CIA Shakedown
Damn, I’ve been out of pocket for like the past two weeks, not good. Being constantly bounced back and forth between Oxford and Tupelo is definitely not high on my priority list but it’s something I have to deal with from time to time. Not being in my normal environment has really cramped my blogging but I’ve got to say something about the shakeup at CIA, even if I have to peck it out on my keyboard (I normally use voice dictation which is much quicker).
Anyway I’ll have to admit that Porter Goss’s resignation as CIA director (DCIA) last Friday came as a bit of a shock. I figured Goss to be more of the long-tenured Rumsfeld variety. Unlike Rummy though, Goss has his an imediate superior other than the president to answer to--John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)--and by all indications he was not getting along too well with the DNI. Overall this is a positive development. Initially, I was a big fan of Goss. He seemed to be a reformer hell-bent on shaking up Langley, which needed a healthy new face after the Iraqi WMD debacle. The problem however, according to most indications, was that Goss brought in a heavily partisan staff that tended to piss people off rather than engender cooperation and build morale at CIA. Goss’s tenure seemed to be plagued by bitter squabbles, possibly partisan in nature, that created an environment where many at Langley turned to the media to air their grievances, trying to speak truth to power, while others simply left the Agency just as soon as they could line up an interview with 60 Minutes. Even seasoned Agency veterans like Gary Berntsen, author of Jawbreaker, who really harboured no ill-will toward the Agency had a near-impossible time trying to publish his book because Goss was so obsessed with secrecy. While leaking classified information, as some at CIA no doubt have done, is certainly improper behavior from active personnel, Goss was responsible, be it directly or indirectly, for creating the sort of hostile environment and low morale that probably sparked these unlawful disclosures. Consequently, he needed to go and I think Negroponte was well aware of this and finally got fed up.
So, exit Goss. Enter Hayden.
I heard about the news on NPR last Friday afternoon on my way to Tupelo and remembered thinking that Bush should go with General Hayden, the current DDNI and former NSA director for the DCIA position, and low and behold... that’s what we got! Damn I’m good! I initially learned about General Hayden from a long-time friend (civilian)who works for DoD when the General was nominated for the Deputy Director of National Intalligence(DDNI). His opinions of Hayden bordered on glowing, interesting in that he’s just about as liberal as you can get without hopping on the socialist train. He pointed out that Hayden's administrative talents were phenominal and it was his opinion that NSA was able to avoid the Intelligence firestorm that followed 9/11 precisly because of Hayden.
But now we've got a bunch of bull shit complaints concerning Hayden being raised on both sides of the aisle. Criticism over the wiretaps issue is legitimate; I don’t necessarily agree with the Dems on this but I understand where they’re coming from. What I don’t get are the red flags being raised about his active military status. I'm sure most people are now aware that we've already had six DCIAs that wore the uniform, all with varying degrees of success and effectiveness. Admiral Turner for example, destroyed our HUMINT, or ground operations (human agents), in the Halloween Massacre where he eliminated over 800 operational positions, effects from which we are still reeling. General Vandenberg's tenure on the other hand, although short, was considered to be fairly sound, setting the General on an eventual path to Air Force Chief of Staff. As with most of these positions though, I'd say "effectiveness," even if you're able to define and judge it for this sort of position, tends to depend on the actual individual rather than one’s military status. And if recent history is any guide, all factors seem to indicate that Hayden will do well in the DCIA position.
Most of the Congressional opposition concerning Hayden, especially on the Republican side, seems to stem more from a desire to distance themselves from the White House and guard their left flank on the wiretaps issue in the midterm
elections rather than legitimate complaints about civil-military relations. Most people believe that Hayden is not a Rumsfeld yes-man, he’s got a great relationship with Negroponte, and everyone he seems to have worked with seriously just seems to love him--a great morale builder. He's the kind of man that CIA, being in desperate need of unity and a serious boost in morale, will require in order to get the Agency back on track. It will be a travesty not to confirm.
Godspeed Hayden and good luck before the Intelligence Committee. I only hope that the Senate will keep the needs of the country in mind rather than their own Congressional seats.
Anyway I’ll have to admit that Porter Goss’s resignation as CIA director (DCIA) last Friday came as a bit of a shock. I figured Goss to be more of the long-tenured Rumsfeld variety. Unlike Rummy though, Goss has his an imediate superior other than the president to answer to--John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)--and by all indications he was not getting along too well with the DNI. Overall this is a positive development. Initially, I was a big fan of Goss. He seemed to be a reformer hell-bent on shaking up Langley, which needed a healthy new face after the Iraqi WMD debacle. The problem however, according to most indications, was that Goss brought in a heavily partisan staff that tended to piss people off rather than engender cooperation and build morale at CIA. Goss’s tenure seemed to be plagued by bitter squabbles, possibly partisan in nature, that created an environment where many at Langley turned to the media to air their grievances, trying to speak truth to power, while others simply left the Agency just as soon as they could line up an interview with 60 Minutes. Even seasoned Agency veterans like Gary Berntsen, author of Jawbreaker, who really harboured no ill-will toward the Agency had a near-impossible time trying to publish his book because Goss was so obsessed with secrecy. While leaking classified information, as some at CIA no doubt have done, is certainly improper behavior from active personnel, Goss was responsible, be it directly or indirectly, for creating the sort of hostile environment and low morale that probably sparked these unlawful disclosures. Consequently, he needed to go and I think Negroponte was well aware of this and finally got fed up.So, exit Goss. Enter Hayden.
I heard about the news on NPR last Friday afternoon on my way to Tupelo and remembered thinking that Bush should go with General Hayden, the current DDNI and former NSA director for the DCIA position, and low and behold... that’s what we got! Damn I’m good! I initially learned about General Hayden from a long-time friend (civilian)who works for DoD when the General was nominated for the Deputy Director of National Intalligence(DDNI). His opinions of Hayden bordered on glowing, interesting in that he’s just about as liberal as you can get without hopping on the socialist train. He pointed out that Hayden's administrative talents were phenominal and it was his opinion that NSA was able to avoid the Intelligence firestorm that followed 9/11 precisly because of Hayden.But now we've got a bunch of bull shit complaints concerning Hayden being raised on both sides of the aisle. Criticism over the wiretaps issue is legitimate; I don’t necessarily agree with the Dems on this but I understand where they’re coming from. What I don’t get are the red flags being raised about his active military status. I'm sure most people are now aware that we've already had six DCIAs that wore the uniform, all with varying degrees of success and effectiveness. Admiral Turner for example, destroyed our HUMINT, or ground operations (human agents), in the Halloween Massacre where he eliminated over 800 operational positions, effects from which we are still reeling. General Vandenberg's tenure on the other hand, although short, was considered to be fairly sound, setting the General on an eventual path to Air Force Chief of Staff. As with most of these positions though, I'd say "effectiveness," even if you're able to define and judge it for this sort of position, tends to depend on the actual individual rather than one’s military status. And if recent history is any guide, all factors seem to indicate that Hayden will do well in the DCIA position.
Most of the Congressional opposition concerning Hayden, especially on the Republican side, seems to stem more from a desire to distance themselves from the White House and guard their left flank on the wiretaps issue in the midterm
elections rather than legitimate complaints about civil-military relations. Most people believe that Hayden is not a Rumsfeld yes-man, he’s got a great relationship with Negroponte, and everyone he seems to have worked with seriously just seems to love him--a great morale builder. He's the kind of man that CIA, being in desperate need of unity and a serious boost in morale, will require in order to get the Agency back on track. It will be a travesty not to confirm.
Godspeed Hayden and good luck before the Intelligence Committee. I only hope that the Senate will keep the needs of the country in mind rather than their own Congressional seats.
posted by Will at 10:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home