Who Can Lead a Secret Service: The Portrait of a CIA Director
Published in Jurnalul Naţional
(Romania) on 29 April 2011
by Razvan Belciuganu (link to original)
(Romania) on 29 April 2011
by Razvan Belciuganu (link to original)
Translated from
by Adriana Ioţcov.
Edited by Michelle Harris.
When nominating a chief of secret services, the primary concern of Romanian politicians is whether that person belongs to the main interest group. The mentality that still predominates is that the secret service, irrespective of what that service is called, serves to monitor political and economic opponents and securely safeguard one’s own political and economic affairs. Thus, our secret service directors are always referred to, during heated discussions that sometimes reach the public sphere, as “X’s man.” In Romania’s post-1989 history, by applying the above-mentioned principle, we ended up with chiefs of secret services whose qualities were explicitly measured only by the politicians or businessmen who appointed them. Unfortunately, these individuals gained their qualifications on the job and soon became interested in developing the visions for which they had been employed. Later on, they promoted officers who resembled them in every single way and who did everything in the interest of the party, group, clique, etc.
These days, the United States of America is preparing to replace the director of the CIA, and the favorite candidate for the position, according to the American press, is General David Petraeus. The name of this general began to gain notoriety all over the globe after he was put in charge of the operations in Iraq, against the dramatic backdrop of attacks, which resembled a civil war that the U.S. seemed unable to control. Once General Petraeus took over, things became stable in Iraq, and the military man was promoted to commander of the U.S. Central Command. When things got worse in Afghanistan, the general was sent to the war region, and he accepted what was, in fact, a lower position. As a strategist on two U.S. war fronts, and as an artisan of the fight against insurgents, General Petraeus was a first-hand consumer of information, which he received from both Pentagon and CIA services. His strategies were founded on information from the U.S. secret service community, especially as General Petraeus knew what to ask of the field agents and analysts working for the institutions in question.
However, before he got to decide the systematic use of drones in Afghanistan in order to hunt down the Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorists, General David Petraeus arduously built his career step-by-step, after having graduated from the Military Academy at West Point. Petraeus became a military general when he was 48, after a career spanning 26 years, unlike what happens in Romania, where some officers with friends in high places can easily skip steps. Besides military life, General Petraeus was busy deepening his academic knowledge and obtained a Ph.D in international relations from the prestigious Princeton University. In Romania, some generals — this is valid for the entire sphere of national security: the army, interior, information services — get their Ph.Ds in bulk, as a consequence of the functions bestowed upon them, because it looks good to be a “doctor.”
The man appointed head of the CIA shows how a great power like the U.S. handles its own interests. Thus, national interests come first, and all other interests are of secondary importance. Therefore, a balancing factor such as Petraeus is necessary. If we must follow other people’s examples, we should at least follow valuable ones!
These days, the United States of America is preparing to replace the director of the CIA, and the favorite candidate for the position, according to the American press, is General David Petraeus. The name of this general began to gain notoriety all over the globe after he was put in charge of the operations in Iraq, against the dramatic backdrop of attacks, which resembled a civil war that the U.S. seemed unable to control. Once General Petraeus took over, things became stable in Iraq, and the military man was promoted to commander of the U.S. Central Command. When things got worse in Afghanistan, the general was sent to the war region, and he accepted what was, in fact, a lower position. As a strategist on two U.S. war fronts, and as an artisan of the fight against insurgents, General Petraeus was a first-hand consumer of information, which he received from both Pentagon and CIA services. His strategies were founded on information from the U.S. secret service community, especially as General Petraeus knew what to ask of the field agents and analysts working for the institutions in question.
However, before he got to decide the systematic use of drones in Afghanistan in order to hunt down the Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorists, General David Petraeus arduously built his career step-by-step, after having graduated from the Military Academy at West Point. Petraeus became a military general when he was 48, after a career spanning 26 years, unlike what happens in Romania, where some officers with friends in high places can easily skip steps. Besides military life, General Petraeus was busy deepening his academic knowledge and obtained a Ph.D in international relations from the prestigious Princeton University. In Romania, some generals — this is valid for the entire sphere of national security: the army, interior, information services — get their Ph.Ds in bulk, as a consequence of the functions bestowed upon them, because it looks good to be a “doctor.”
The man appointed head of the CIA shows how a great power like the U.S. handles its own interests. Thus, national interests come first, and all other interests are of secondary importance. Therefore, a balancing factor such as Petraeus is necessary. If we must follow other people’s examples, we should at least follow valuable ones!