In relation to citizens and governments of nations around the world, America’s reputation is becoming more and more synonymous with the CIA. Why? Because, now more than ever the CIA is the primary instrument by which the U.S. pursues its political agenda abroad. Diplomacy has become secondary to the more reliable methods of the CIA and military.

In the context of American foreign policy, the role played by the CIA now is drastically different from the original idea of an intelligence agency. Intelligence agencies were created to fulfill two primary objectives: to collect and analyze intelligence on foreign governments, individuals, or other sorts of entities whose pursuits appeared to be in conflict with American policy or were threatening to America and to then inform government officials, enabling them to react appropriately.

As Panetta, the director of the CIA who spoke at OU Monday, put it, “it is our fundamental duty to provide warning and prevent surprise” for the president and other associated policymakers.

Although the CIA continues to fulfill these responsibilities, the CIA now actively engages and pursues the US foreign policy agenda. Paramilitary actions, manipulation of domestic affairs in foreign nations and the allowance — if not utilization — of torture are just a few of the means by which the CIA has become an instrument of the American government as opposed to an information supplement, its original intent. The difference is profound.

Democracy is based on many notions, one of which is the ability of its citizens to acquire knowledge of the government’s activity. The people are the greatest check on the government. Because the CIA does not reveal its actions to the American people, this check is non-existent, and this void must be filled.

Of course, there are times in which the elected members of a democratic government must conduct business behind closed doors, and there is no fine line that can be drawn between secrecy and public disclosure. Considering the globalized nature of the world we live in, it would certainly be unwise for the American government to reveal state secrets. Americans would not be the only people privy to such information. For these reasons, when it comes to the CIA, secrecy is a must. But, there are times when the CIA demonstrates the need for greater oversight. The water boarding of Kahlid Shiek Mohammed, occurring 183 times in one month, has left troubling questions in everyone’s minds. Personally, I would have confessed to the assassination of Lincoln if I were in his shoes.

President Franklin Roosevelt formed the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the CIA, in 1943 during World War II. Its responsibility was to collect information on the Nazi enemy.

But those were different times. Now the CIA has evolved into an agency that does not adhere to its ideological foundations of gathering intelligence, because the CIA now engages in extra-intelligence operations. The actions of the CIA are adequately encapsulated by former President George W. Bush’s favorite word, “pre-emptive.” The CIA acts pre-emptively in the world today. Of course this is as it should be, but should the CIA act pre-emptively to non-threats, to policy interests?

The CIA collects information on countries, entities and individuals who are of interest to American policymakers. Whether or not a threat exists is no longer the fundamental question the CIA acts upon. What the American foreign policy agenda requires is what the CIA fulfills. I am not sure what type of agency this would be, but it certainly isn’t purely an intelligence agency.