Militarizing Intelligence

Spencer Ackerman has a provocative piece up at the Washington Independent website. The article deals with the increasing militarization of U.S. intelligence agencies. The current directors of the CIA and NSA are both active-duty military officers. I remember when Bush named General Michael Hayden as the Director of Central Intelligence I was surprised that there wasn't more of a shitstorm. After all, the CIA is a civilian agency. Civilian agencies are, last I checked, supposed to be lead by civilians.

Anyways, Ackerman's articles explores the implications of the military's enlarging role within the intelligence community. He provides evidence that this has lead to a constriction of viewpoints. While the military definately has a number of brilliant minds in its possession, these talented men and women approach intelligence very differently than civilian intelligence agencies. Consequently, this can lead to difficulties when the director of agency must contend with an apparatus that functions, by design, in a manner that is at odds with their way of thinking.

Needless to say, the civilian intelligence agencies have had their fair share of failures under civilian leadership. However, these organizations function most effectively when they are guided by an approach that champions analysis of multiple viewpoints. While I'm sure the military is full of many different perspectives, civilian agencies are much better practitioners of this model.

When the Saint becomes a Sinner

Well, as I'm sure you know by now the Times dropped a bombshell and the Post has a few more details on St. McCain "relationship" with telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman. At first when I heard of this story, I must admit, I was very excited. Since I am, for all practical purposes, a horrible person, I was delighted to see information brought forth that would cause holy John pain. But then I remembered hearing about a story back in December that John McCain was begging, and I mean BEGGING, the Times to sit on. After reading this superb post by Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo (congrats on the Polk award!) I was actually kind of upset. Marshall points out that this actually great timing for this story to come out. Also, Marshall speculates that the Times nows much more about the "relationship" than they are letting on:

At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on 'behaving inappropriately' but then, doesn't it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch.

I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I've learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.

Not cool! Nevertheless, I still think this will be damaging to McCain. It's also a good sign that the mainstream media was willing to put out a story, albeit a watered down version, that has negative implications for St. McCain. Baby steps people, baby steps. Matt Yglesias also has an interesting post about the Iseman controversy. He brings up the point that McCain has frequently philandered in the past and he left his last wife to marry an heiress and used her money to finance his political future.

What a great guy, huh?