Ostriches, Cheerleaders, Skeptics, and Guardians: Role Selection by Congressional Intelligence Overseers

Since 1975, members of Congress have displayed four general responses to the call for greater intelligence accountability. Some have taken the approach of 'ostriches,' content to bury their heads in the sand and continue the earlier era of trust, when lawmakers deferred to the decisions of the executive branch within the domains of intelligence and defense. Others, indeed a majority, have chosen to become unabashed boosters for intelligence—'cheerleaders' who view their job primarily as one of explaining the value of intelligence to the American people and supporting intelligence missions with strong funding and encouragement. Taking the opposite approach, another group of lawmakers, the—'skeptics'—have consistently found fault with America's attempts to spy on adversaries or overthrow regimes that fail to serve U.S. interests. Finally, some members of Congress have been 'guardians,' striking a balance between serving as partners of the intelligence agencies on Capitol Hill, and, through a persistent examination of budgets and operations, demanding competence and law-abiding behavior from these agencies. Ultimately, it is the guardians that should serve as models for the future.