencies like the CIA and the National Reconnaissance Office are majority contractors and as much as 70% of the 2007 IC budget was spent on private workers. Meanwhile the Washington Post notes, [Secretary of Defense Robert] “Gates said that federal workers cost the government 25 percent less than contractors.”
However, the problems over private contracting go well beyond the significant financial costs. Transparency and accountability issues are also a major concern. The Post noted that the dramatic increase in national security contractors occurred so quickly and expansively, that agencies are having trouble keeping track of who exactly is working for them, and how money is spent. Within and across agencies, multiple layers of bureaucratic redundancy and inefficiency have been created with little ability to measure success. It is hardly surprising that top government officials like the National Director of Intelligence, James Clapper, and retired Lt. Gen. John Vines, question the effectiveness of contractor-run programs.
The largest problem, however, may be over potential conflicts of interest, especially in intelligence analysis. Many government officials - rightly so in our opinion - are extremely concerned whether or not private analysts are conflicted between their duty to the nation and their loyalty to the company’s shareholders. Introducing profit motives into the analysis process potentially creates pressures to tailor assessments suiting business interests rather than producing objective analysis. In other words, profit motives may drive some analysts to exaggerate the nature of certain threats. Why? Because it’s good for business. (But not necessarily for the public interest.)
Consequentially, massive amounts of tax dollars are being wasted on programs of questionable effectiveness and the public interest has been compromised. Congress, the President, and intelligence agencies must reassert their oversight powers and thoroughly re-examine the role of the private security in national security functions. The security-industrial complex has clearly run amok and it must stop now.
