(Quevaal, Wikimedia Commons)
The
New York Times put it in blunt terms:
President Obama’s decision to send an intelligence chief to the Pentagon and a four-star general to the Central Intelligence Agency is the latest evidence of a significant shift over the past decade in how the United States fights its battles — the blurring of lines between soldiers and spies in secret American missions abroad.
CIA director Leon Panetta moves to the Pentagon. At least we have a Democrat this time. And General David Petraeus, fresh off his great success in ensuring that the quagmire in Afghanistan remains a quagmire, moves to the CIA.
As C.I.A. director, Mr. Panetta hastened the transformation of the spy agency into a paramilitary organization, overseeing a sharp escalation of the C.I.A.’s bombing campaign in Pakistan using armed drone aircraft, and an increase in the number of secret bases and covert operatives in remote parts of Afghanistan.
At least no one can call it a secret war. Unlike, say, Laos. But bombing a nation with which we are not even semi-officially at war and increasing the number of secret bases and covert operatives appears to qualify someone to run the Pentagon. Under a Democratic president.
General Petraeus, meanwhile, has aggressively pushed the military deeper into the C.I.A.’s turf, using Special Operations troops and private security contractors to conduct secret intelligence missions. As commander of the United States Central Command in September 2009, he also signed a classified order authorizing American Special Operations troops to collect intelligence in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and other places outside of traditional war zones.
To be fair, Petraeus is widely credited with having been one of the most effective US commanders in Iraq, at least attempting to understand and respect the local culture. And turning the military into a spy agency ensured that he would learn lots about the local cultures of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iran–three nations with which we are not even semi-officially at war. But it's the fusing of the military and spying that seems to have qualified Petraeus to lead the CIA. Under a Democratic president.
As Glenn Greenwald notes, here were some responses to putting a military leader in charge of the civilian spy agency:
- Diane Feinstein: "You can't have the military control most of the major aspects of intelligence. The CIA is a civilian agency and is meant to be a civilian agency."
- The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was was reported to have said that "'she hears concerns from civilian CIA professionals about whether the Defense Department is taking over intelligence operations' and 'shares those concerns.'"
- Nancy Pelosi: "I don't see how you have a four-star general heading up the CIA."
- And a leading Democratic Senator "worried that the CIA, with a General in charge, will 'just be gobbled up by the Defense Department.'"
- Even Pete Hoekstra, who now chairs the House Intelligence Committee, "voiced the same concern about Hayden: 'We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time.'"
Of course, all of this took place when Bush appointed General Michael Hayden to head the CIA. That top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was Jane Harman, who now is retired. Pelosi was Speaker of the House. The leading Democratic Senator was a guy named Joe Biden. One guesses the reactions will be different this time. Things change.
And Greenwald refers to this Washington Post article that raises a number of questions about the Petreaus appointment, not least of which is this:
Others voiced concern that Petraeus is too wedded to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — and the troop-heavy, counterinsurgency strategy he designed — to deliver impartial assessments of those wars as head of the CIA.
Indeed, over the past year the CIA has generally presented a more pessimistic view of the war in Afghanistan than Petraeus has while he has pushed for an extended troop buildup.
And you thought we would be pulling out of Afghanistan this summer? A better bet is that we will get even further entangled with Pakistan.
President Obama's extension of the National Security State established by Bush cannot be blamed on mean Republicans, Blue Dogs and Conservadems, or inept Democratic Congressional leadership. These are choices he has made. These are choices he did not have to make.
- Not to prosecute Bush era torturers.
- To immunize telecommunications companies from lawsuits arising from their participating in Bush era domestic spying.
- To extend state secrecy.
- To defend the right to use warrantless wiretaps.
- To continue renditions.
- Not to pressure the Senate to shut down Guantánamo:
The one theme that repeatedly emerged in interviews was a belief that the White House never pressed hard enough on what was supposed to be a signature goal. Although the closure of Guantanamo Bay was announced in an executive order, which Obama signed on Jan. 22, 2009, the fanfare never translated into the kind of political push necessary to sustain the policy.
“Vulnerable senators weren’t going out on a limb and risk being Willie Hortonized on Gitmo when the White House, with the most to lose, wasn’t even twisting arms,” said a senior Democratic aide whose boss was one of 50 Democrats to vote in 2009 against funding to close Guantanamo. “They weren’t breathing down our necks pushing the vote or demanding unified action.”...
The White House, often without much internal deliberation, retreated time and again in the face of political opposition.
- Not to shut down at least one secret torture facility.
- To continue indefinite detentions without due process of suspected terrorists.
- To excuse the abuse of Bradley Manning.
- Allowing the people who lied us into the Iraq War and established a torture regime to get away with it. All of it.
As Yale Constitutional Law Professor Jack Balkin recently explained:
What the Manning episode demonstrates, however, is that Obama has little interest in spending political capital in reining in many of the excesses of the National Surveillance State. Quite the contrary: he, like future Presidents, will sincerely believe that he needs every ounce of discretion he can get to protect the nation's security. Therefore, if the DOD informs him that we need to make an example of Bradley Manning so there will be no future leaks of sensitive information by disgruntled government employees, then this is a good and proper thing to do. Legal and constitutional scruples against harsh treatment of Manning are, to quote Attorney General Gonzales, "quaint;" entirely inappropriate in the dangerous times in which we live.
In July 2009, I explained that we were witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimation of the National Surveillance State, in which the President's power to detain, surveil, and punish at his discretion would be greatly expanded. In the treatment of Bradley Manning, we can see a glimmer of what this will mean in practice. Unless there is a public outcry, we have no guarantee that this exceptional incident will prove truly exceptional. After all, if a liberal Democratic President is willing to look the other way in this case, what can we expect of future presidents of either party?
And that's what it really comes down to. President Obama has consolidated and institutionalized not only the National Surveillance State but the National Security State. If a Democratic president will do this, what can we expect from the next Republican president? If Democrats defend, excuse or sit idly by while a Democratic president does this, what credibility will they have in trying to stop what is done by the next Republican president?