we are stardust's picture

    Petraeus as CIA Chief: A Neo-con’s Wet Dream and/or the Road to the Presidency?

    When Harry Truman created the CIA in 1947 out of the Office of Strategic Services that had been formed during WW II to coordinate espionage activities against the Axis Powers, Truman wanted a civilian intelligence organization that would bring raw data to him as President, unadulterated by the bias that wouldn’t be “slanted to conform to established positions of a given department.”

    It appears that the following year Congress expanded the role of the CIA to include "sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures...subversion [and] assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation movements, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world” [snip]  including “an active Black operations mission has been launched deep under cover into Bolivia.  (Wikipedia asks for citation for the expansion claim.)

    By 1963 Truman expressed public dismay at the directions the CIA had evolved:

    “Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset."

    For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.  This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

    I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.  [snip]
    But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.

    We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.”

    (The full text of his WaPo op-ed is here.)

    We now know that the Operations Department through JSOC and its contractor friends like Blackwater, et.al. is running covert ops in many nations, and that they are not subject to Congressional oversight as are military ops.  (Think of the most recent Raymond Davis debacle in Pakistan.)  This is scary business, and many critics have taken to calling this unholy alliance the Dark Army or Shadow Army.  No one knows exactly to whom they answer, although we toss around acronyms like the Masters of the Universe – close enough without further identifications.

    In the video below, long-time CIA analyst for many administrations Ray McGovern talks about some of the dangers of General Petraeus heading the CIA.  A couple ironies to note are that a) he reminds us that most Congressional Dems objected when General Michael Hayden was appointed to head the Agency under Bush, but now are apparently sanguine about their Democratic President appointing a Republican General as head.  WTF?  The other is that McGovern was recently arrested at a Clinton speech at Georgetown U on internet freedom for standing with his back toward her so that his T-shirt’s message could be read, “Veterans for Peace”.  (Video of his injuries and arrest here.)

    Aside from the alarming fact that this appointment will finally erase any pretense of the separation of intelligence and military and/or covert ops, thus rendering Congressional accountability virtually impossible, it will be impossible for actual unbiased intel to get a fair hearing.

    I would also submit that the State Department is becoming less about actual diplomacy, and has turned toward being another arm of the military and sales representative for the defense industry according to many of the cable leaked by Wikileaks.  Our brains can now imagine how much of the cocktail talk at Diplomatic Parties concerns...weapons sales.  Someone should write a play or a film about it, IMO.

    Now here’s one of the main reasons for this diary: I’d like to know what you think about McGovern’s (and many others) contentions that this appointment will speed Petraeus on the road toward the Presidency, and specifically if the neo-con constant war for profiteering and resource control would be aided more by his becoming President or remaining as head of the CIA?  Remember: if a Democratic Prez can appoint him, how likely is it that he’ll be replaced any time soon under another administration?  The media heart this man extraordinarily; that gives him an extra three aces in the hand he’s holding.

    I will say up front that I dismiss the idea that it’s an Obama Chess Move to neutralize the General as a Veep candidate in 2012, but if it’s your argument, I’ll try to hear it again. 

    (cross-posted at My.FDL)

    Comments

    Maybe I'm getting too jaded, but this just seems par for the course with this administration. I don't really see the big deal with the CIA. As an institution it has become so eviscerated, both in terms of its power and its independent culture, that it hardly matters who is in charge, doesn't it? As for Panetta at DoD, it seems like the move comes because he is more likely to push through defence cuts. Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.

    My only issue here is the conceit that these two people merit promotions. How's that Af-Pak war/conflict going? Doesn't look like much of a success from where I'm sitting, especially now that we're more overtly on a war footing vis-a-vis Pakistan. Which doesn't exactly bode well. And as for the CIA's crack intelligence on the biggest political upheaval in the Middle East since independence, well ... nuff said.


    "As an institution it has become so eviscerated, both in terms of its power and its independent culture, that it hardly matters who is in charge, doesn't it?"

    I'm not sure why you think so, Obey.  There's so much hidden in terms of expenditures any more with both CIA, DHS, military budget, la la la...and zero accountability to Congress on dark ops.  I agree with you and McGovern that has incredibly vested interests in presenting his own intel; that's a major problem, and Obama seems willing to cede it all to him as we know from his comments about drone kills being an effective tool to 'keep America Safe' like the rest of them.

    And to McGovern's point: real analysts will suffer further and Clinton and Panetta twist the intel further to bring credibility to their realpolitik viewpoints.  And yeah; he's likely really wrong about the Pentagon cuts: the last one was 14% higher than under Bush, not including the wars...maybe Panetta is a more creative book-keeper or something, but he sure loves Drones, and sure seems to not get much about Kashmir and India.  Oy. 

    Any opinion on Petraeus and further ambitions? 

     


    What I meant was that the CIA - after the 9/11 kerfuffle, after the slam-dunk Iraq embarrassment, after the Goss sabotage of the analysis division, after the 2004-reforms demotion to second-tier status, after Hayden's militarization - is a shell of its former self. It's now just another branch of military intelligence. Who cares who runs it. I don't really see how its a promotion for someone like Petraeus unless he sees it as a way to transition into civilian political life. But he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would be comfortable with electoral politics to me. I keep thinking of how awfully uncomfortable Wesley Clark looked trying to flip pancakes somewhere in Iowa. For military guys, the whole political clownshow is just too demeaning. So I don't really see him running for anything.

    But what do I know...

    ;0)


    I tend to agree; my take is that he really is in a more powerful position now in a way, which was really prompted me to write this up.  The military seem to run the show for Democratic Presidents especially, now; maybe some way to try to outlive the 'Dems as weak on defense' theme, which given how many Democratic Presidents have started most of the wars in the past few decades is pretty silly, but...there it is... 

    I think Petraeus,et.al. can have pretty much free run of the dark army; and that does worry me in the long run.  I expect some more of the neo-cons to show up as helpers in the effort, really.   

    And you know plenty; quit being so goddam modest!   ;o)


    And Obey; you've forgotten that what we often do is give medals and promotions for cock-ups; maybe the American way of saving face.  Think Paul Bremmer; think Yossarian, whose crew got awarded medals for killing fish, as Yossarian described the aborted bombing of Avignon: he dumped all his bombs into the ocean before reaching the target, so all the other bombardiers followed suit.

    Bugger; I can't find the scene.


    Hey, I'd give a medal to anyone who refused to bomb Avignon. Lovely little town.

    ;0)


    Sur le pont d'Avignon,
    L'on y danse, l'on y danse,
    Sur le pont d'Avignon
    L'on y danse tout en rond.

    Les beaux messieurs font comme ça
    Et puis encore comme ça.

    Sur le pont d'Avignon,
    L'on y danse, l'on y danse,
    Sur le pont d'Avignon
    L'on y danse tout en rond.

    Les belles dames font comme ça
    Et puis encore comme ça.

    Sur le pont d'Avignon,
    L'on y danse, l'on y danse,
    Sur le pont d'Avignon
    L'on y danse tout en rond.

    Innocent  Nice job on the deconstruction, Pug.  Made me laugh.


    Amazing to me how ingrown the whole thing has become. I donno whether Petraeus runs or not (I'm not convinced), but these guys are responsible for a lot of what's going on, and since I'm not convinced it's going well, how do we get from merit to this? And whatever happened to the idea that Obama was going to open these worlds out to people?

    It's just more hopeless placing of faith in the "experts," the world of the total insider, and old guard insider at that. 

    Piss on 'em.


    'Ingrown' is spot on, Q.  Talk about revolving doors!  It's Musical Chairs with the players from Defense, Intelligence, the Defense Industry and Homeland (blech) Security.  Looks like another way that power is ratcheting toward the MICmediaC.

    Not sure what you mean here: "...the idea that Obama was going to open these worlds out to people?"

    But if pissing on them would help, I'm game.


    Democracy Now's interview with former CIA Ray McGovern, Ray McGovern"

    Petrayass - 'We can't win militarily in Afghanistan, we need 33,000 more troops' ; 'Real progress has been made in reversing Taliban gains, (real??) progress is reversible and fragile'

    It may be that only a Republican will ever get us the hell out of the Af/Pak region, when they do, no one will care (except war profiteers and Pentagon brass who need wars to get promotions), those without villa's in Dubai (Karzai and family etc) will knuckle under and tolerate the return of the Taliban, and the expulsion of the infidel army.

     


    Your browser doesn't show the Democray Now! interview with McGovern I embedded, NCD?

    Pretty telling that the sole anti-war candidate so far as I know is Ron Paul.  Arrrggghh!

    I do keep wondering why Clinton, Panetta, et.al. think that it's a Good Way to secure Pakistan's nukes.  Just bummfuzzling logic, IMO. 


    Just repeating the link, thanks for the post. We can do what we can to secure the Pak nukes, but if any of the multitude of Pakistani terror groups got hold of a nuke it would seem most likely they would blow it up in Islamamommabadd or another city in Pakistan, within a few days of getting hold of one, close to a Pak Army base or housing, and taking out, with the Army target, half the city.   More likely the nuke wouldn't work due to technical problems.

    The troubles and the terrorists in Af/Pak need to be dealt with by the people there.


    Oh, good; sometimes my IE won't show videos or photos.   I guess I think it's more likely that our drones and covert ops in Pakistan make it more likely that some groups would help themselves to the nukes.  And Clinton, et.al. are on record as keeping themselves out of any negotiations between Pakistan and India over Kasmir.  Maybe a revitalized Egypt or Turkey could help.   ;o)


    I'm not sure why Petraeus, who is a Republican, by the way, is getting appointments outside of the military from a President from the other party.  In the military, fine.  External politics don't matter so much when it comes to who gets promoted.

    But the CIA is a civilian political post.  The Democrat who was elected president should pick a Democrat to run it.  For the same reason, he should have replaced Bob Gates at Defense immediately, with a Democrat.

    You can't tell me that there aren't Democrats out there more qualified to head the CIA than Petraeus.  And if Panetta is qualified to be the civilian head of DOD now, he was also qualified for the job back in 2008.


    I think you mean that CIA is supposed to be a civilian post, which fact is glaringly not true with this move.

    Yes, Obama should have replaced Gates: and Bernanke, not chosen Geithner and a whole stable-ful of Justice people; he chose Ray La Hood for Commerce (he oversaw Clinton's impeachment)once Judd Gregg turned him down.  Man loves bi-partisanship.  But for me, it's not Petraeus's party affiliation so much as his history, and his incredible political nature, his lies about the wars...  Gaah! 


    Nick Turse is reporting at the Asia Times on one of the reasons Obama and Clinton have been relatively mute about Saleh's troops killing 130 so far protestors in Yemen.  It turns out the US provided them with a nice package of arms and helicopters, including the same Hueys we used in Viet Nam. 

    "All told, over the past five years, the US has provided more than $300 million in aid to Yemen's security forces, with the dollars escalating precipitously under the Obama administration. In 2008, under president George W Bush, Yemen received $17.2 million in baseline military assistance (which does not include counter-terrorism or humanitarian funding).

    In 2010, that number had risen to $72.3 million while, overall, Yemen received $155.3 million in US aid that year, including a "$34.5 million special operations force counter-terrorism enhancement package". These funds have provided Yemen's security forces with helicopters, Humvees, weapons, ammunition, radio systems and night-vision goggles.

    Additionally, US special operations troops (along with British and Saudi military personnel) have been supporting, advising and conducting training missions with some of Yemen's elite forces - including the Republican Guard, Special Operations Forces and the National Security Bureau - which are commanded and staffed by Saleh's sons and other close relatives.

    As his part of the bargain, Saleh allowed the US to launch missile strikes against suspected al-Qaeda camps in Yemen while instructing his government to take credit for the attacks (for fear that if their American origins were made clear, there might be an anti-American backlash in Yemen and the larger Arab world), according to classified State Department documents released last year by the whistleblower group WikiLeaks. "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," Saleh told then-Central Command commander General David Petraeus following strikes in December 2009."

    Turse reports on the cover story they had ready about the civilians killed...and the deal the US brokered with Saleh to turn over power for a little bit...and the ammunition that the Bahraini forces are using against the protestors there, along with the go ahead from Gates for the Saudi tanks to crush the rebellion. 

    Our client states and dictatorial 'allies' are pretty bad company, and not so much in favor the the Democracy we claim to be spreading around the globe.


    Here's Glenn Greenwald on Ratigan speaking to Feinstein's objection to General Michael Hayden to head the CIA, and okey-dokey with Petraeus there.


    Latest Comments