# So is it a big deal that the next CIA head is a military man? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2006, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865 "2006-05-08T10:16:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/1 "2006-05-08T10:16:56Z")
(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](http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/07/hayden/index.html) there is concern about having a military man in a civilian job. This raises a few questions for me. 1. 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. 2. 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? 3. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/2 "2006-05-08T12:11:58Z")
Hayden did ‘a heck of a job’ at NSA: [Two technology programs, weapons for the war on terrorism, have proved duds](http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060226-nsa-ills.htm) > [@](#): > > “The stuff that NSA does is probably more valuable today than it’s ever been,” said John Pike of [Globalsecurity.org](http://Globalsecurity.org), who has monitored the intelligence agencies for 25 years. “If their infrastructure doesn’t work, they can’t work. If the people can’t work, the agency can’t work.” > > A former NSA employee put it more bluntly, as he explained why he was speaking to a reporter for the first time, though on the condition of anonymity: “What I am fearful of is: Because of all this, we will have a 9/11 Part II.” [Hayden on Trailblazer](http://www.military-information-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=383) > [@](#): > > Q: Why is NSA making heavy use of outsourcing, through the Groundbreaker and Trailblazer programs, to obtain IT and signals processing services? > > A: In line with T2.0, we are aggressively implementing the TRAILBLAZER acquisition program as a foundational component of its transformation strategy. TRAILBLAZER is a major (ACAT-1AC) DoD acquisition program to acquire an architectured and integrated system, comprised largely of commercial technology, to provide much-needed mission capabilities in telecommunications through a series of related developments. The TRAILBLAZER program will attain these capabilities by using U.S. commercial industry to the greatest extent possible. Recognizing that some key mission applications and tools must be government furnished, TRAILBLAZER is working with industry to integrate that equipment onto the platform. This approach will provide integrated technologies that are scalable, agile, robust, securable and interoperable, enabling NSA to produce and deploy state-of-the-art solutions to the intelligence challenges facing our nation today and in the future. [Hayden on warrantless wiretaps](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/politics/23cnd-wiretap.html?ex=1147233600&en=4a2a772db7308b37&ei=5070): > [@](#): > > The standard laid out by General Hayden - a “reasonable basis to believe” - is lower than “probable cause,” the standard used by the special court created by Congress to handle surveillance involving foreign intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/3 "2006-05-08T13:28:23Z")
What bothers me most is that Hayden has been John Negroponte’s deputy for some time. Not an association to inspire confidence. > **[Should a man with Negroponte's past be National Intelligence Director?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=303136)** > > Bush has nominated John Dimitri Negroponte, currently U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, to be the first National Intelligence Director – the newly created head-or-at-least-overseer of all American intelligence agencies. Negroponte solemnly/smugly announced... ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/4 "2006-05-08T13:59:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/5 "2006-05-08T14:32:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/6 "2006-05-08T15:24:39Z")
“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. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/7 "2006-05-08T15:27:21Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/8 "2006-05-08T16:38:44Z")
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. > [@DWMarch](#): > > 1. 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)? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/9 "2006-05-08T18:53:16Z")
Straight from the white house: [Fact Sheet: General Michael V. Hayden: The Right Leader for the CIA](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060508-2.html) 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** ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/10 "2006-05-08T22:04:56Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/11 "2006-05-09T13:06:52Z")
That still makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/12 "2006-05-09T15:13:52Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > “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. As I understand it, there’s supposed to be a mix of civilian and military people running the CIA, to provide both persepectives. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/13 "2006-05-09T16:31:09Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/14 "2006-05-09T17:21:10Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/15 "2006-05-09T18:29:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m confused about how it works. If this guy is still active military, who is his boss? The president. (If only we had one . . .) ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/16 "2006-05-10T02:46:14Z")
From wiki ( I usually don’t use Wiki as a cite, but their list seems accurate): > [@](#): > > A list of Directors of Central Intelligence (in chronological order): > Director Tenure > Rear Adm. Sidney Souers, USNR January 23, 1946 - June 10, 1946 > Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, USA June 10, 1946 - May 1, 1947 > Rear Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, USN May 1, 1947 - October 7, 1950 > Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, USA October 7, 1950 - February 9, 1953 > Allen W. Dulles February 26, 1953 - November 29, 1961 > John McCone November 29, 1961 - April 28, 1965 > Vice Adm. William Raborn, USN (Ret.) April 28, 1965 - June 30, 1966 > Richard M. Helms June 30, 1966 - February 2, 1973 > James R. Schlesinger February 2, 1973 - July 2, 1973 > William E. Colby September 4, 1973 - January 30, 1976 > George H. W. Bush January 30, 1976 - January 20, 1977 > Adm. Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.) March 9, 1977 - January 20, 1981 > William J. Casey January 28, 1981 - January 29, 1987 > William H. Webster May 26, 1987 - August 31, 1991 > Robert M. Gates November 6, 1991 - January 20, 1993 > R. James Woolsey February 5, 1993 - January 10, 1995 > John M. Deutch May 10, 1995 - December 15, 1996 > George J. Tenet July 11, 1997 - July 11, 2004 > Porter J. Goss September 24, 2004 - April 21, 2005 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} > [@](#): > > List of current and former DDCIs > Name Appointment Date - End of Term > Kingman Douglass 1946 March - 1946 July > Vacant 1946 July - 1947 January > Edwin Kennedy Wright 1947 January - 1949 March > Vacant 1949 March - 1950 October > William Harding Jackson 1950 October - 1951 August > Allen Welsh Dulles 1951 August - 1953 February > Charles Pearre Cabell 1953 April - 1962 January > Marshall Sylvester Carter 1962 April - 1965 April > Richard McGarrah Helms 1965 April - 1966 June > Rufus Lackland Taylor 1966 October - 1969 February > Robert Everton Cushman, Jr. 1969 May - 1971 December > Vernon Anthony Walters 1972 May - 1976 July > Enno Henry Knoche 1976 July - 1977 August > Frank Charles Carlucci III 1978 February - 1981 February > Bobby Ray Inman 1981 February - 1982 June > John Norman McMahon 1982 June - 1986 March > Robert Michael Gates 1986 April - 1989 March > Richard James Kerr 1989 March - 1992 March > William Oliver Studeman 1992 April - 1995 July > George John Tenet 1995 July - 1997 July > John Alexander Gordon 1997 October - 2000 June > John Edward McLaughlin 2000 October - 2004 November > vacant 2004 November - 2005 July > **Vice Admiral Albert M. Calland** 2005 July - present 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. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/17 "2006-05-10T03:27:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/18 "2006-05-10T04:14:13Z")
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](http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml#s102) > [@](#): > > ``` > (c) MILITARY STATUS OF DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTORS. -(1)(A) Not more than one of the individuals serving in the positions specified in subparagraph (B) may be a commissioned officer of the Armed Forces, whether in active or retired status. > > (B) The positions referred to in subparagraph (A) are the following: > > (i) The Director of Central Intelligence. > > (ii) The Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. > > (iii) The Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management. > > ``` 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/19 "2006-05-11T00:35:53Z")
Here’s an article arguing that it is a very big deal indeed that Hayden is a military man: [http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=82760](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=82760) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2006, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865/20 "2006-05-16T23:07:00Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-it-a-big-deal-that-the-next-cia-head-is-a-military-man/355865.md?page=2)