Enthusiasm for reforming the nation’s intelligence community under a single director was replaced with caution last week, which usually means delay and gives opponents a chance to kill substantial legislation. Before that sentiment spreads, Congress would do well to consider one of the more respected experts to emerge from the intelligence failures in Iraq, David Kay.

Dr. Kay, who led the postwar Iraqi Survey Group to determine the status of weapons there and returned with sobering news for those certain WMD would be found quickly, testified last week before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sen. Olympia Snowe asked him a question many people wonder about.

Sen. Snowe: “We know what went wrong. Could it have been a very different product? Could we have had a very different product in the [National Intelligence Estimate], for example, if we had had changes organizationally that we’re speaking of?”

Dr. Kay: “It could have been a very different product, in my judgment.

“It would not just be organizational changes. The failures you documented so thoroughly were not just failures of organization. They were failures of tradecraft, failures of culture, failures of management, conscious mismanagement of the information flow. …

“And I agree – and the reason I ultimately come down, holding my breath in saying that NID is probably the thing to do, is because I believe the reformation of the CIA is a priority task and is a full- time job in and of itself.

“But let me say, again, this is – we all speak about we’ve got to get it completely right, because we have just one chance. I think that is where we’re wrong.

“This is a journey, not a quick step.”

Sen. Snowe: “One of the arguments against the creation of a director of national intelligence is the idea that somehow it will stifle competition of ideas and analysis within the intelligence community. In fact, that was one of the witness’ testimony before this committee in July.

“Could you speak to that, as to whether or not you think it would encourage or discourage, you know, competitive analysis?”

Dr. Kay: “Certainly, the present system does not encourage diversity of analysis or competitive analysis. I think the NID actually encourages it, because he represents the whole – everything is under him. He, in fact – the reason you encourage competition when you’re at the top is because you want the best possible outcome that will make you and the nation look the best, if possible.

“So, in fact, I think if you get the right person there and you create the right authorities, it should encourage it. And here, again, I come back to oversight. I think having discovered that, this committee has a right to demand that there be competitive analysis. I actually think the proper place to foster that is the National Intelligence Council moved to the NID, who has that responsibility, because it is broader than any one agency.”

Others testifying that day disagreed with Dr. Kay, and there are certainly ways to appoint an overall director of national intelligence that would be harmful – withholding budget authority, for instance. But if this change is incorporated into a larger reform – of tradecraft, culture, management, information flow – and committed reform occurs not all at once but over many steps, the opportunity for success is greatly increased.

The Senate’s Governmental Affairs Committee, under Chairman Susan Collins, seems determined to do that as it crafts a blueprint for congressional action. It should find support over a broad constituency for these changes.