For the first time in a long time, I think Bush might actually have the right idea in terms of an appointment. While many diaries are covering why Bush's specific choice of General Hayden is the wrong choice for CIA Director, it does appear that this time Bush does have the right idea in mind when promoting a Military officer to the head of the CIA. He won't win any friends in the Republican Party for his choice though, because when it comes to the CIA director's position, Republicans traditionally hate the Military.
Upon the announcement of
General Hayden's appointment to the CIA, something started bugging me. From the beginning, Republicans started a bandwagon, something that doesn't add up.
Hoekstra -- a Republican -- says the country should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time.
Having a general in charge of the spy agency could give the impression that the agency is under military control.
Source
Pardon me Rep. Hoekstra, but I think you are wrong, and the Republican Congress doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to CIA appointments.
Lets review the 'civilian' track record in the modern CIA.
Reagan's first appointment to the CIA was William J. Casey. Despite being accused of the never proven October Surprise in 1981, Casey's story was covered in depth by Bob Woodward in his book, Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987. Casey is the first of many examples how civilians running the CIA since the 1980s have steadily increased the power of the CIA, and turned it into something it never was intended to be. Casey had no military experience, but it never seemed to hold him back from starting wars across the world.
Reagan's second appointment was William H. Webster, originally was appointed FBI director by Jimmy Carter in 1978, and replaced Casey in the CIA in 1987. A former federal judge, Webster served as an officer in the US Navy in WWII. In the past 25 years, Webster, despite being the only CIA director over that time period to serve in the military, helped oversee the fall of the Berlin wall and collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union, and continued to serve Bush Sr. Webster is an example of how a military person, who was considered an outsider by the CIA, can do good in the CIA.
Bush's CIA director was Robert M. Gates. Confirmed on November 5th, 1991, Gates was a career CIA officer with deep ties in several high profile problems within the CIA, ranging from the Iran-Contra affair to issues surrounding the Cold War. For Republicans, Gates is the ideal candidate for the CIA, which is why he was the first person offered the NDI's office when it was created following 9/11. Gates denied the offer. Gates served through until the end of the Bush administration. The web has plenty of information regarding why Gates is the ideal choice for Republicans, with plenty of valid reasons why career spies who are really nothing more than civilians with special interests should never run the spy agency.
Clintons first CIA Director was R. James Woolsey, Jr.. Woolsey's record as CIA Director is not readily apparent, but he did not serve long under Clinton. It should be pointed out that Woolsey has been repeatedly accused by Steve Clemons for profiting from and promoting the Iraq War. Woolsey was supported by Republicans.
Clintons second CIA Director was John M. Deutch. Deutch also did not serve long as Director. It is interesting to note that Deutch was widely supported by Republicans. Deutch was a major advocate of not using human intelligence, and replacing human intelligence with technology. Ironic, considering he was later investigated by the Clinton administration as being a security leak, and now serves on the board of directors for Raytheon. Deutch, an engineer with a public service record that is strictly civilian, was a popular choice among Republicans when Clinton recommended him. Deutch is often cited as the #1 reason the US never saw 9/11 coming.
Clintons next appointment was Anthony Lake. Robert Lake never served as CIA Director, because Republicans didn't like him. Why? Because Anthony Lake's career came from the State Dept, where he worked side by side with the military on the ground. Lake served as a civilian with military personnel in Vietnam, and later with Henry Kissenger in the secret talks with the North Vietnamese in Paris. Lake later had a fallout with Republicans, when he criticized the Nixon administration's extension of the war to Cambodia and later wrote a book critical of Kissinger's approach to Africa. After returning to the State Dept., Lake later served under Jimmy Carter as Director of Policy Planning. How ironic is it that someone with first hand experience with the military and the Republicans didn't like him as a choice for CIA Director. Sound familiar? It should.
When Lake's nomination was blocked by Republicans, Clinton nominated George J. Tenet who was approved. In fact, he was celebrated so much by the Republicans that when Bush Jr. took office, he kept Tenet as CIA Director, a very rare move for any party coming into power. In Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002 he is said to have assured the President that the evidence against Saddam amounted to a "slam dunk case." In a moment later to be repeated after Katrina, Bush states "George Tenet did a superb job for America. It was a high honor to work with him, and I'm sorry he left." It should be pointed out that George Tenet never served in the military, he was a civilian from academia who was often praised for his 'independence.'
Finally, with the retirement of Porter J. Goss Bush finds himself looking for a replacement. Goss was a disaster from the beginning, part of the problem when it comes to career spies working as chief of the CIA. The red flag should have been raised during his nominations when it was discovered much of his work in the 80s, of which was covert and centered in Central and South America, was classified and not available to be released. Uh, the 80s in Central and South America was a disaster for US Foreign Policy, red flag maybe? Ivo Daalder, a former staff member at the National Security Council under Bill Clinton said it best:
"Porter Goss was such an absolute disaster for the agency and our national security that his departure comes not a day too soon." Daalder, now at the Brookings Institution, castigated Goss for creating "a climate of fear and intimidation at the CIA that produced a reluctance to take risks, which is the last thing you want in an intelligence agency."
By reviewing history, it is easy to see why the Republicans have come out against Military types at the CIA, civilians are easier to control. While I am not a fan of the Hayden nomination, and have no problem watching it blow up in the face of the administration, Democrats should think long and hard about who should be nominated, and the idea of a military nomination shouldn't be dismissed so easily like the Republicans are doing today.
It isn't an accident all of those retired Generals have come out swinging about Rumsfeld, because Rumsfeld is a great example of how a civilian makes decisions involving the use of force and firepower without weighing consequences. That is a role of the CIA, a role that is traditionally abused by Civilian leaders at the CIA. It should also be noted that it is traditionally the Democratic Party who promotes Military personnel for the position of CIA Director, and it is the Republican Party that traditionally blocks military leaders from serving such an important position.
Democrats should support the idea of a Military Commander, either retired or current, as CIA Director. This time Bush had a good idea, the right intention, but executed poorly. General Hayden, a poor choice, will be used as fuel for the Republican disdain for the independence the military has traditionally brought with its leaders in the CIA. It will be worth noting how quickly Republicans will walk out in front of the camera and try to convince Americans a military person in the CIA is a bad idea. My hope is Democrats don't get caught up in this Republican mentality of bashing military leadership as a head of the CIA, and see it for what it really is.
Hayden is a bad choice, but having someone in military leadership move over as CIA director, that is actually a pretty good idea considering the problems at the CIA. No wonder Republicans hate it.