Can Anyone Rein in Rummy?

Can Anyone Rein in Rummy?

Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has come out against the nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to head the CIA, calling the ousting of former Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) from the agency’s top post “a power grab” by John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. Roll Call

Yesterday I wrote a post about Hayden's appointment actually giving Donald
Rumsfeld more power. Hayden's lack of human intel experience seemed to play
into Rummy's marauding ways, as well as Stephen Cambone's, as DoD has exerted more and more authority over CIA type territory,
including clandestine operations using Special Forces. At the same time, Stephen
Clemons, someone who is in the position to actually know instead of postulate,
said appointing Hayden was just the opposite. Midday came a story from UPI,
via Josh Marshall, that “A senior intelligence community official yesterday
said the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, has indicated “he
is willing to give up covert operations to the Pentagon.” Marshall
couldn't confirm either theory. I truly am skeptical of any diminution of Rummy's
power, but the UPI story doesn't seem to have legs after a couple of other developments
arose.

First, Negroponte and Hayden are bringing back Stephen R. Kappes, one of the
most widely respected people at the CIA, who walked out when Goss began his
purge, because Kappes had a run in with Goss' chief of staff. I remember when
Kappes up and resigned and it was big news. Gary Berntsen couldn't say enough
good things about him yesterday on MSNBC. That Stephen
Hayes is skeptical of him makes me like Kappes even more than I did before.
Reassessing Rummy and considering he's actually being reined in offers serious
hope of a shift in the intelligence apparatus of this country. Dana Priest goes
after the story today. There are few people who can be trusted more to get the
story right than Ms. Preist. She's the antithesis of Judy Miller.

“Hayden seems to be one of those guys who will, without hesitation, stand up to anyone with whom he disagrees,” said Mackubin T. Owens, professor of national security studies at the Naval War College. “He's out of Rumsfeld's reach.” The CIA establishment views the encroachment of the Pentagon into such sensitive areas as covert operations and human intelligence as a misguided effort that does not recognize the inherent difficulties in understanding, much less penetrating, terrorist networks. “If the military's calling the shots, you're not going to get the focus on Manchester, England [where the London bombers came from], or the Montreal axis,” a reference to the crossroads for a group of al-Qaeda figures, the former intelligence official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the upcoming debate on Hayden's nomination. But the military's frustration with the CIA — including not having enough terrorist targets identified for attack in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere — is at least in part behind Rumsfeld's expansion of military intelligence capabilities. Rumsfeld has moved hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of troops into clandestine intelligence collection and analysis. With little public discussion and a wall of secrecy, the military is poised to launch its own intelligence-gathering and man-hunting operations independent of the CIA or other authorities. “When you're not getting what you want, the bureaucratic response is to create your own [bureaucracy], not because you want different answers, but because you want answers,” said Owens. Managed by Army Lt. Gen. Lee Blalack , a legendary special operations officer who now holds the title of deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and warfighting support, the Pentagon is demanding that the CIA share its most sensitive databases, that small teams of undercover soldiers be allowed to secretly collect information in friendly countries, and that clandestine teams of military man-hunters be allowed to sneak into countries with which the United States is not at war to kill or capture terrorism suspects. But Hayden, an Air Force four-star general, has already taken steps and positions aimed at enhancing the CIA's leadership in human intelligence. Experts See a Strategy Behind CIA Shuffle General May Help Intelligence Chief Rein In Rumsfeld and His Military Spy Plans

The bottom line is that Hayden may help Rein in Rummy, but it's not
going to be a slam dunk. Rummy and Deadeye have built up a lot of power. It
would be very good news if the “may” help reign Rummy in part of this
story turned out to be true. Or better yet, that Hayden, if he's confirmed,
eventually led to Rummy's resignation. It's just too soon to tell.

Frankly, I'm more of the belief that even though the intention of bucking up
the CIA is seen to come through Hayden. Bush's real purpose is to spur a fight
over the NSA illegal domestic wiretapping program. Bush is so weak, his only
hope is to try and force the issue and reassert his strong on all things kaboom
caricature. It's the only place his poll numbers are respectable, when it comes
to fighting terror and the bad guys. Never mind that Bush hasn't brought any
of the bad guys to trial and punished them. It's a minor detail, evidently.

Then there is Hayden himself, whom I believe is a man who does not have the
Constitution anywhere in his mind. He's a means justifies the end type of guy,
regardless that he's Negroponte's man. Hayden is all military, which
is normally a terrific plus, but given what Hayden did with the Fourth Amendment
through his illegal NSA program, all bets are off. I'm not so much worried about
his military status as I am that he has already proven he's willing to run over
the courts and the law to secretly wiretap U.S. citizens in a program that had
little or no effectiveness and could have been run within the law but wasn't
out of choice. I lived through the 1970s. Hayden seems to have serious boundary
issues, not to mention a disregard for the Constitution if it gets in his way. His “this is war” mentality seems akin to Bush's in that they both will subvert any law or Constitutional point to do what they want. I think that's bad for everyone.

However, now that Speaker
Hastert has come out against General Michael Hayden, the battle lines are
drawn.

Rummy is circling the wagons. He's got a lot of them.

The Defense Department consumes the lion's share of intelligence dollars and employs far more intelligence related personnel than the CIA. Under Rumsfeld, in addition, DOD has installed a new intelligence czar — Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone — and has moved to improve its own human intelligence capabilities. Sure it is the case that Donald Rumsfeld can't stand to be told that his Defense Department can't get what it needs because of some other agency's priorities or weaknesses, but is military intelligence really the biggest threat the CIA faces? (snip) The new intelligence revolution underway in the military today is an attempt to create the same feed of raw data to support the rest of operations. Not just electronic data but also other stimuli is being formatted and packaged to provide a broadcast for the soldier and commander. The theory is that the substance of voice communications intercepts or news reports or reconnaissance imagery and even human intelligence reporting can be tagged and broken down and fed to those who need it immediately. Think of an RSS feed or an IM window always open, with the right intelligence flowing to the right consumers. Wonder why $45 billion plus is being spent on intelligence? Building an all-sensing network with the ability to virtually self-report is an expensive dream. In the short term, the new Pentagon intelligence paradigm is being applied to find the bad guys in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. The wall between intelligence and operations has already been lowered and the dream is to eventually do away with it altogether. The biggest fight is of course about power. And since we know that information is power, great tensions have been created between the old “need to know” concept and the new “need to share” one. The Bush administration is a long way from resolving this tension, particularly given its own basic impulse for more secrecy and less openness. … … Military Intelligence is Not the CIA's Problem – Bill Arkin (read his whole post)