Choosing a New CIA Director

“Advice and consent” is the most visible tool the US Congress has for influencing choices for major posts in the executive branch of our national government.  Senior administrative officers have a great deal of say in how the laws are implemented, so you would expect senators to jealously guard their independence in exercising this power.  But the US Senate’s current consideration of Gina Haspel to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reflects the ambivalent manner with which the senators seem to approach this responsibility.

Consider first the origins of the agency Haspel wants to lead.

  

As World War II was winding down, leaders in both the US and among our Allies determined that German and Japanese political and military officials should be punished severely for their treatment of foreign populations and captives.  For several years following the end of the conflict trials for “war crimes” were conducted.  In those trials “following orders” was not considered justification for ignoring human dignity and basic justice.  War would no longer be viewed as an excuse for gross mistreatment of an enemy.

Also based on our wartime experience, America’s political and military leadership recognized our national security structure needed a significant overhaul.  The War Department was inadequate to manage the expanded military establishment, so the Defense Department was created to oversee the individual services and the National Security Council was established to better coordinate advice for the President.  In addition, the failure to foresee Pearl Harbor was considered a major blunder, so in order to better utilize intelligence assets the CIA came into being.  The Secretary of the Defense Department and the Director of the CIA were both considered civilian positions.

When these organizational changes were implemented, the Cold War was in its early stages.  However, they proved useful as the US was forced to deal with persistent international security threats.  Over time the roles and responsibilities of the new agencies have expanded and have changed.  Policing and humanitarian relief have become more significant duties for the military services, while covert interventions have been frequently pursued by the CIA as the risks of war have become more costly.

The American public always has had a mixed reaction to the CIA.  Its role as coordinator of US intelligence assets seems legitimate, but the use of deception and Machiavellian dark arts appear inconsistent with the values of fair play and honest dealings we generally advocate.  Reluctantly, the average citizen has tolerated the covert activities of the CIA as a necessary alternative to full scale combat with unfriendly regimes.

9/11 and the “War on Terrorism” raised the ante as the CIA became involved in using “enhanced interrogation” in an attempt to collection information from captives denied access to US or international courts.  The benefits of these tactics are questionable considering that we are still embroiled in conflicts throughout the Middle East and seem flummoxed about how to deal with China and Russia.

This brings us to the qualifications of Haspel to be Director of the CIA.

Her advocates point to her long years of service in the organization and defend her direct involvement in “enhanced interrogation” with the argument that those activities were considered “legal” at the time.  In her appearance before the US Senate Intelligence Committee Haspel refused to pass judgment on whether or not such activities were immoral.  She did promise “enhanced interrogation” would not be resumed under her watch, but refused to say what she would do if President Trump insisted the CIA do so.

Three questions should be considered by the US Senate in determining whether or not to advise and consent to Haspel’s nomination:

1) Are long years of service the best criterion for selecting a CIA director when we are clearly entering an age when conflict among nations is taking on new forms such as economic sanctions and cyberterrorism?

2) How committed is Haspel to resisting a demand from President Trump to reinstate “enhanced interrogation” given the fact that he has indicated support for such action?

3) While it would be nice to appoint woman as head of the CIA, is there not another potential director with far less baggage and the requisite qualifications?

For me the answer is clear.

The CIA must continue to play an important role in the implementation of US foreign policy, so its leadership should be cognizant of and committed to the fundamental values of our nation and respected by our allies.  Under the circumstances of Haspel’s background, America’s opposition to “war crimes” is likely to be called into question by her appointment. While Haspel’s years of service are for the most part admirable, they are also an indication she may not be able to escape the silo of her experience. Furthermore, her nomination, like several others on the part of President Trump does not appear to have been well vetted.  

The US Senate would be doing the nation and the President a favor to reject Haspel’s nomination.