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?

A Sign of things to come...

The indomitable Glenn Greenwald has a great post up about recent media coverage of Barack Obama. While the mainstream media's coverage of Obama has for the most part been fairly positive thus far, Greenwald points out that the week leading up to the WI primary saw an uptick in the amount of contentious coverage of his candidacy. I think Greenwald makes a valid point when he argues that what we saw last week was just a fraction of what we will see in the general election. The media will lay down in traffic for St. McCain of Arizona, son of God, heir to the throne of the Lord. The only reason they have been so positive towards Obama thus far is because he is running against Hillary Clinton, whom the media hate without regard.

I think Obama will be able to transcend any negative media coverage he recieves in the general. Obama's base of support (young people, college graduates, independents, African-Americans) is fiercely loyal to him, and it should be mentioned, they hold deeply suspect feelings towards the mainstream media. As long as Obama can manage not to commit any major gaffes, the media's undying love for holy John will not be enough to carry the day.

Well Played Wisconsin!

As I'm sure you know by now, Obama won Wisconsin. It looks like he'll be walking away with 38 additional delegates to Clinton's 27. Obama made significant inroads into working class voters last night and he won every age group under 65. This is very encouraging, especially as far as working class voters are concerned. He will need their support to have any shot in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I'm still not willing to count Clinton out, she's a brillinat person, and I'm sure she has few more cards to play. That being said, in order for her candidacy to remain viable, she's going to have to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania by huge margins. While this is not impossible, it is highly unlikely. Obama will get lots of positive media coverage as a result of his win in Wisconsin. Consequently, he will move up in the polls. Should be an interesting two weeks.

P.S. I still maintain that Chris Matthews is an ass, but this take-down of Texas State Senator (and Obama supporter) Kirk Watson is just damn good journalism.

St. John Loves Constant War

E.J. Dionne, Jr. has a useful column for the Democratic presidential candidates in today's Post. The basic thrust of Dionne's argument is that Obama and/or Clinton should not hesistate in critiquing McCain's view, and the neoconservatives (which McCain is, in fact, now among), that terrorism comprises the greatest struggle the U.S. has faced since the Cold War. Dionne argues, in effect, that McCain places too much emphasis on terrorism and too little on other foreign policy dilemmas. He lists strained relations between Latin America and the U.S. and poverty in Africa among others as issues that deserve more focus. It seems to me that reducing poverty aound the world would restore much of the goodwill the rest of the planet use to have for America. Needless to say, if America adopted a foreign policy guided more by humility and compassion, it would do more to combat terrorism than a million-man army.

Tuesday White Man's Burden Blogging

Bill Kristol's latest column in the Times is a joke. In fact, calling it a joke is probably too kind. In his column, Kristol argues that Democrats would be much better off if they read Rudyard Kipling. I mean, what? He envisions the Republicans as the heirs to Kipling, whereas the Democrats are the opposition. Kipling, while a talented writer, was a rascist bigot and an imperialist. In his defense, Kristol does briefly mention that Kipling was "politically incorrect." However, that's like saying the Joker has a screw loose.

Go Vote!

Steve Rogers, aka Captain America, has just contacted me with a request for all you Wisconsin people out there. He would like you to support democracy and vote! I really don't want the Avengers coming after me, plus Steve is a really good guy, so please go and vote!