The new CIA chief

John Prados, an intelligence expert known for his scholarly work on the Vietnam War and nuclear proliferation issues as well as on the CIA, is skeptical of the Bush's proposed new head for the CIA: Curtains for the CIA? TomPaine.com 05/10/06. He writes:

The auguries are dark for the people who do the hard work of intelligence at Langley, headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency. Don’t be fooled by the spin that the appointment of General Michael V. Hayden in place of suddenly-resigned agency director Porter Goss is a simple personnel replacement. Hayden, currently the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, represents far more than a new man at the helm, and more too than the other line prevalent in the media - that the switch is merely a move in the subterranean war over control between Hayden’s boss, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rather, a Hayden stewardship will accelerate disintegrative processes already underway at Langley. We may be witnessing the end of the CIA as we know it.

For various reasons that he explains in his article, Prados is concerned that the Michael Hayden appointment represents a continuation of a trend toward abolishing the CIA and an increasing militarization of the nation's intelligence program. He summarizes his worries like this:

Why should we care about any of this? So many times Americans have been embarrassed or even threatened by their security services. From callous covert operations to the domestic spying of the Vietnam era, there were numerous occasions when the CIA’s existence seemed more blight than benefit to Americans. Why should it not disappear? Because the alternative is worse. The military’s actions in Iraq, Guantanamo, in its domestic spying programs, and to a degree in Afghanistan, plus the Pentagon’s evasion of responsibility when abuses were revealed, demonstrates that this is the wrong course today. The administration’s complete refusal to confront public concerns over its domestic wiretapping illustrates the danger. Under a system of Pentagon dominance a similar cloak would extend to every aspect of intelligence activity. The CIA and DNI are subject to oversight from the congressional intelligence committees, the military agencies less so, and the special operations forces—under which the bulk of the new action functions are being grouped—not at all. The military report to armed services committees which are not equipped to monitor intelligence, and to whom the Pentagon has been minimally responsive in these matters. This will make a hash of monitoring arrangements. It has long been accepted that the Central Intelligence Agency was created in part to provide a check against military domination of the U.S. intelligence system. The Bush administration’s intelligence reforms have now recreated the danger of that very possibility. (my emphasis)

| +Save/Share | |