"Everything that Obama said about such policies, and everything his supporters believe about them, should, for that reason alone, preclude Brennan from being named to any top intelligence post, let alone CIA Director," Greenwald wrote. "It's just as simple as that."
But if it were as simple as that, why would Obama have retained Brennan as his closest intelligence advisor throughout the campaign?
Whatever, Greenwald is a careful and thoughtful critic, and his blog is worth reading.
But please, Glenn, leave me out of the conspiracy.
Other Fedoras in the Ring
At risk of demonstrating that I am, in fact, a CIA dupe, I offer up further thoughts about who should run the spy agency, from a variety of present and past CIA officers. As always, the thoughts and opinions expressed here are theirs and do not necessarily represent the views of the management of this blog or its employees (of which there is one, me).
A longtime senior CIA operations official, now in private business:
"Brennan would never have been a good director. Don't ask me for a name or I'll give you mine, or Tyler [Drumheller], or Frank Anderson, or Milt Bearden, or another person who spent 25 or 30 years successfully doing espionage, which is the essential element of the business.
"The politicians want someone who fits at the table in Washington, meaning someone who is 'corporate' (read that as tells them what they want to hear.) The business is not budget negotiations or getting along with everyone (which means taking whatever crap State and DOD want to hand out); it is no longer even analysis since the agency is no longer the prime briefer of the president and other principals -- it is human intelligence collection and that requires someone who knows what it is and how it is done.
"We have had admirals and generals (more than one of each and most poor directors), a judge, a senate staffer (Tenet), a Washington lawyer (Woolsey), a college chemistry teacher (Deutch), etc. We do not need yet another experiment -- we need someone who understands the business and will get back to seeing that it is done."
Here's a long view from inside CIA headquarters:
"I think history tells us there are two issues involved in finding a CIA director: knowledge of intelligence, and executive management experience. Almost all directors have had knowledge of intelligence--either as a producer or as a consumer--but the ability to manage a large complex organization is also necessary.
"That's why [Gen. Michael V.] Hayden is really ideal, to my mind. He's managed a large complex organization, and it happened to be an intelligence agency, before coming here. Of course, everyone here realizes he's history, for political reasons.
"Porter Goss is an example of how intelligence experience doesn't help if you are a management idiot.
"Admiral [William F.] Raborn is an example of how excellent management experience doesn't help if you're an ignoramus about intelligence.
"John McCone was one of our best directors--the quintessential corporate director, loads of public service where he learned about intelligence, plus strong political instincts. He might serve as a model for what is possible now.
"Of the names I see mooted now, John Hamre strikes me as closest to the McCone model. Having been DepSecDef, he certainly understands intel to some degree, and let's hope he understands management as well (but then, [John] Deutch had been DepSecDef . . . )
"Another thought--from a discussion in the past hour with other graybeards: John Helgerson, the current IG [Inspector General], is a senior and respected insider not only free of the perceived taint but is very much on the record as opposing "enhanced interrogation techniques."
"John McLaughlin is well regarded in the building but fails the Brennan test, as does (thankfully!) [former CIA deputy director for intelligence] Jami] Miscik.
"John Gannon [a former CIA deputy director] has a mixed reputation, but at least he left the ship before 9/11, so he might be a possibility."
A former senior CIA official during the Clinton administration:
"Anyone who served in a senior capacity at CIA in the past eight years is probably at least as soiled....which leaves you with either antiquated alumni...or people who were never there (clean hands and empty minds).
"Normally I would say that CIA is a place which should be run by someone with more than a passing familiarity with the place. Putting a politician in there seems to be the worst idea of all. That Goss thing worked out so well.
"Maybe someone with bureaucratic skills who has been a consumer...John Hamre ... Jim Steinberg ... Richard Danzig? (I know, Steinberg and Danzig are widely reported to be going elsewhere...but you never know if they will fit well with the team at State/Defense etc. And you could make a case for stashing someone at a place like CIA until cabinet-level jobs open up.
"You could also make a case for putting [former Navy admiral Dennis] Blair at CIA (He worked there for about a year in the mid-90s) and making one of the aforementioned gentlemen DNI (director of National intelligence).
Charles "Sam" Faddis, former senior CIA operations field officer:
"You need someone politically acceptable, i.e. not tied to controversial Bush actions like water boarding. You need someone who knows the business and will not be lead around by his nose by the DO. And, you need someone who believes the place needs to be changed. You can dig around and find lots of old ops officers who left before or shortly after 9/11, before some of the dicier things were done, but most of them are going to think that the status quo is great and have no desire to shake up anything."
A former Delta Force officer:
"As you know the names that continue to be bandied about are (Rep. Jane) Harman, McLaughlin, and one of any retired military intelligence officers. Problem with these names: they run the chance of becoming another Goss in trying to implement change; tainted from past and ongoing CIA missteps; and the introduction of another former military member into the civilian intelligence service.
"I do think it is funny that there is much more discussion of the next DCI than that of the potential DNI nominees. What does this have to say about the intelligence community reform? Ostensibly the DNI would be named first and this person would have an opportunity to weigh in on other IC senior leadership nominees.
"How about Bert Calland now at CACI?"
And last but not least, my personal favorite, from former top CIA, State Department and Pentagon intelligence official
Carl Ford:
"Rich Armitage would be a great choice. Not only could the President-Elect could repay Powell for his endorsement, but he would also bring an outstanding leader/manager to the Intelligence Community. Rich's vocal support for the 'Campaign to Ban Torture' is an added plus."
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
That first paragraph of yours needs a little work on clarity.
Posted by: bethyboo
| December 9, 2008 12:58 AM
Some are opposing Blair as NDI for his role in the East Timor crisis of 1999. He undermined the Clinton administration's belated efforts to support human rights and self-determination in the Indonesian-occupied territory and opposed congressional efforts to limit military assistance. In fact, he downplayed human rights concerns and essentially gave a go ahead to the Indonesian military to violate human rights. see http://etan.org/news/2008/12blair.htm for the details.
Posted by: JMM
| December 9, 2008 12:10 PM
It is irresponsible for you to make the claim that Greenwald has accused you of advocating torture. Probably the only reason you would make such a ridiculous claim is to deflect attention from Greenwald's original thesis: you and some others have fabricated the content of left wing criticism of John Brennan.
Your second point, in which you finally acknowledge the real substance of the criticism, is a non sequiter. So what if John Brennan was an advisor to Obama? How is this relevant to whether or not he advocated torture? What point are you trying to make? That being an advisor to Obama somehow entitles Brennan to be the director of the CIA? Or maybe that Brennan's public advocacy of so called rendition practices or enhanced interrogation is not reflective of his true position? If you know John Brennan's inner mind so much better than the rest of us you cannot simply offer the drive by argument that he advised Barack Obama during the campaign.
Finally, the essay by Spencer Ackerman you linked to analyzes four quotes from a Frontline interview. If this is your attempt to absolve yourself of any wrongdoing in mischaracterizing the argument against Brennan, you need to drill a little deeper.
Posted by: mta
| December 9, 2008 4:07 PM
Post A Comment