|
The great thing about taking a post on another blog as a takeoff point for my own articles is that I can get about a week's worth of writing out of it, without actually having to exert myself by thinking of a topic. That being the case, I continue to parasitize Michael Gebert's Vorpal Blog. His third bulleted item on necessary reform is
• A serious overhaul of the FBI, dedicated among other things to rooting out sexism the way the Army has worked to rid itself of racism Gebert's language is less harsh than that which he used WRT the CIA. This may reflect the relative amount of blame that he assesses to the two agencies -- or, of course, it may not. As I previously noted, the fault is not assignable solely to either agency, but is to a large extent in the interactions between the two. I think Gebert knows and agrees with this. As with the CIA, the next director of the FBI should be an outsider, with enough grounding in the disciplines wanted (she should ideally be a CPA with a Juris Doctor degree, or perhaps a lawyer with an MBA), and with a sufficiently forceful and self-reliant personality that she does not fall into the trap of constantly calling up senior FBI personnel and asking for their "advice" (orders with plausible deniability incorporated). Reader Matt Harris notes that Rudy Giulani is often mentioned as a candidate for director of the CIA. We might also see him as a candidate for director of the FBI, but not both, nor should the two agencies be combined in any way (there must be a continued bright line drawn between foreign and domestic operations, if we are to have any hope of avoiding the shift to outright Empire). One thing stirs some unease in me, as well as in others. Gebert, let it be noted, has called for reforms "dedicated among other things to rooting out sexism [from the FBI] the way the Army has worked to rid itself of racism". Jeff Goldstein writes
I can't say I agree with all of these suggestions -- cutting SDI seems to me irrelevant here, as does "rooting out sexism" (please tell me the FBI is concentrating on rooting out terrorist cells just now and not "embedded patriarchal assumptions") to which Gebert replies
As for rooting out sexism at the FBI, well, that's an indirect weapon to be sure. But surely the good old boy, white socks and black shoes culture at the FBI is a big reason why nobody listened to people like Coleen Rowley—why she was still being blown off until days ago. To a certain point, we're comparing apples to oranges here. The rooting out of racism in the Army was largely done without the interference of the political correctness demanded by the loony left. If that condition is not imposed as a goal of reforms at the FBI, then I think that Goldstein would agree that those reforms are at worst harmless (taking the extreme and extremely unlikely position that there is no institutional sexism at the FBI) and almost certainly beneficial. If, on the other hand, it is intended by progressives that the FBI should reflect their prejudices, as they tried to remake the armed forces (particularly the surface Navy) during the Clinton administration, then I think that Gebert, on the other hand, would agree that the cure is worse than the disease. Unfortunately, I feel this debate can only be decided by empirical evidence, which means both adopting Gebert's reforms, and then shutting them down if they are misdirected. The first will be difficult, the second almost impossible. It would mean a new director willing to undertake meaningful reform and to resist political manipulation by progressives, a President willing to oversee him and remove him if he veers too far in either direction, and a Congress (and behind a citizenry) willing to make them both toe the line. I don't see this happening in the first half of this decade, probably not in this decade at all, and very possibly ever. John "Akatsukami" Braue Tuesday, June 04, 2002 |
|