Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Petraeus Would Helm an Increasingly Militarized CIA

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 11:57 AM
Original message
Petraeus Would Helm an Increasingly Militarized CIA
Source: Washington Post

Gen. David H. Petraeus has served as commander in two wars launched by the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. If confirmed as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Petraeus would effectively take command of a third — in Pakistan.

Petraeus’s nomination comes at a time when the CIA functions, more than ever in its history, as an extension of the nation’s lethal military force.


CIA teams operate alongside U.S. special operations forces in conflict zones from Afghanistan to Yemen. The agency has also built up a substantial paramilitary capability of its own. But perhaps most significantly, the agency is in the midst of what amounts to a sustained bombing campaign over Pakistan using unmanned Predator and Reaper drones.

Since Obama took office there have been at least 192 drone missile strikes, killing as many as 1,890 militants, suspected terrorists and civilians. Petraeus is seen as a staunch supporter of the drone campaign, even though it has so far failed to eliminate the al-Qaeda threat or turn the tide of the Afghan war.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/petraeus-would-helm-an-increasingly-militarized-cia/2011/04/27/AFwoDM1E_story.html

________________________________________________________

A more militarized CIA for a more militarized America

Source: Salon

The first four Directors of the CIA (from 1947-1953) were military officers, but since then, there has been a tradition (generally though imperfectly observed) of keeping the agency under civilian rather than military leadership. That's why George Bush's 2006 nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to the CIA provoked so many objections from Democrats (and even some Republicans).

The Hayden nomination triggered this comment from the current Democratic Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein: "You can't have the military control most of the major aspects of intelligence. The CIA is a civilian agency and is meant to be a civilian agency." The then-top Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, said "she hears concerns from civilian CIA professionals about whether the Defense Department is taking over intelligence operations" and "shares those concerns." On Meet the Press, Nancy Pelosi cited tensions between the DoD and the CIA and said: "I don't see how you have a four-star general heading up the CIA." Then-Sen. Joe Biden worried that the CIA, with a General in charge, will "just be gobbled up by the Defense Department." Even the current GOP Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra, voiced the same concern about Hayden: "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."

Of course, like so many Democratic objections to Bush policies, that was then and this is now. Yesterday, President Obama announced -- to very little controversy -- that he was nominating Gen. David Petraeus to become the next CIA Director.
The Petraeus nomination raises all the same concerns as the Hayden nomination did, but even more so: Hayden, after all, had spent his career in military intelligence and Washington bureaucratic circles and thus was a more natural fit for the agency; by contrast, Petraues is a pure military officer and, most of all, a war fighting commander with little background in intelligence. But in the world of the Obama administration, Petraeus' militarized, warrior orientation is considered an asset for running the CIA, not a liability.

That's because the CIA, under Obama, is more militarized than ever, as devoted to operationally fighting wars as anything else, including analyzing and gathering intelligence...

more: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/28/petraeus/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. I agree and I think the government after the Iraq mess decided to militarize the CIA
It's a strategic decision. I'm not convinced either way that it's a good or bad decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I think the PTB decided that the CIA was a useful source of whatever intelligence they wanted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. You're suggesting that the military can influence the contents of CIA intelligence?
Edited on Thu Apr-28-11 12:09 PM by Renew Deal
I suppose that's possible. Though I would think that level of dishonesty is provable. One of the concerns during the Bush years was that Cheney was getting the CIA to say whatever he wanted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. The Cheney pResidency fired any Military leader that disagreed with them. The military teaches go
along to get along very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. The problem with Hayden is that he was/is profoundly stupid.
He does not even understand probable cause.

This from KO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teFPQWOjE58
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That was a problem with Hayden. Not the only problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. This is a remarkably bad idea
The President is taking us in the exactly the wrong direction
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. It would certainly prevent a GOP draft of Petraeus in 2012
I can't think of much else in its favor -- the militarization of intelligence has been a particularly despicable trend in recent years -- but it could be a smart political move.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Only in the hand to mouth way possible. This makes future politics worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
10. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jumping John Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-11 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
11. Just more corruption by the
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC