How shocking!

How shocking!
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Northwest Edition

Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006

SOME OF the honorables in

Congress are shocked—shocked!—that

George W. Bush would nominate a military man to head the Central Intelligence Agency. To quote Saxby Chambliss, a Republican congressman from Georgia, General Michael Hayden’s military background would be a “major problem.” How’s that again ? Wasn’t Stansfield Turner, an admiral, head of the CIA back in the Carter administration ? Indeed, at last count, 13 of the 19 directors of the agency had served in the military at some time before their appointment. In the agency’s early days, it was almost assumed a miltary man would head it. A few of us are old enough to vaguely remember monumental names like Walter Bedell Smith, Hoyt Vandenberg, Roscoe Hillenkoetter, and Sidney Souers, generals or admirals all, not to mention the day the wheel was invented....

Anyway, this four-star, Michael Hayden, comes out of the Air Force, where he developed an interest in intelligence work, and went on to head the National Security Agency; he hasn’t worked at the Pentagon since 1999. It was John McCain, the senator from Arizona, who noted that by now Michael Hayden is more of a spook-in-chief than a military man. But wherever he’s been placed, he’s done a heckuva job.

According to the law, both the director and deputy director of the CIA can’t be military officers, and the current deputy is a vice admiral. Dianne Feinstein, the senator from California, suggests that General Hayden think about resigning from the military before accepting the CIA assignment. But that wouldn’t be sufficient for Congressman Chambliss. “Just resigning [his ] commission,” says the congressman, “and moving on, putting on a striped suit, a pinstriped suit versus an Air Force uniform, I don’t think makes much difference. ’’ The congressman may have a point, if unintentionally. It certainly didn’t make much of a difference when General of the Army George C. Marshall, he of the Marshall Plan, became Harry Truman’s secretary of state. He did as fine a job in civil government as he’d done as FDR’s military chief of staff. The country can have every expectation that General Hayden will follow the same assuring pattern. And if any outfit in Washington needs some outstanding leadership at this shaky time, it’s the demoralized CIA. Let it be noted that Senator Feinstein can recognize quality even if it comes with four stars on its shoulders. “ We need a respected, competent intelligence professional who can command respect and manage this growing agency,” she says, and concludes: “Based on what I know so far, General Michael Hayden fits the bill.”

More @ http://tinyurl.com/fjrk9 www.nwanews.com

I must admit I'm partial to USAF people in general and I feel this is a good choice. The CIA is quasi military agency and IMO a military officer should have been in charge of it all along. The forefather of the CIA was the OSS and 'Wild Bill Donovan' was in charge in those days and he was a military man. I'm not wild about civilians having anything to do with the military or any of the spy/security services. It's been my experiences that civilians don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to the military or spy/security services.