CIA Memoirs

  
"CIA memoirs offer revelations and settle scores among spies"  http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cia-memoirs-offer-revelations-and-settle-scores-among-spies/2012/06/04/gJQAVGTVEV_story.html

"[T]he ex-spies want a little credit, even if it means dabbling in public self-glorification, something seemingly antithetical to the agency’s ethos."  The "silent boots on the ground" of the CIA, as I have called them, whether in paramilitary or classic intelligence gathering roles appear to be performing well in the defense of our country.  Yet, the distinguishing character of the clandestine service of quiet, personal pride in duty honorably performed has given way to "public self-gratification" to a degree not seen in the past.  This article can only point to isolated past writings and fails to show that they generally were viewed with contempt and not as precedent by professionals at the time. 

The ethos may have degraded because of growing disdain among career professionals directed at the agency bureaucracy brought on by evolution (from the Soviet Union) or corruption (to Iraq) of mission identification and value.  A cause may be the dangerously enhanced use of contract personnel who, though sitting side by side, by definition have chosen the moneyed rather than the principled path of direct government service into and within intelligence work.  Assuredly, a cause is the changed culture from which many of these current writers came into the agency.  The direct line has broken from generations who appreciated and sought to emulate the selfless service of those in the clandestine service of the OSS or, for example, the case-officer who in Prague in 1967 bent to pick up an agent's dead drop emplaced prior to the Soviet tank and squad moving near.  These were men and women who served as Director Patraeus recently said, "never for acclaim, always for country."   

It may be somewhat unfair to brand the whole service because of these memoirs yet, if the ethos within were still strong in "never for acclaim," it would be that compact of silent duty which should have been the greatest dissuasion from self-aggrandizement.   If the ethos of the clandestine services has so changed it does not just signal a sad day for America it manifests a dangerous degradation of character within the agency and America itself.

Gen. Patraeus and the CIA (cont.)

Responding to a friend's comment:

I am glad that you brought up the record of Sec. Gates as we discuss the expected transition in leadership within the administration. By all current accounts he has been the best example of civilian leadership in recent memory. It appears that the quality of his public character and management abilities might well be taught those aspiring to public service and to many now so engaged.

I believe that you correctly point out the transferrable management skills of those at the four star level in the military. As a four star general, I am confident that Gen. Patraeus has those skills. I am more concerned, and have been, about the recent and ongoing construct of the CIA and its ability to effectively support both para-military and classic intelligence and counter-intelligence programs. The spotlight has been on the para-military and Patraeus has held the leash in those counter terrorism and insurgency operations. Decades of service in uniform will, presumably, cause substantial concern for continuing military missions and objectives. What I suggest is that counter terrorism/insurgency is not the greatest threat to the United States and the CIA's directives and Patraeus's leadership will need to address that shifting paradigm.

It is now an open question whether Gen. Patraeus will remain on active duty while CIA Director. Should he do so, he should not follow the example of Michael Hayden who in his roles with the CIA and NSA continued to wear his military uniform. The distinction in responsibilities and authority must be clear.

General Patraeus to CIA

The New York Times reports today that President Obama is expected to name Leon E. Panetta Defense Secretary and David H. Petraeus C.I.A. Director.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28team.html?_r=1&hp

The Panetta move is understandable, in part, because it allows consistency at policy level. Hopefully, Panetta's tour at the CIA will have formed in him an appreciation for the role of the Intelligence Agency that will correctly distinguish and define intelligence programs within the military establishment. The Patraeus assignment is, in my view, extraordinary. Certainly there have been former military flag officers assigned in the past. Not certain if Stansfield Turner was active duty while head of CIA in the '70s, but, whatever Turner's rank or status, he was a disaster for the Agency and the country in that role.

Patraeus is of different mettle and experience. I would have thought that his experience and credibility would have warranted a role with a broader portfolio. His experience and abilities should provide the leadership essential for the CIA as well as enhance its credibility among critics. His experience has however focused him on military needs and applications almost exclusively in counter terrorism and insurgency. Notwithstanding the substantial para-military components now within the Agency, the need for "classic" intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities are critical. Efforts to counter cyber-terrorism include human and other clandestine operations. China, for example, has only, it appears, tangentially touched his primary military responsibilities. Africa (now becoming fixed in China's sphere of influence) as well has not been a primary focus. South America will take independent study. His recommendations to the President on current and long term intelligence directions and policy may accordingly be parochial. In the past these factors would not concern me to the degree they do today because in the past the Agency was staffed by career intelligence officers with extraordinary dedication to the best interests of the Country. Today a substantial number of positions are staffed by contract personnel whose enhanced salaries and corporate influence must present conflict in dedication.

In sum, he will have a learning curve, be unable to speak candidly to a broad audience and enters a field of endeavor fraught with potentials for all sorts of scandals, diversions and failures. His acceptance of the role seems to speak, in my view, to his own personal integrity, devotion to duty and love of this country.