Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Spending for Spooks: The Intelligence Budget Has Increased Dramatically

By Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation. Posted July 18, 2008.


The U.S. is currently spending between $55 and $66 billion a year on intelligence. So why can't we find Osama bin Laden?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert Dreyfuss

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

There's a brouhaha developing over the latest U.S. intelligence community funding bill, but it's not the right one. The fuss is over the effort by the House intelligence committee to force the White House to provide classified briefings about ongoing covert operations to committee members. Until that's agreed to, the House proposes to hold back 75 percent of the funding for those covert ops. Because of that, the White House is threatening to veto the measure.

That's all well and good. But, to me, the real issue is the staggering size of the intelligence budget. As recently as the late 1990s, and even at the start of the Bush Administration, the spooks' got something like $29 billion a year. That's a lot of money, and you could argue -- based on results -- that we weren't exactly getting our money's worth. According to the Washington Post, however, the 2009 intelligence budget will top $55 billion. John Pike's invaluable site, globalsecurity.org, suggests the actual figure for 2009 is more than $66 billion. He cautions: "The US intelligence budget is classified. This is an educated guess as to what the numbers look like."

According to Pike's breakdown, the CIA gets about $10 billion of that, while the Pentagon, under which the big-ticket agencies such as the National Security Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office are located, gets more than $43 billion.

So the bottom line is: we're spending between $55 and $66 billion a year and we still can't find Osama bin Laden. If the Republicans were truly concerned about wasteful spending, they'd start hacking away at the spy budget. Most of it goes to spy satellites and other high-tech gizmos that are staggeringly expensive, but they're still relics of the Cold War spy apparatus aimed at the USSR and its ICBMs.

Most of that money is spent on contractors who make up the intelligence-industrial complex. Six years ago, I wrote a piece for The American Prospect which detailed how the district-by-district lobbying power of giant intelligence contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing influenced congressional largesse for our spies. Here's an excerpt:

Despite the James Bond-inspired romantic notions of intelligence agencies, and despite the widespread belief that the CIA and other intelligence agencies spend most of their time and money on covert operations, such activities account for only 1 percent of the intelligence budget. Much of the rest--amounting to tens of billions of dollars--pays for high-technology satellites, electronic eavesdropping devices, staggering arrays of ground processing stations, and vast computer systems. And behind each one of those high-tech gizmos stands a contractor.

Some of these companies are familiar; some are known only to insiders. The biggest ones, who build and maintain the costly satellites and other systems, can be counted on one's fingers: Lockheed Martin, TRW, Rockwell, Hughes, Boeing, E-Systems, General Dynamics, and McDonnell Douglas. John Pike, a Federation of American Scientists analyst who has studied the U.S. intelligence-industrial complex, marvels at the scope of their presence. Standing over a table and pointing at a map, Pike highlights the contractors scattered around Westpark, in Tysons Corner, Virginia, just down the road from CIA headquarters. "Here's TRW, Unisys, and Wang," he says. "And over here is PRC, Honeywell, GTE Spacenet, MCI, BDM, Data General, PSI, and MITRE Corp."

A definitive book on the topic is Tim Shorrock's Spies for Hire, which you can read about here.

The Mother Jones blog lists other provisions that have the White House knickers in an uproar:

The bill contains provisions calling for prohibiting detainees from being interrogated by contractors (like at Abu Ghraib); the establishment of an inspector general of intelligence; regular reports to Congress on the nuclear weapons programs of Iran, Syria, and North Korea; and a regular National Intelligence Estimate on Syria's WMD programs.

The Federation of American Scientists has helpfully posted a link to the full list of the White House's objections to the bill. (The Senate, incidentally, has not acted on the funding bill, so the version passed by the House isn't likely to make it the president's desk anyway, at least in its current form.)

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: pentagon, bush administration, intelligence budget, cia

Robert Dreyfuss is the author of "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam" (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
No No No
Posted by: Captainmagic on Jul 18, 2008 3:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The true cost for Intel gathering is sky rocketing. Nearly one trillion soon....what!! you mean going into Iraq/Iran with a massive army to find non existent WMD's was not because the U.S. did not have any Intel ops about the area (true)...Classic american army intelligence gathering...It's called negative reconiasance whereby, firstly you send in a platoon and if they don't come back you then send in a battalion and if..you get the picture.

For americans to get the picture (intelligence) about Iraq/Iran the cost is in the Gazillions...Hows the economy going by the way?

Regards Captain

P.S. Any peoples of a country who elects or allows themselves to be stolen by a stupendously stupid mouthpiece as you have, gets what it deserves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Okay, smart-ass... Posted by: photon's feather
Government Intelligence
Posted by: Brother Tim on Jul 18, 2008 3:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What an oxymoron. If we're spending $55 to $60 billion on Intelligence, why are we so stupid?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Government Intelligence Posted by: Lauren
You hit it on the head...
Posted by: adp3d on Jul 18, 2008 9:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the Republicans aren't interested in cutting spending as long as they can give billions away to their own once and future employers. If you think this money is going to the Pentagon and the CIA, well, I know where you can buy a nice bridge to nowhere...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]