September 12, 2018
What the 9/11 Commission Report Had to Say About Congressional Oversight
As longtime Lawfare readers know, I often take a moment around the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to reflect on some current issue of national security law and policy significance. I do this, in part, to mark the anniversary itself. As I noted two years ago, as time moves on, there are many working in the national security field currently—whether in government, academia, think tanks, advocacy organization and journalism—who did not experience the attacks and the legal and policy changes that followed in a professional capacity. For those of us who were working in the field of national security at the time, our professional lives were shaped, in significant part, by the attacks themselves, and the work that followed. The anniversary also serves as a useful time to bring awareness to the many lessons of the 9/11 Commission Report, which was issued in 2004. With each passing year, I continue to marvel at the report’s continued relevance, even as the threat landscape shifts.
This year, Congress is on my mind. And given a current political environment that has, unfortunately, pulled intelligence matters into the political arena, Congress’s role in intelligence oversight is of heightened importance. In light of today’s global national security challenges, and accompanying importance of U.S. government policymakers basing decisions on sound information, America needs a Congress capable of and devoted to meaningful intelligence oversight.
As is often the case on matters of continued relevance to the intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission had something to say about the role of Congress in intelligence oversight:
"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need. The United States needs a strong, stable, and capable congressional committee structure to give America’s national intelligence agencies oversight, support, and leadership (9/11 Report, p. 419)."
Read the Full Article at Lawfare
More from CNAS
-
U.S. military must reinforce Guam's crumbling infrastructure
Commentary
In Guam, one is quickly struck by the juxtaposition of crystal-clear waters with crumbling infrastructure and abandoned cars strewn across the small Pacific island. Following ...
By Taren Sylvester & Evan Wright
-
Preparing for the Possibility of a Draft without Panic
Commentary
Conscription has never had a political constituency in Congress. It remains a serious, costly, and potentially deadly tool meant to protect Americans from the extreme conseque...
By Taren Sylvester & Katherine L. Kuzminski
-
National Security Hiring Needs an Overhaul
Podcast
The federal hiring process can be discouraging for all parties. Applicants often struggle with the black hole and long delays. Hiring managers have to deal with a host of regu...
By Katherine L. Kuzminski
-
The Military Needs to Make Human-Performance Optimization Part of Daily Ops
Commentary
Ukraine’s fierce defense against Russia’s better-on-paper invasion force underscores—once again—how soldiers represent human weapons systems, bringing cognitive, physical, and...
By Katherine L. Kuzminski
