(Before I start I want to state that I’m Canadian so I don’t have a dog in this fight aside from fighting the bitch that is ignorance of course. And nothing in this post is meant to prop up, support, condone, endorse or otherwise say or imply anything positive about the Bush administration. In my last foray into GD I was savagely attacked by a foaming-at-the-mouth Bush hater who didn’t realize or care that I was actually on his side. I wish to avoid having that experience again so if spittle is already hitting your screen please step away from this thread. Thanks all.)
Porter Goss will no longer be heading the CIA. His likely replacement is an Air Force General by the name of Michael Hayden. Per this CNN article there is concern about having a military man in a civilian job. This raises a few questions for me.
Isn’t the priority supposed to be picking the best man for the job? If Gen. Hayden is the best choice, who cares what he’s doing right now? Isn’t a compotent military officer a better choice than an incompotent civilian? I hear rumors of a sex scandal that lead to Goss being replaced. Hopefully a military man would have more decorum but that’s just my assumption.
What’s the worst that could happen? Always a tricky question with this administration but seriously… Do people really think he would come into CIA and start barking orders at people like they’re slick-sleeved privates? Again I assume a military man worth his salt knows that you can’t just order civvies around and expect them to salute and say “Yes sir!” Does all his time in the military, a career that has led him to the rank of General, make him less compotent of a leader or more?
Why the concern about him automatically becoming Rumsfeld’s lackey? Again, I would assume a military man knows what a chain of command is. Would the general not be able to tell Mr. Rumsfeld to keep his nose out of CIA business? Or is that even necessary? I thought that under the aegis of Homeland Security all these agencies (CIA, NSA, DoD, Pentagon, etc) were all supposed to be playing nice now and sharing information. Isn’t having a connection to one of the president’s top advisors actually a good thing (in terms of getting things done, nevermind the personalities involved)?
So is this something actually worth worrying about or are all these politicians just bitching for the sake of bitching?
In itself, I don’t think it’s a big deal. He’s not the first. We’ve had a number of directors who were military. In fact, the first four CIA directors all were flag officers. We’ve also had two directors who were retired military…Admiral Francis Raborn, appointed by LBJ, and Admiral Stansfield Turner, appointed by Carter.
This doesn’t mean that there might not be other reasons to object to Gen. Hayden’s appointment, but his rank isn’t one of them, in my opinion.
Actually it has been reported that he is the architect of the domestic wiretapping program.It is an indication of the direction the agency would go.Also another blow against checks and balances.It is supposed to be a civilian organization.Putting all the intelligence under the military is worrisome when you see how aggressive this administration is.They eliminate dissent at all levels.
“Checks and balances” refers to the relationship between the different branches of our government, not the relationship between the Executive and his subordinate departments or organizations.
Haydn is possibly the worst choice possible. He is another goon, along the lines of Negroponte, and he has been recorded in an interview (there is a video on the web) trying to insist that there is no “probable cause” or “due process” in the Fourth Amendment. When the interviewer corrected him, he just got more insistent and just a little bit pissy. Apparently he thinks those stars on his shoulder let him do anything he pleases. We don’t need him. I don’t mind having a military guy, but NOT this one. He took an oath to defend the Constitution, not to violate or ignore or “rewrite” it.
In addition to the other concerns, there is a worry that the Pentagon has been setting up an independent intelligence operation designed to give the “right” answers, such as was done before the Iraq War. I believe some think a general would make this situation worse. I suppose the concern about a military man in a civilian job is a good sound bite, not the real cause of concern.
He’s still a general, and telling Rummy to get lost, or even disagreeing with him, has been a career limiting move in the past.
If found this bullet troublesome: •General Hayden Is Described As An Independent Thinker And A Nonconformist.
While a capacity for Independent Thinking may be a qualifier for the job, what’s up with him being a nonconformist? Is he an ex-hippy, or pick his toenails in public, or what? He hasn’t written any embarassing letters to the president like Harriet Meirs, has he?
I tried googling on Hayden’s nonconformism, but came up empty on cites before May of this year. Is Hayden’s nonconformity a closely held secret, or is it just something that’s popped in evidence these past couple days? Does anyone have the straight dope on this? I’d hate to think we’re reduced to selecting weirdo’s for the post of CIA director, just because they’re odd
Wasnt talking about the contitutional checks and balances.But,the balance of military and civilian control over intelligence.It was a use of a term that worked for me but was distracting for you. sorry
I’m confused about how it works. If this guy is still active military, who is his boss? If it isn’t someone in the military, then how can he actually be in the military? Why not resign? Why doesn’t the military require him to resign, since he is not under their authority anymore?
Read yesterdays RudePundit .He describes Haydens history.It would appear they want to fold the CIA into the Pentagon.The organization has done badly ,but I think Bush owes them an apology.They told him the weapons likely didn’t exist.That ElQueda was not a friend if Hussien, They knew the poisonous gasses had a 3 year shelf life and were worthless. The African Uranium seeking had been disproved.The Blame lies on Bush ,Cheney and Pearle etc.
From wiki ( I usually don’t use Wiki as a cite, but their list seems accurate):
19 Total Directors, CIG/CIA
6 Military
Over 25% of the directors were either active duty or retired flag-rank military.
Having said that, the military comprises a supermajority of the national defense intelligence capacity, with the DIA and service-specific intelligence services alone dwarfing the CIA. The CIA in its’ recent history has emphasized civilian directors, but a couple of the Deputy Directors have been military, including the incumbent:
{wiki again}
The only accommodation for military/civilian separation that is really explicit is that the POTUS and all in line must be civilians, and in the case of the Secretary of Defense must be a civilian whose military service is ?ten? years old or so. Members of the legislature and of the civilian courts must also not be on active duty.
I can certainly see the need for civilian control and oversight of the military. Given the preponderance of the military in the overall intelligence capacity of the nation, the CIA and NSA are pretty much it for civilian resources.
Having said that, the civilian side of things has been quite vulnerable to partisan monkey business.
There are plenty of military positions in which the incumbent military person reports to a civilian supervisor. And vice-versa. The main thing, though, is that the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, per the Constitution, is the President.
There’s another main thing Monty
The military qualifications and disqualifications for some of these intelligence positions are a matter of law: NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
Now the law changed when they set up this whole Director of National Intelligence thing, but I’ve yet to find a cogent analysis of what the new law has to say about multiple military men at the top of the CIA.
This articvle implies that our forfathers were worried about the power of the military and their ability to take over much of the government. Appears they wanted a balance with the military .And wanted to check the threat ofv military takeover. They sought a check and balance between military and civilian control.