The intelligence community can balance individual needs without DEI absurdity

The intelligence community can balance individual needs without DEI absurdity

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is supposed to focus on supervising and synthesizing the intelligence community‘s various lines of effort. The ODNI’s effort to feed the Biden administration‘s fixation with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives is undermining that responsibility.

As first reported by the Daily Wire and expanded upon by the Washington Free Beacon’s Adam Kredo, the ODNI’s DEI efforts carry an increasingly formal and expansive nature. The Daily Wire focuses on the ODNI testimony of a male intelligence officer who explains why he finds professional and personal benefits in cross-dressing. This seems silly, but the real concern here is not actually about cross-dressing. We see the best hint at this with the cross-dressing officer’s observation that many of his colleagues simply “ignored” his dress choices. This observation underlines how the vast majority of IC personnel care far more about how well someone does their job than how they decide to dress.

Indeed, the IC’s greatest strength is its unifying of different Americans in a shared patriotic purpose. The CIA officers who maintained surveillance of Osama bin Laden’s compound were not Caucasian but did speak fluent Urdu, for example. Had they been otherwise, they could not have accomplished their mission. I’m also aware of a transgender intelligence officer who is regarded internally and by a very close foreign allied intelligence service as a “rockstar.” Not because of their transgender identity but because they are exceptionally good at their job. And the job is what matters.

In contrast to the national interest in getting the job done, formal DEI efforts are widely derided within the intelligence community.

They are seen as creating absurd new bureaucratic structures and training requirements that exist only to fulfill a leadership interest in presenting itself as woke to the public. As with the Diplomatic Security Service’s DEI initiatives, the ODNI’s DEI varied programs are seen as prioritizing desired identity markers over skill and performance in selection for promotion. They thus diminish the purer interest in fostering an IC culture and management ethos that, by inherent virtue of the IC’s work, requires comradeship and skill regardless of sex, race, religion, or background. Hence why the CIA’s “Humans of the CIA” video series three years ago was seen by many in the IC as deeply embarrassing. Not because that series presented diversity, but rather because it suggested an IC interest in individual virtue signaling above diversity in the national service.

It is also clear that DEI efforts are undermining the supposedly sacrosanct principle of intelligence work: objective analysis.

Take the DEI unit’s Winter 2023-2024 edition of its in-house magazine, The Dive. This includes a particularly absurd section explaining why intelligence officers should not use accurate titles in identifying terrorist organizations. Readers are told that “some of the problematic phrases include, but are not limited to: ‘salafi-jihadist,’ ‘jihadist,’ ‘islamic-extremist,’ ‘Sunni/Shia-extremism,’ and ‘radical islamists.’ These terms incorrectly suggest that Islamic beliefs somehow condone the actions and rhetoric espoused by these foreign terrorist organizations. We recommend identifying individuals and groups based on the foreign terrorist organization they are a part of and the region where they operate.” The Dive’s editors add that “The majority of people we spoke with mentioned how they ‘cringe’ when hearing [government] officials use these offensive terms….”

Translation: we are talking to idiots. I’m sorry, but this is stunningly stupid stuff. The reason those terms are used is because they underline the motive, ideology, and intent of the groups. Hence why the British domestic intelligence service plainly identifies how “Islamist terrorists are generally driven by an extreme interpretation of Islam or perceived grievances against “the West,” particularly those propagated by terrorist groups such as Daesh (also referred to as ISIL, ISIS or the Islamic State) or al Qaeda.”

From an intelligence analysis perspective, the use of these terms isn’t just preferable, it is necessary. These terms center analysis with a focus on the facts. ISIS are Salafi-Jihadists because they seek to implement a pernicious interpretation of, you guessed it, Salafi-Jihadism. This ideology goes part and parcel with understanding why ISIS commits such heinous acts of brutality and revels in the belief that violence against non-believers or perceived apostates constitutes a purifying act of ordained service. If you don’t use these terms, you cannot understand ISIS. If you cannot understand ISIS, you cannot effectively confront it. So also, does the principle apply to other threat actors the IC is tasked with identifying and disrupting.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Moreover, the very suggestion that these terms are problematic will fuel a chilling effect on intelligence analysis by encouraging more junior analysts and their management editors to tailor reports in conformity with perceived DEI diktats. They want to get promoted. Put simply, the ODNI’s DEI efforts constitute rule 101 on poor intelligence tradecraft.

Top line: we want diversity in the intelligence community because diversity empowers a greater range of perspectives and operational opportunities. If intelligence officers want to cross-dress or transition, fine. They deserve respect in doing so. So also must racism and sexism not be tolerated. But formalizing warped DEI agendas into the intelligence profession isn’t just idiotic, it is downright dangerous.

Read this on Washington Examiner (Opinion) Header Banner
  Contact Us
  • admin@yubnub.news
  Follow Us
  Get newsletter
  About

YubNub! It means FREEDOM! The freedom to enjoy your daily news intake without all the liberal dribble and leftist lunacy!