landgazing

We all know of Porter Goss’ departure as head of the CIA last week. Why? Maybe too much political baggage came with him. Maybe it was due to the stench surrounding the gambling and prostitution scandal regarding CIA contracts. Who knows.

Bush has nominated the former head of the NSA, Lt. General Michael Hayden, to replace him.

My question - Is this the agenda-driven militarization of intelligence? At this point in time, that is my perception.

Granted, he excels in communicating these matters to Congress and the President currently. But his metier was electronic surveillance. In the ongoing struggle for dominance in the intelligence community between the CIA and DoD, doesn’t this give an edge to the Pentagon, especially considering recent reforms?

He has been vocal in his support for the NSA domestic wiretapping program. Now, I don’t think any rational person would debate the wisdom in that (but I think they may also wonder why Bush thought he had to make an end run around FISA).

And let’s not forget Hayden’s somewhat shaky grasp of the Fourth Amendment :)

I am not saying those in the military wouldn’t make good leaders. On the contrary, they are among the best America has to offer. In addition, of the 19 previous CIA directors, six were military officers, the most recent being Admiral Stansfield Turner (1977-81). However, these are different times with different challenges, and I am unconvinced Hayden is the best choice to effectively deal with the problems the CIA faces in the new century.

I’m going to reserve judgment at least until after his confirmation hearings.

But then there is Arlen Specter, who is threatening to hold up Hayden’s confirmation if he doesn’t get more information from him about the warrantless wiretapping. Ew, this could get messy.