According to a May 1 article by Jeff Stein in CQWeekly the FBI’s efforts to transform itself into an intelligence organization have not been terribly successful. Stein gives some airtime to the FBI’s rebuttal but it does not appear terribly persuasive. The GAO and the Justice Department’s inspector general have reported that the FBI is having trouble making the shift from a law enforcement agency to an intelligence agency. A core issues is cultural. Large organizations must have procedures and traditions to function. But changing business as usual is not easy and the larger the organization the hard implementing major organizational changes will be.

The FBI had numerous serious problems well before 9/11. Former Director Louis Freeh, while unquestionably honorable and principled, was an abysmal administrator. The FBI remains saddled with an inadequate IT system. The FBI had been penetrated by foreign espionage services and had badly handled several major investigations including Wen Ho Lee and also the Atlanta Olympic bombings. Asking the agency to shift gears and become an intelligence agency – in the context of a range of other problems – is not reasonable and may not be necessary.

The 9/11 Commission rejected the call for an American MI-5 and that decision has been made. For counter-terrorism the argument for a hybrid law enforcement-intelligence agency is a good one. Terrorists frequently are engaged in a range of criminal activity to finance and facilitate their operations. However, the agency given this task does not need to be the FBI. With over 30,000 employees, changing an elite organization’s culture is a major undertaking. At the same time, as important as counter-terror is, the United States may be over compensating. Regular crime remains an important problem – most Americans (even in 2001) are far more likely to be victims of crime than of terrorism. It makes sense to let the premier American law enforcement agency remain the supercops. The Bureau will still have to change – criminals are also adopting increasingly sophisticated network tactics. It is worth noting that the United Kingdom has taken the responsibility of fighting organized crime away from MI-5 and has turned it over to a new agency created expressly to take on organized crime – Serious Organized Crime Agency.

A smaller law enforcement agency could shift gears more quickly and become the lead counterterror agency. Two come to mind, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the Secret Service. Both are much smaller than the FBI. ATF has about 5200 employees.

ATF’s expertise in firearms and explosives are obvious strengths for becoming a counterterror agency. The ATF expertise extends to arson, which has been a primary tool of leftist extremists. The alcohol and tobacco may seem like anachronisms, but are also important and useful. A Hezbollah cell in the U.S. was involved in smuggling cigarettes and radical Islamists frequently target liquor stores. Also, in a different direction, expertise in and equipment for alcohol production could be turned to making biological weapons. The alcohol and tobacco functions also mean the ATF has skills in the sorts of petty crimes that terrorists are frequently involved in. ATF also runs highly regarded labs for explosives and firearms.

ATF has some non-law enforcement functions that may serve it well in a counter-terror role. ATF is involved in regulating and educating in the areas of explosives and firearms. Having some non-police functions might help the agency take on new challenges, and build the kind of broad-based relationships necessary for counter-terrorism.

The Secret Service similarly has a law enforcement component that could be useful for counter-terror. Under the rubric of its mandate to investigate counterfeiting the Secret Service has become involved in investigating financial fraud and particularly cybercrime and identity theft. These crimes are important in and of themselves and also to terrorists. The agency’s cyber skills could be broadly useful in monitoring terrorist activity. The Secret Service has also become involved in public education about cybercrime and has worked to ensure the cyber-security of the financial sector. The Secret Service also has other functions that could be assets in a counterterror role. The high-profile “protection” responsibility requires intelligence work and risk assessment with a low margin for error.

Finally, both of these agencies have an unusual advantage – good names. The A & T in ATF could refer to anti-terrorism and of course Secret Service is a terrific name for an intelligence agency.