“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
- Not Einstein[1]
“It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.”
- Albert Einstein, June 10th, 1933[2]
According to Defense-Scoop, late last week Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao tapped former Navy SEAL, Mr. John Cremons to serve as the deputy under secretary of the Navy for intelligence and security.[3] No doubt, many wonder why the Navy even needs such a position.
Two details should be clarified up front. First, those outside the Pentagon, likely wonder why the Navy and other intel organizations use the term “intelligence and security,” vice just “intelligence.” The change was made by Congress (via the 2019 NDAA) in order emphasize the Pentagon’s growing role in security and counter intelligence, including the move of some security background investigations now being completed by the Defense Counter Intelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), in response to the report of China hacking OPM’s security clearance database. DCSA serves at the direction and control of USD(I&S), who reports directly to the Secretary of Defense, who of course reports directly to the President.[4] For any with questions regarding why OSD-USD(I&S) was created in 2003, see the congressional explanation.[5] Perhaps, unsurprisingly, other military services and intelligence organizations followed the spirit of the 2019 law, and added “security” to intelligence, following USD(I&S).[6] For any curious about the security clearance process and policies, congress.gov, once again has a superb overview.[7]
Second, rational minds often wonder why we “need” so many layers of oversight in the world of national security and intelligence. People are often surprised to find that the “true boss” of NSA, DIA, NRO, NGA and DCSA is not those agency Directors, but rather the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, who has been given “authority, direction, and control” over these agencies.[8] Note, any confusion about this, is, in no small part, due to a simple oversight by President Biden’s leaders of USD(I&S), who failed to link to the correct, public charter on the website, citing their legal and statutory responsibilities, a mistake which has been corrected by SECWAR Hegseth’s team, which now links to the correct charter.[9]
The question regarding so many layers of oversight, is of course an important question. Following the quote on page one, I would simply pose three questions.
1. How important is the survival of the United States of America?
2. Based on your answer, do you think it is better to have 1, 2, 3, or more organizations ensuring the President, Congress and our troops get the best information possible to enable their decisions to be as informed as possible?
a. I cite those numbers, because at present, the number of oversight organizations in our national security community working intelligence for the President and Congress and military leaders is, by most counts, two. OUSD(I&S) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. There are, as with all things in life, always exceptions.
3. Finally, if you were to set the limit on defense spending, would % of GDP would you think we should invest in the survival of our nation?
a. Note, we currently pay less than 5% of our nation’s GDP for defense.
If you think the information reaching the President and Congress, that is very much connected to our survival, is important enough to warrant oversight from at least one organization at all times, you should know that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created for just that purpose, and that President Trump’s acting DNI, just cut the already small ODNI workforce by half. To our Congressional leaders who think even several thousand people at ODNI is “too many,” I would encourage them to pause and consider how much another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor will cost this nation – and whether the “savings” we get in dollar terms for firing these public servants is worth increasing that risk.
[1] This quote is too often attributed to Einstein. Like many aphorisms, we create short-hand – the equivalent of word-emojis – to represent something else. In this case, Readers Digest attributed the phrase to Einstein with no citation in July 1977. See: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/#d4aa1c21-30e8-4d5f-81fa-6036b91505a9-link
[2] See: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00003988
[9] See: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/514301p.pdf, the older charter, is available here: https://ousdi.defense.gov/Portals/73/Documents/514301p%20USDI%20Charter.pdf