Politicizing the Intelligence Community

The idea that the American intelligence community is not political is unrealistic.  Senior officials are appointed by the sitting President and owe him some kind of allegiance, although how much depends on the individuals involved.  They are probably chosen because their political beliefs or inclinations are similar to those of other senior administration officials, particularly the President’s.  

I saw this first hand when I was the State Department representative on a National Intelligence Estimate about the Soviet Union’s military technology (NIE 11-12)  that began under the Carter administration and ended under the Reagan administration.  Carter’s CIA chief, Adm. Stansfield Turner, was probably somewhat dovish, like Carter.  Reagan replaced him with Bill Casey, an old hawkish OSS officer, who had been Reagan's campaign.manager.  

As work on the estimate began, the military representatives were very hawkish, wanting to include language that made the Soviets look like technological supermen who were developing high tech weapons that the US would be unable to counter.  Although I was not a very senior participant, I began to push back against this, because I did not think the intelligence supported it.  The Soviets were indeed working on high tech things that the US was not working on and that we did not understand completely, but that did not justify the conclusion that this research was going to result in weapons that would change the balance of forces between the US and the Soviet Union.  As I began to push back, I found I had support from some of the CIA representatives, who were perhaps unwilling to lead the charge against the military reps.  But around the time of the election, things changed.  The Deputy Director of the CIA, Adm. Bobby Inman, abruptly quit, and of course, Casey replaced Turner.  Under Casey, the hawkish views began to be a stronger theme in the NIE.  Casey was famous for mumbling, and when I attended the final review of the NIE, chaired by Casey, I was never sure what he said.  I would like to think that the NIE came out slightly less hawkish than it would have without my participation, but it’s hard to tell.  I think my viewpoint has been supported by what has happened in the 35 years since the NIE.  The Soviets or the Russians have still not defeated the US with some kind of high tech doomsday machine.    

In any case, the fact that Reagan’s campaign manager took over the CIA illustrates that the CIA is not an apolitical organization.  Like the Supreme Court, the CIA reads the newspapers (and a lot of other stuff).  Brennan and Clapper are not that political, but as such senior officials they are part of the intense political machinations that make Washington what it is.  

Trump and the Intelligence Community

The media commentariat thinks it is terrible that Trump has criticized the intelligence community judgement that Russia was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and other hacks related to the election.  On the other hand, it is not surprising that Trump would resist the conclusion that Russia influenced the election in his favor.  It makes it appear that he is a candidate elected by Russia against the wishes of the American people.  The intelligence community is saying that Trump is a disloyal American who has been planted by Russia to help Russia dominate the US.  He is a real “Manchurian Candidate,” life imitating the movie.  When James Clapper implies that Trump is a Russian agent, he is laying the groundwork for a coup by the intelligence agencies.  Clapper and Brennan would be happy to get rid of Trump, maybe lock him up in Guantanamo, and the mainstream press, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CNN, and all the rest would be glad to see him go.  They could then stage a new election to elect Hillary Clinton, who they all believe is Obama’s rightful heir.  

I don't really believe this will happen, but I understand why Trump might believe that he is being attacked by the intelligence community, and if they don’t remove him from office, they will try to diminish his power as President.  Of course, Clapper and Brennan will be gone when Trump takes office, unless they actually try to prevent him from taking office.  But if they leave, the intelligence community will still contain many lower level agents who oppose Trump, including some operations guys, who are basically hired killers working for the government.  Fortunately, the Secret Service is not a significant part of the intelligence community, and I believe they take their duty to protect him very seriously.  So, even if Hillary, Clapper, Brennan, Schumer, Pelosi, McCain, and company try to stage a coup, I think it is likely to fail.  But it would create political chaos in the country, because many of the political and financial elites on the two coasts would support it.  

But it’s sad even to think that senior officials of the US might lead a coup against the elected President.  If guys at the FBI, NSA or CIA are reading this, remember that you took an oath to defend the Constitution, not the political and financial elites of the East and West Coasts.  If you want to get rid of Trump, impeach him or amend the Constitution.  

Obama Started Interfering in Elections

Nobody talks about it, but the US played a role in the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.  If Putin interfered in the US election, he may have seen it as a response to Obama’s interference in Ukrainian politics, which would have cost Russia its only warm water port, Sevastople, a strategic loss to Russia.  Putin could not accept that loss, and subsequented invaded and reannexed Crimea.  

I don’t know how involved the US was in the ouster of Yanukovych.  Certainly the US pubicly supported the protesters against Yanukovych and chered his ouster.  If the CIA or other Americans were more involved, Putin probably knows that, and wants to retaliate for it.  

I don’t know whether Putin was actually involved in the hacking and leaks of election emails.  I don’t know what involvement the US may have had in Ukrainian politics.  Clearly there is a link between Ukraine and Trump in the person of Paul Manafort.  

On Charlie Rose, David Sanger of the NYT just said that Putin may have been responding to US criticism of Putin’s victory in the last Russian election.

Obama, Hillary, Ecuador and Assange

I wonder how much pressure the Obama administration brought on the Ecuadorian government to cut off Juilian Assange’s access to the Internet in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.  I don’t particularly like Assange or the fact that the Russians are meddling in the American election, but it also indicates that the US Government is putting its finger on the scales of the election.  Of course, Obama  campaigns for Hillary, but in theory he does that as a leader of the Democratic party, not as President of the United States.  Obama’s use of the US foreign policy apparatus to support Hillary reinforces the view that the government is corrupt and that the electoral system is corrupt.