Washington Turns Soldiers into Spies
U.S. President Barack Obama is shaking-up his staff. The CIA director will now head the Pentagon, and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, the CIA. These shifts reflect the tight interweaving of functions between defense and intelligence. However, according to the experts in conversation with the Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the president deprived General Petraeus of the opportunity to be a candidate in the presidential election.
Relieving the guard in the Department of Defense was an expected event. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, previously appointed by George Bush, has to resign. This resignation will entail changes in the Pentagon and the CIA. On April 28, as The New York Times reported, Obama announced the nomination of CIA Director Leon Panetta to the post of Secretary of Defense, and the transfer of Petraeus to Panetta’s post.
Obama’s decision evinces significant shifts in the American strategy for waging wars abroad. The differences between soldiers and spies are also fading in U.S. secret missions.
As the head of the CIA, Panetta hastened the transformation of the agency into a half-military organization. The CIA escalated bombings of Pakistan from drones. At the same time, the number of secret bases as well as the agents at them increased in the distant regions of Afghanistan.
On the other hand, General Petraeus insisted strongly on the penetration of the military into a sphere that was previously dominated by the CIA. Special Operation Forces and private contractors were given intelligence tasks.
It was so even before Petraeus was sent to Afghanistan. Occupying the post of the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, in September 2009 he signed a secret order that enabled Special Operations Forces to gather intelligence information in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and other regions outside the zones where military operations took place.
As a result, CIA agents and the military can barely be distinguished from one another. As former CIA Officer Henry Crumpton predicts that the former military officials setting the tone in the agency, may arouse the discontent of others. Pakistan, a U.S. ally, even requires that Americans inform on who is participating in secret operations in their country.
Nevertheless, the trend is obvious. The interweaving of functions reflects the conviction of the U.S. government that it is far easier to deal with the majority of enemies by means of timely intelligence rather than with overwhelming firepower.
During the conversation with Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the director of the Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Sergey Rogov, said that “the decision of Obama, who has been in power for three years and is now preparing for the new election, is dictated, first of all, by his intention to control key players in the administration. Gates, as a Republican, played a very important role, protecting Obama from the attacks of the Republican Party, which accused Obama of being a pacifist.”
Panetta’s nomination as the Pentagon’s head is caused by the necessity to strictly control the huge military machine under the circumstances in which cutting the military budget is inevitable. Panetta is a Democrat, but he has considerable experience working with Republicans in Congress. His appointment will help facilitate the attainment of agreements.
“Petraeus is famous as the author of new and successful military tactics in Iraq. He also fought in Afghanistan. He demonstrated that he is able to control the situation. He is held in respect throughout the country.”
However, he is inclined to make independent decisions. This could generate problems for Obama. The president wants to begin withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, whereas the general considers such action to be premature. The contradictions could provoke a negative reaction from Congress.
Besides, it should be remembered that several military generals — Washington, Grant, Eisenhower — became presidents. Petraeus could follow their example. By nominating the general to be the CIA director, the president deprives him of the opportunity to become a public politician and play an independent role.
Responding to the question about the influence of these shifts on Russian-American relations, the expert noted that the consultations on military technical cooperation are held between Moscow and Washington. Gates occupied a rather active position. Panetta never commented on these issues. Now he has to be engaged with them. “However, drastic changes can hardly be anticipated. The most important thing for the new secretary is to escape from defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to involve America in a war in Libya and to solve the problem of budget limitations. The relations with Russia are not at the forefront; they are like the fifth wheel.”
Relieving the guard in the Department of Defense was an expected event. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, previously appointed by George Bush, has to resign. This resignation will entail changes in the Pentagon and the CIA. On April 28, as The New York Times reported, Obama announced the nomination of CIA Director Leon Panetta to the post of Secretary of Defense, and the transfer of Petraeus to Panetta’s post.
Obama’s decision evinces significant shifts in the American strategy for waging wars abroad. The differences between soldiers and spies are also fading in U.S. secret missions.
As the head of the CIA, Panetta hastened the transformation of the agency into a half-military organization. The CIA escalated bombings of Pakistan from drones. At the same time, the number of secret bases as well as the agents at them increased in the distant regions of Afghanistan.
On the other hand, General Petraeus insisted strongly on the penetration of the military into a sphere that was previously dominated by the CIA. Special Operation Forces and private contractors were given intelligence tasks.
It was so even before Petraeus was sent to Afghanistan. Occupying the post of the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, in September 2009 he signed a secret order that enabled Special Operations Forces to gather intelligence information in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and other regions outside the zones where military operations took place.
As a result, CIA agents and the military can barely be distinguished from one another. As former CIA Officer Henry Crumpton predicts that the former military officials setting the tone in the agency, may arouse the discontent of others. Pakistan, a U.S. ally, even requires that Americans inform on who is participating in secret operations in their country.
Nevertheless, the trend is obvious. The interweaving of functions reflects the conviction of the U.S. government that it is far easier to deal with the majority of enemies by means of timely intelligence rather than with overwhelming firepower.
During the conversation with Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the director of the Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Sergey Rogov, said that “the decision of Obama, who has been in power for three years and is now preparing for the new election, is dictated, first of all, by his intention to control key players in the administration. Gates, as a Republican, played a very important role, protecting Obama from the attacks of the Republican Party, which accused Obama of being a pacifist.”
Panetta’s nomination as the Pentagon’s head is caused by the necessity to strictly control the huge military machine under the circumstances in which cutting the military budget is inevitable. Panetta is a Democrat, but he has considerable experience working with Republicans in Congress. His appointment will help facilitate the attainment of agreements.
“Petraeus is famous as the author of new and successful military tactics in Iraq. He also fought in Afghanistan. He demonstrated that he is able to control the situation. He is held in respect throughout the country.”
However, he is inclined to make independent decisions. This could generate problems for Obama. The president wants to begin withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, whereas the general considers such action to be premature. The contradictions could provoke a negative reaction from Congress.
Besides, it should be remembered that several military generals — Washington, Grant, Eisenhower — became presidents. Petraeus could follow their example. By nominating the general to be the CIA director, the president deprives him of the opportunity to become a public politician and play an independent role.
Responding to the question about the influence of these shifts on Russian-American relations, the expert noted that the consultations on military technical cooperation are held between Moscow and Washington. Gates occupied a rather active position. Panetta never commented on these issues. Now he has to be engaged with them. “However, drastic changes can hardly be anticipated. The most important thing for the new secretary is to escape from defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to involve America in a war in Libya and to solve the problem of budget limitations. The relations with Russia are not at the forefront; they are like the fifth wheel.”
Previous article![]( "Has bin Laden Begun Talking Yet?")
