How would you prefer them to state it, then? I mean, with the very next breath you admit that it's almost certainly true.
You need to balance reasonable skepticism and dislike of three-letter agencies with the fact that they also do real work in addressing threats from other state actors.
Maybe don’t state it? It’s their job to do something about it, not create diffuse bogeymen for ideologues to play with. What does telling us about a drop in an ocean do for us other than sow suspicion? Unless the danger is real and present, requiring public wariness and intervention, keep intelligence matters within the intelligence community.
Edit: That article describes educational institutions run by the Chinese government, rather than the infiltration of US institutions. These strike me as very different topics, especially since one is overt and the other covert.
> Maybe don’t state it? It’s their job to do something about it,
You're presenting a curious case here. You want the intelligence community to respond to threats from state actors, but without ever telling the public that's what they're doing? There are two problems with this:
1. Government transparency - I want to know what the FBI is up to. You are advocating more opacity in their operations, for uncertain gain.
2. What if "doing something about it" requires cooperation from the public? The specific issues under discussion is the Confucius Institutes being established at various universities, but these are not illegal and the FBI has no power to get rid of them, nor do I want them to have that power. All they can do is point out the threat and leave the ultimate decision to the university administrators.
Oh god, don't give them any ideas. We already have an alphabet soup of intelligence agencies (the IC consists of 16 at the moment), don't make it worse.
I was suggesting that you reduce the number by merging all the policeing type orgs into one FBI, BATF, TSA,DEA etc and merge all of the domestic contra espionage into a new MI5 analog
You need to balance reasonable skepticism and dislike of three-letter agencies with the fact that they also do real work in addressing threats from other state actors.
EDIT: If you want a take on this from a less law enforcement-y source, try https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/16/how-china.... Politico can hardly be described as paranoid war-hawks.