By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has initiated significant changes within the agency, including plans to reduce intelligence staff by nearly half, citing bloat and inefficiency. This restructuring also involves eliminating several units, such as the Foreign Malign Influence Center, with the functions being reallocated to other departments. Concurrently, Gabbard announced the revocation of security clearances for 37 current and former US officials, accusing them of politicizing intelligence, without providing evidence. These actions follow previous revocations and are met with criticism from Democrats, who view them as politically motivated distractions.
Read the original article here
Tulsi Gabbard announces plans to cut intelligence staff by half, and honestly, the immediate reaction is a mix of bewilderment and a sinking feeling. It’s like watching a magician sawing the nation’s security in half, right before the audience gets a chance to say, “Hey, wait a minute…” It just doesn’t seem like a smart move, especially when the world feels like it’s teetering on the edge of something significant. A reduction of this magnitude in the intelligence community raises serious questions about national security.
The concern is amplified by the context in which this is happening. Reports suggest that this decision is being justified as a way to cut government waste and, perhaps, to reallocate funds to other initiatives, like tax cuts for the wealthy. This is the kind of move that feels like it benefits specific players, and those players are not us, the citizens of America. It just seems to be taking the US into a more vulnerable position, deliberately making the country weaker.
The elimination of the Foreign Malign Influence Center as part of the restructuring is particularly striking. This center was tasked with monitoring foreign efforts to manipulate and influence the American public. Cutting this kind of monitoring is a double whammy. It feels like pulling up the defense, making it easier for external actors to meddle in our internal affairs, especially when the threats are getting more complex and sophisticated. It’s almost like we’re taking the guards off the castle gate, just when a siege might be imminent.
It also brings up the question of motives. Many perceive Gabbard to have close ties with, or at least sympathetic views towards, anti-American (particularly Russian) interests. There are allegations of being a foreign asset. This is not to say these things are true, but perceptions like these make her decisions look like they’re working in tandem with those very same actors. Cutting intelligence, the people who are supposed to know the enemy, only helps those enemies in the long run.
Another layer of complexity is the political climate. Gabbard has been very critical of the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It looks like she is taking steps to punish them for their past actions and for not being “loyal” to her. This just further undermines confidence in our national security infrastructure.
Of course, there’s the obvious question: Why? What’s the strategic advantage? Is it about money? Is it about control? Or is it something far more sinister? It is a strategic advantage to weaken a country, particularly if you are that country’s foe. From the outside, it looks like a win for those who want to undermine the United States.
Then there’s the historical perspective. The attacks of 9/11 happened because the country had insufficient intelligence, or the wrong people were in control. Those failures led to a terrible tragedy. Now, this is like repeating those very same mistakes. The timing of this plan is questionable.
It’s hard not to see this as a betrayal of the country. The dismantling of an organization like the intelligence community needs to be seen in the context of world events, which is now a time of great danger.
Meanwhile, there’s the political theater. Democrats and other political commentators are calling it a political maneuver to distract from unpopular policies. They’re saying that cutting the intel staff is a way to divert attention from scandals or the administration’s ties to controversial figures. Whatever the reason, it certainly does not fill anyone with confidence that this administration has the right priorities.
It also calls attention to the fact that this administration doesn’t have much faith in intelligence. That’s a dangerous position to take. They are making the nation more vulnerable, and it’s a betrayal of the office.
Finally, there’s the feeling of helplessness. What can anyone do when it looks like those in power are actively working against the interests of the country? This isn’t about policy disagreements. It’s about a fundamental question of loyalty, of whether someone is truly on the side of the United States.