Even before President Bush officially nominated Gen. Michael V. Hayden on Monday to replace Porter Goss as Central Intelligence Agency director, bipartisan critics had raised questions about the Air Force officer’s suitability.
By education and experience, there is no doubt Hayden is qualified for the job, but congressional Republicans and Democrats alike worry about a military man rather than a civilian running the spook shop.
Even more important, some lawmakers have reservations because Hayden (appointed in 1999 by President Clinton) was director of the National Security Agency during the controversial program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping. That’s a valid concern.
We’re not as worried about Hayden’s military background as Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who said it would be wrong to pick a military officer to head the CIA, especially with critical issues like Iran’s nuclear program on the horizon. “We need to be able to get the unvarnished intelligence, and we need to be able to get it from a civilian,” Hoekstra said over the weekend. “This is one more step in [the Pentagon] taking over the intelligence community.”
“The fact that [Hayden] is part of the military today would be a problem,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have concerns about Hayden’s role in the NSA wiretaps.
We agree with Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., that “Gen. Hayden comes to this process with strong credentials.” Indeed, Hayden strikes us as a dedicated professional. He has been in intelligence work for most of his military career, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with having a CIA chief with a military background.
The Office of Strategic Services, the World War II ancestor of the CIA, was headed by Maj. Gen. William “Wild Bill” Donovan. And the first director of the civilianized CIA was Rear Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter. By some accounts, 13 of the agency’s 19 directors have come from the military.
But no one should hold back during the confirmation hearings on asking Hayden tough questions about domestic snooping and the justifications for ignoring the Fourth Amendment. And he needs to be questioned about his view of the agency’s relationship with the new umbrella national intelligence agency, of which Hayden is deputy director.
