New CIA Chief

[Nathans_Dad]

I just don't get this. Why would Bush appoint a military officer to head the CIA, a civilian agency? Not only that, but the former head of the NSA, an agency that has been in many headlines recently...none of them good.

This is almost like the Harriet Miers nomination, you just scratch your head and go "Huh"???

Either Bush wants a fight or he's just aimlessly walking into these traps...

[artplumber]

Rick,
Seems like the advice he's getting is not that good. You'd think he'd float the name before he actually made the nomination.

[JSDSKI]

First - long time experienced intel director.
Second - not yet connected to any contract scandals.
Third - long time friend and ally of Negroponte.
Fourth - opportunity for a winnable battle with political opposition.

[914GT]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I just don't get this. Why would Bush appoint a military officer to head the CIA, a civilian agency?

Thirty years ago, the media thought it was great when Jimmy Carter named Navy Admiral Stansfield Turner to direct the CIA. An excerpt of the Washington Post’s February 9, 1977 editorial, headlined "Why Not a Military Man at CIA?" :

"The nomination of Admiral Stansfield Turner to be Director of Central Intelligence has confounded some people because of the fact that he is a professional military man. By this particular line of thinking, no one in uniform can fairly be expected to rise above parochial service concerns — either in his perception of the international environment or in his capacity to work effectively within the confines of the political society. This is no doubt a fashionable argument but — in our judgment — a misguided, insulting one. It should not be necessary to point to earlier examples of versatile and accomplished military men, or to civilians — including some at the Central Intelligence Agency — who went about their work in what some would call a simplistic “militaristic” way. Admiral Turner seems exactly the right man to prove the point anew...."

[jyl]

I can see a couple issues that this appointment raises.

First, will an ex-military CIA chief emphasize technological intelligence-gathering (satellites, etc) over human intelligence-gathering (spies). Admiral Turner did so, from the histories I've read. Some believe that one factor in the intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war was that, due to insufficient reliable human intelligence from within Iraq, the CIA relied too much on Iraqi expatriates who turned out to have their own agenda.

Second, will this concentrate too much power in one branch of government, i.e. the military. If you believe that decisions are more effective when multiple independent viewpoints are brought together and differences hashed out, then seeing the Defense Department first marginalize the State Department and then assert influence over the CIA could be worrisome.

Third, this guy's role in the NSA's interception of domestic communications by US citizens is going to be controversial.

I haven't reached any particular view on this nominee. He may well be the right man for the job. His nomination may well signal a battle between Negroponte and Rumsfeld for power, rather than the Defense Department gaining power over the CIA. I'm just mentioning some concerns that people will have.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I just don't get this. Why would Bush appoint a military officer to head the CIA, a civilian agency?

Can follow orders unquestionably and keep his mouth shut?

Can fall on his sword when asked to?

[RoninLB]

A commentator on TV said it's a political win. The Dems will look soft on security when they start to trash him.

[artplumber]

Well that's another way to look at it.

[RoninLB]

Also good article in today's WSJ p A18.. all about the CIA.

"Intelligence Deficit Disorder"