History Proves Hoekstra and Chambliss Reactionary (and Potentially Foolish)

Before the outbreak of WWI, the British government led by Herbert Henry Asquith, were in need of a Secretary of War. Lord Horatio Kitchener was suggested for the post due to his successes abroad. He won great battles that preserved and established British rule in the Sudan, Egypt and Khartoum. He confronted and averted war with the French who attempted a land grab in the Scramble for Africa. Known as a man of vision who creatively found solutions to great problems, was called upon again to rescue Britian's misfortunes in the Boer War. After gaining peace after a brutal campaign, he was called upon to reorganize the massively disfunctional Indian Army.

Despite his long and extensive experience, Prime Minister Asquith was hesitant to promote him to Secretary of War. He was afraid of appointing a life long military commander to a post that should belong to a civilian. It had been over a century since a Secretary of War (the Duke of Wellington) had been a man of military background.

Asquith appointed him despite his hesitations, and the rest is history. Kitchener's experience led him to buck the common mindset that the war would be over quickly, when he knew that war in Europe would last at least three years. In anticipation of this event, instead of a large conscription to gain the million man army he needed, he launched one of the most impressive volunteer campaigns in the history of the world. American's are familiar with Uncle Sam demonstrative gesture expressing his desire that he "Wants You." Well, for Britons, the more famous idea orginated with Uncle Horatio in the below image:

Horatio Kitchner as Secretary of War brought a laundry list of successful campaigns that made him the most qualified person for the job. His role as Secretary of War prepared Britain to fight and win one of the most horrible wars the world had ever seen, and it is doubtful that any other appointment at the time would have produced the same results as Kitchener did.

----

Civilian control over the government and its military is necessary for a thriving democratic government. But, it is also necessary that the person who holds their specific office be the most qualified person for the job. Being a civilian doesn't mean that your background is absent of military service. Being a civilian means that you are no longer under the military chain of command and your ideas and direction come from your own mind, and not an unbroken line to a General sitting behind the desk in the Pentagon.

Civilian control in the United States has been preserved, yet we've still had men of some very significant military backgrounds hold very prominant and influntial offices. Read no further than Generals' Dwight Eisenhower, George Marshall, Ulysses S. Grant, Colin Powell.

With the above thoughts in context, the concern around the appointment of General Michael Hayden as the next CIA director has confused me a bit:

President Bush's expected choice of Gen. Michael Hayden as the next CIA director drew bipartisan criticism Sunday, including that of the Republican head of the House Intelligence Committee, who said a military man should not run the intelligence agency.

Hayden, whose nomination Bush is expected to announce Monday, has served for more than 35 years in the Air Force, culminating his service as head of the National Security Agency and as top deputy to spymaster John Negroponte.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who heads the House intelligence panel, said he was concerned that Hayden's military background would further diminish the CIA's post-Sept. 11 role and could enhance the Pentagon's influence over U.S. intelligence operations.

"This is one more step in the [Defense Department's] taking over the intelligence community," Hoekstra said.

Hoekstra acknowledged that entering into a "public spat" with the White House put him in "an unfortunate position." But, he said, "you kind of look at it and say, `I can't go with you on this one.' In my gut, it just feels wrong.

"I do believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time," the congressman said. "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."

Hoekstra's criticism was echoed by a fellow Republican, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.

The media smells blood when they can back a bipartisan effort to stick it to George Bush, however, Senator Hoekstra's concerns completely ring hallow to me. From the background noise I've read on this, it seems like Hayden is going to officially retire from the Air Force to pursue this nomination. If so, how on earth is the Defense Department going to take over the CIA when Hayden is now a civilian? Senator Chambliss offers the most short-sighted of statements when he says:

Just resigning commission and moving on, putting on a striped suit, a pinstriped suit versus an Air Force uniform, I don't think that makes much difference.

Beyond the normal bounds of politics, why didn't these same Senators have concerns with the appointment of Retired General Colin Powell as Secretary of State? Democratic nations are rich with former military men successfully holding civilian offices without risking a military take-over.

Taking this even further, there is no doubt that the CIA is in major need of overhaul. With the successful role they played in Afghanistan acknowledged, this particular part of our intelligence network has mostly failed us for quite a long time now (and it could be said the the military was the one who lead and coordinated the efforts in Afghanistan anyway). The DIA, however, has been tremendously successful in reforming and adjusting to our 21st Century foes. Five years into this all out war with Islamic Fascism, our counterparts in the CIA have offered very little other than continual ass-covering as solutions in dealing with our mysterious and schrewd foe.

At this point, I know little about General Hayden other than his role as deputy NSA director and his support for wiretapping. However, my inclination is that he understands the role that intelligence plays in this war, and how to best structure our most broken agency to get optimal results from the briefs I've read. This is why I will watch the confimation process thoroughly. If he doesn't understand this role, then I'll be the first to join the "bipartisan condemnation" of this appointment.

But, the sad part of this just confirms my disdain for our current Congress. Even our Congressional moderates are unable to offer well thought out solutions to keeping our country safe. Are there any Senators out there capable of producing one non-politically motivated thought? Our bipartisan Congress has already failed us greatly with the UAE ports deal, and it looks like they are going to improperly stonewall another potential good idea due to typical pandering and posturing that comes with holding an office with no established term-limits.

Posted by 10 fingers 6 strings at May 8, 2006 08:50 AM | TrackBack