| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| 'Uppity military' slapped around in CIA uproar |
| 2006-05-14 |
| by Kenneth Allard If you thought about it for more than five seconds, it was enough to make you scream. Here was Gen. Michael Hayden, either brave enough or naïve enough to take on the thankless job of heading the CIA, and every newspaper in the country was carrying headlines wondering if a military man should be heading the agency. The question of military subordination to civilian authority is a perennial issue — and one that I personally wrestled with 20 years ago, playing a modest role in crafting the Goldwater-Nichols Act that reformed the Pentagon command structure. But the Hayden controversy wasn't about some general on horseback lording it over subservient civilians. This was about class divisions in a nation at war. Think I'm kidding? Just listen to the condescending, eyeglasses-down-the-nose tut-tutting of the New York Times: "It seems ill-advised to put an Air Force general at the helm of the CIA, a civilian agency." If their tone sounds vaguely familiar, that's probably because it is. Just imagine if the Times editorial had said, "It seems ill-advised to put a black or Hispanic as head of the CIA, there in suburban Virginia where so many white people work." Such an appearance of institutional racism would have been instantly recognized and deplored — maybe even by blockading the trucks delivering the Times to your local Starbucks. But the same sloppy thinking, mindless stereotypes and casual acceptance of second-class citizenship that once marked American race relations all now reign unchallenged whenever the military class appears to be getting a little uppity. Fact is, there is a gap — already miles-wide and growing every day — between the American people and their highly professional military. Of course, it may be harder to see that gap in San Antonio than anywhere else. Here, welcoming signs at the airport greet returning troops. A quick skyward glance may bring glimpses of C-17 transports circling for landings that will send badly wounded soldiers to the world-class medical facilities at Fort Sam. A recent convention in town honored a UTSA student — who would soon pick up his diploma and an ROTC commission before moving on to pilot training. A just-released book confirms how rare such previously routine occurrences have become in this country. The authors of "AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes From Military Service" present a devastating portrait of a professional military increasingly segregated from our mainstream institutions. The media and academe are obvious examples, but so is Hollywood, where exemplars of personal sacrifice are almost nonexistent — just imagine Leonardo DiCaprio abandoning the sound stage for a bunk in Marine boot camp. The last U.S. president to have a serving family member in wartime was Lyndon Johnson. While the names of great families such as Bush and Kennedy are intertwined with examples of World War II service and sacrifice, today no grandchild of either line considers it a personal obligation to wear their country's uniform. It is probably fortunate that Hayden's family had solid working-class Pittsburgh roots, that he was educated at Duquesne rather than Harvard and that some of his formative professional experiences included command of the Air Intelligence Agency right here in San Antonio. There is even some irony in this, because the military treasures its own brand of ethnic humor — one acquaintance wryly observing that Hayden isn't really a member of the military because he serves in the Air Force. It is an inside joke, of course, slyly reflecting the fact that the laid-back, electronic systems culture of the Air Force is unlike the infantry. But it represents an ongoing revolution in warfare — just ask the Taliban and those few JDAM-shocked survivors of the Iraqi Republican Guard. And that's the serious point behind the Hayden nomination. At places like AIA and the National Security Agency, he presided over a series of transformations — from the challenge of combating traditional Cold War hierarchies to the uncertain threats of network-centered jihadists — often fighting the bureaucrats at every step. Even an outsider can look at the CIA and understand the problems: that reorganization doesn't automatically lead to transformation, that aging intelligence officers with master's degrees in Soviet studies need to be eased out and that the dominant agency culture of whining, second-guessing and world-class leaking needs to be expunged. It still isn't clear if a "systems guy" can overhaul an organization whose stock in trade is human intelligence — spies if you're speaking Texan. But coming up on five years after 9-11, the agency needs either a transformation guru like Hayden or else a Marine drill sergeant, if that's what it takes. If he is successful, better get ready for even more outraged screaming. The Times can even be forgiven — though not too much — for simply parroting the anti-military lines picked up from various members of Congress. All should have known better — and have recognized that the preferred refuges of whining, second-guessing bureaucrats are their protectors on Capitol Hill. One of those protectors even said last week that Hayden was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe so, but possibly this same test should also be applied to Congress during a transformation process that includes not just Hayden and his new charges at CIA but each and every one of us — that one in November they call an election. Retired Col. Kenneth Allard is an author, MSNBC military analyst and executive in residence at UTSA. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #10 OS - right on! I spent 26 years in the Air Force in imint. I did well in Europe, but poorly in the States. The reason wasn't my ability or training, but the difference in perspective. In Europe, we worked to ensure we'd be ready to deal with an attack across the Iron Curtain. The folks in Omaha were always targeting the old Soviet Union, and nothing else had any validity. Tac Recce was considered a playground - nothing done was ever done because it HAD to be done, but to satisfy a box on the checklist, then back to goofing off and having fun. We have multiple enemies today, ranging from a resurging Russia, an arrogant China, incipient trouble caused by islamonazis, dictators in Africa and Latin America, and an aging Europe that wants to ignore every problem so they can go on enjoying their decaying worldview. We need agencies, ranging from the military to the intelligence community to State, that need to understand the world as it is, instead of how they wish it were. If General Hayden can get that across to the bureaucrats at the CIA, then he should be our next Sec/State as well! |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-05-14 15:55 |
| #9 Thanks OS for the insight |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-05-14 12:58 |
| #8 There have been very interesting comments on the Cia since a few days, thanks. OT : CYA = "cover your a..", am I right? |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-05-14 12:35 |
| #7 CIA was started by OSS military back some 60 years ago. But has long since morphed into somehting else. And yes, I hope Hayden can do the things he needs to. But I doubt he wil be able to do them because the structure of the CIA is monolithic - each part buttresses the other in terms of Bureaucrats and risk-averse CYA types. I think to be truly effective it will need to be broken up, withat least covert ops, analaysis and humint development all in thier own agency, the rest can be left as a husk. Unlike the Cold War, Covert action, HUMINT and Analyisis should no longer hold to an interdependant unified worlview and interlocking tasking - they need to be independent of each other and able to task each other without political influence and entanglement over how each other does the job. The problem is that the CIA was structured for a monolithic target (Soviet Union) and a monolithic opponent (KGB/GRU). It is no more capable of responding to today's challenges than the Big Division Slow Tank military of the 1970's would be up to the challenges in the inital battle for Irq or the current fighting in Afghanistan. The Army changed. The CIA hasn't. The military is effective, the CIA isnt. There it is in a nutshell. Thats why I and others went back to the military side of things when we left the "big leagues" of the IC's various agencies. The military at least tolerated a bit of *intelligent* dissent, especially from the civilians, and even moreso on the SOCOM side of things - just few jobs were there until after Rummy took over. Im now just another "contractor" (and semi-retired at that), but one thats been there done that and got the wings to prove it. I just hope that Gen Hayden can swing the axe freely and cut the place into the chunks it needs to be cut into. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-14 12:33 |
| #6 Wasn't the CIA started by military people to begin with? |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-05-14 12:17 |
| #5 OS: Do you think Hayden can fix it? Institutional change is extreemly difficult, and usually the guy that brings the change is drummed out. Only to be seen as the father of the new organization later in history. If he does change it I see this as his likely course of action and he must see it comming making im a true patriot. This agency I see is as critical, if not more than our military, and you know I'm 26 year activ Army. We saw the terrorists comming in the Army as well and were charged with looking for a war in order to be relevant. Fortunately we had Rumsfelt to push the old dogs out and bring in the right generals. I wish Hayden the best. He will certainly pay for it. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-05-14 11:54 |
| #4 Some of us did Pan49 - we moved because we saw the change in the trheat and those that didnt, didnt want us around "stirring up trouble", and being politically incorrect. It was easy to get called a bigot when you started saying things about fundamentalist islamists, wahabbists and the like being the source of incited terror, or agreeing with those that did. And even worse start sayign we should do something even if it doesnt mean go-along get-along anymore with the Powers That Be, even if there is risk that a Cover-Your-Ass bureacrat cannot accept. The Bureacrats and Poilitcal Correctness Police won those battles. The first put in the "I dont care its not an acceptable risk tothis department or my job", and the second made certain was of thinking forbidden. They put blinders and blindfolds on us. We have the Cole, Khobar, etc and 9-11 as a result. And these are the people leaking for political gain, to sabotage reform at the cost of national security. They are the ones Hayden will get rid of. And thats why they are screaming so loud no via thier mouthpieces in the ignorant press and tools/fools in Congress. Yes I am angry. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-14 11:36 |
| #3 Transformation is always an extreemly painful event. Those old cold warriors were the ones that kept us safe as kids from the Soviets, we should not forget that and recognise them for it. Times do change and those old dogs should have been moved on in the 90's. Times are different and a different warrior is needed, I only wish the old dogs had the honor to recognise it and move on themselves. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-05-14 11:21 |
| #2 Even an outsider can look at the CIA and understand the problems: . . . the dominant agency culture of whining, second-guessing and world-class leaking needs to be expunged. . . . But coming up on five years after 9-11, the agency needs either a transformation guru like Hayden or else a Marine drill sergeant, if that's what it takes.. No truer words have EVER been written. "culture of whining, second-guessing and world-class leaking". THis is what drove so many good ops people and analysts out in the 90's. And the dumb bastards like Leahy want to keep it that way. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-14 10:48 |
| #1 It's true, I keep hearing a bad idea to have a military guy, but nobody says EXACTLY why, just some subtle references that's it's a CILIVIAN agency. Well DUH, but it's mainly an Intelligence agency too and the President likes him! |
| Posted by: Creating Elmineger9348 2006-05-14 09:36 |