Will Civilians Control the Military?

President Bush's nomination of Air Force General Michael V. Hayden to direct the Central Intelligence Agency has opened a debate over whether the most fundamental principles of the American Republic remain will remain in place.

The founders who proposed to "chain the dogs of war" established civilian control over the military as an essential underpinning of the American experiment. Along with their determination to put in place a system of checks and balances, which they constructed to prevent presidents from leading the country into war without properly consulting Congress, Jefferson, Madison and their compatriots believed that giving civilians the means to manage the military was necessary if the nation they imagined was to be free.

Agonizingly aware of the abuses that had been imposed upon the former colonies by a British military accountable only to a distant and dictatorial king, the founders worried about the degeneration of the American experiment into a state of affairs similar to that of the Empire against which they had rebelled.

Sam Adams warned that, "Even when there is a necessity of military power, within the land... a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful & jealous eye over it." Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and the fifth vice president of the United States, argued that, "Standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism."

Gerry was no radical. He expressed a common concern about the scope and power of the new nation's military, according to the essential review of thinking of the founders with regard to civilian control of the military compiled by Dr. Michael F. Cairo, a specialist in American foreign policy and the foreign policy process.

"At the beginnings of the Republic," recalls Dr. Cairo, in an explanation of the principle distributed by no less an authority than the U.S. State Department, "four basic premises conditioned how most Americans saw civilian control of the military. First, large military forces were viewed as a threat to liberty, a legacy of British history and the army's occupation in the colonial period. Second, large military forces threatened American democracy. This notion was linked to the ideal of the citizen-soldier and fears of establishing an aristocratic or autocratic military class. Third, large military forces threatened economic prosperity. Maintaining large standing armies represented an enormous burden on the fledgling economy of a new nation. Finally, large military forces threatened peace. The founders accepted the liberal proposition that arms races led to war. Thus, civilian control of the military arose from a set of historical circumstances and became embedded over time in American political thought through tradition, custom, and belief."

To cement those principles in place, the founders assured that a civilian, the president, would serve as commander-in-chief of the military. They also established the principle and the precedent that, as Alexander Hamilton noted in a discussion of the management of the military in the Federalist Papers, "the whole power of the proposed government is to be in the hands of the representatives of the people." To Hamilton's view, "This is the essential, and, after all, the only efficacious security for the rights and privileges of the people which is attainable in civil society."

In order to maintain meaningful civilian control of the military, however, one commodity has always been essential: honest intelligence about global threats and opportunities gathered and assessed by an independent agency that recognizes its responsibility to inform and empower civilian authorities -- as opposed to merely echoing the official line of the Pentagon.

This is a wall of separation every bit as important as the one the founders proposed to divide church and state. And the motivation was the same: a sense, born of painful experience, that only by maintaining a strict separation of powers and influences could the new Republic function across the long term as an entity distinct from the monarchical dictatorships of old Europe.

President Bush says his nominee to succeed scandal-hobbled Central Intelligence Agency director Porter Goss is "the right man to lead the CIA at this critical moment in our nation's history." But even if it was true that Hayden's background made him "the right man" for the job -- as assumption shot down by the fact of Hayden's involvement with the president's illegal program of eavesdropping on the phone conversations of Americans -- the appointment of a military commander to head the nation's premier civilian intelligence gathering and analysis agency would still by the wrong move at this or any other point in American history.

Any effort to collapse the wall of separation between an agency charged with gathering the intelligence needed to enable civilians to guide and manage the military -- as the Hayden appointment would surely do -- has to be seen as a radical assault on the founding principles of the Republic.

To his credit, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the Illinois Republican who rarely differs with the White House, does see it that way.

"The Speaker does not believe that a military person should be leading the CIA, a civilian agency," explains Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean.

Hastert argues that putting a general in charge of the "CIA would give too much influence over the U.S. intelligence community to the Pentagon."

The Speaker is right, and his position parallels that of House Intelligence Committee chair Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who has led the charge against Hayden's nomination. "I do believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time," Hoekstra says of Hayden. "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."

The only problem in Hoekstra's otherwise strong statement is his "at this time" qualification.

There is never a right time to undermine the fundamental American principle that civilians should control the military -- and that those civilians should have access to the independent intelligence that alone makes real the promise of such control.

Comments (40)

1. Sigh... Where we as a country when Democrats (see Diane Feinstein, et al) are patting this General on the back and suggesting all he has to do is "retire" from the military and then everything will be perfectly alright? I would suggest that there are a number of Democrats in Congress who need to have the threat of forced retirement hung over their worthless heads so that they can contemplate their own career moves.

   Posted by smckenna at 05/09/2006 @ 11:40pm

2. When carter nominated Stansfield Turner, what was that?

   Posted by voreddy at 05/10/2006 @ 12:27am

3. Rio, are you not tired of still blaming all the faults of the current administration on Clinton? Yawnnnn... boring!

   PK

   Posted by kennett at 05/10/2006 @ 03:11am

4. Years ago when Chavez in Venezuela started to place his militar friends on all public service positions, the Bush administration became very critical on this, even stating that that amounted to militarization of public life and administration...........so where are we now ?

   Posted by areyouok at 05/10/2006 @ 06:34am

5. Two simple words...

   "PROBABLE CAUSE"

   These are the two words that represent the threshold required to obtain a warrant under FISA.

   "REASONABLE SUSPICION"

   These are the two words that separate Bush's existing program from falling within the law of the land according to the US Constitution.

   Bush and Gonzales have attempted to reinterpret the Constitution, claiming that spying on US Persons is justified when there exists a "REASONABLE SUSPICION" of wrong doing.

   The threshold is "PROBABLE CAUSE" - a HIGHER THRESHOLD than Reasonable Suspicion.

   They will avoid using these two words (Probable Cause) at all cost. These two words are poison for their cause.

   Regardless, a warrant under the supervision of FISA is ALWAYS a requirement for spying on US persons...period.

   The ONLY reason not to seek a warrant under FISA is if the target of the spying is a US person for whom there is no "PROBABLE CAUSE" of a direct connection to terrorism.

   Logic dictates that those who have been the subject of NSA surveillance without benefit of FISA have been US Persons not likely to be involved with terrorists.

   Spying on US Persons for political purposes (or revenge) is the stuff impeachments are made of.

   IMPEACH

   Posted by plunger at 05/10/2006 @ 07:57am

6. would it be too much to ask Mr.Nichols to proofread his work before posting?

   Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2006 @ 08:36am

7. Posted by VOREDDY 05/10/2006 @ 12:27am | ignore this person

   Uh, yeah.....ADMIRAL Stansfield Turner becomes Pres. Carter's CIA Director in 1977?

   Posted by Mask at 05/10/2006 @ 08:59am

8. GIVE UP!

   Hayden will go through with barely a whimper. Presumably somebody will realize that unless he's an ameoba capable of splitting himself that he cannot possibly effectively do two full time jobs simultaneously. Thus he will resign as a general, the Democrats will claim victory and the he'll be nominated and the status quo will carry on.

   The fake Democrat / Nation / Corporate media outrage is laughable at this point. If Phase II can be entirely forgotten there is zero accountability. There is NOTHING this administration can't get away with....even with 31% approval ratings.

   Posted by freedomplease at 05/10/2006 @ 09:10am

9. Correction:

   He'll be CONFIRMED not nominated

   Posted by freedomplease at 05/10/2006 @ 09:13am

10. Here we go. The problem in the current administration isn't military domination of the civilian authorities, its actually the opposite. At every step of planning heading up to the current war in Iraq, the civilian administration ignored military plans for the occupation of Iraq and used its own intelligence assessments when they didn't get what they wanted to hear. I would go so far as to say the current situation in Iraq is due to idea that civilian control must be maintained (as it should, I am in no way advocating the military be involved in the political process) to , in this case, to the detrement of the Military.

    Rumsfeld has at every step made sure to fill his inner circle with nothing but yes men who will conform to his wishes. So the disturbing thing about this nomination isn't the fact that he's a general, but the fact thatRumsfeld picked him and supports him, assuring the intel fits his narrow world-view.

    So let's not see this as the military seeking control of a civilian agency, but the Bush administration exerting more control over the intelligence community.

    Posted by wjneil at 05/10/2006 @ 09:46am

11. Posted by WJNEIL 05/10/2006 @ 09:46am | ignore this person

    I noted THAT too, WJ. Mr Nichols bemoans "loss of civilian control over the intelligence agencies", yet not a week ago, "The Nation" was talking about "all the retired generals who want Rumsfeld's resignation".

    Would Mr Nichols oppose ONE OF THEM....becoming CIA Director too?

    Posted by Mask at 05/10/2006 @ 10:26am

12. I think WJNEIL makes good points. And we can believe--for this once--if we choose, that Hastert, et. al. are standing up for a cherished American concept. But there is no sense in doing that. More than anything Hastert is aware that, regardless of Hayden's ability to do the job, the appearance of Rumsfeld or any single current administration official being a little too cozy with the CIA director is creepy enough to be a potential drawback in November.

    But at this point, with Goss's housecleaning of the last year and a half, Negroponte's power play, and Cheney's history of meddling with CIA activities, just whom can they nominate who will not stink of the failures of the White House?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/10/2006 @ 12:53pm

13. And it connects to FREEDOM's reminders about Phase II. Congress's first priority at this point is anything to avoid rehashing past mistakes. Such issues are the first step in unraveling their current grip on power.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/10/2006 @ 12:57pm

14. I don't think his military record really matters. What matters are his contacts/connections/friends. Has any CIA director not had business contacts/interests with the defense industry? And I'd say that the competence of a nominee (first) and the content of his character should be the primary criteria. Would someone in the military, but who is a proven "maverick" be suitable? I'd say yes. Would a civilian with lots of money and friends in the defense industry be suitable? I'd say no.

    Posted by wereverywhere at 05/10/2006 @ 12:59pm

15. When does Congress recess? Surely, the Bushies will just elevate Hayden using a recess appointment -- assuming the Senate really tries to exert some control over the Executive Branch.

    Posted by kallen at 05/10/2006 @ 1:08pm

16. Then keep an eye on Memorial Day weekend, KALLEN.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/10/2006 @ 1:23pm

17. Will Civilians Control the Military?

    -John Nichols

    Yes, John.

    Let us not overreact - let us maintain perspective.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 05/10/2006 @ 2:48pm

18. It's hard to know how/why we will ever trust intelligence again. Okay, I know there are people ready to trust anything said by the right people, but how is the CIA or any of the other intelligence gathering agencies going to be able to prove they are right? Are we to give them one more shot to see if they get it right? What if the next shot is along the order of the Cuban Missile Crisis and we respond with the same bravado, only to find out that the photographs represented new plantain processing plants rather than missile sites?

    We've goofed plenty in the past under virtually all administrations. Slam Dunk Tenet and Puppetmaster Cheney might have set a new mark. However, the real problem is not who's doing the gathering. It's an administration that has in place an NSA head, Secretary of Defense or State, or his own intelligence czar who is dedicated to unraveling information rather than using it to further a political agenda. It's the new network of agencies that is overseen by a single person, Negroponte, that is worrisome. By allowing one person the power to mold differing accounts of the same intelligence issue into a single, unified whole, we are certain to continue to overlook important evidence against what would appear to be the most obvious action.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/10/2006 @ 5:27pm

19. the fish stinks from the head.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 05/10/2006 @ 5:28pm

20. Updated: 3:40 p.m. ET May 10, 2006 WASHINGTON - CIA director-nominee Michael Hayden has told at least one Democratic senator that he may be open to changing the law that governs eavesdropping on U.S. soil to allow the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance.

    Isn't this an interesting statement? The architect of the NSA's secretive spying-without-warrants program is admitting that (a the spying is happening on US soil and b) it is in violation of existing law.

    Posted by Lillian at 05/10/2006 @ 5:32pm

21. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12701459/

    Posted by Lillian at 05/10/2006 @ 5:35pm

22. To Lillian (5:23 pm post):

    Yes, that is an interesting statement.

    My reply to General Hayden would be along the lines of Mr. Cheney's now famous response to Senator Leahy.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/10/2006 @ 6:58pm

23. To all:

    I've posted this before, so I'll say it here. There is nothing unique about an active duty military commander taking leave to serve in a civilian capacity. General Haig and General Powell both served briefly as White House chief of staff and Admiral Turner also served as DCI, as pointed out above.

    Having said that, I would oppose the nomination of anybody, military or civilian, to a post of responsibility such as this one who is associated with the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. That program should be named in an article of impeachment against Mr. Bush and in no way should those who devised this program be rewarded.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/10/2006 @ 7:05pm

24. The military has far too much power. And our elected "leaders" are far too willing to give the military more than what they need. It is time for civilians to run our government. So if a military person wishes to work in the civilian part of the government, they must leave the military. Oh, and that Reagan thing of saluting should stop. The President doesn't wear a military uniform! (Well unless your Bush doing a photo op!)

    Posted by theleftcoast at 05/10/2006 @ 8:22pm

25. That program should be named in an article of impeachment against Mr. Bush and in no way should those who devised this program be rewarded.

    Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/10/2006 @ 7:05pm

    Br'er Rabbit, I completely agree with you. But in this fucked up world in which we live, this guy (Hayden) is gonna be awarded the damn presidential medal of freedom.

    Mark my words. If Dubyak and this goombah survive to Jan 20, 2009, he'll get the damn thing. Talk about I-freakin'-ronic.

    Posted by skeletonman at 05/10/2006 @ 8:27pm

26. Generals Gone Wild?

    Rumsfeld is a civilian. Cheney is a civilian. The real problem is not the generals, a mild obedient bunch overall, but control of the military by militarists.

    Posted by hquain at 05/11/2006 @ 07:54am

27. Lillian

    I believe you are misinterperting Gen Haydens statement.

    The fact that he is an active-duty general should not be a major concern, he has been in intell his whole career, he is qualified to do the job.

    The domestic terrorist surveillence program, has not been determined to be illegal by ANY competent authority. Sorry opinions from learned law professors dont qualify as competent authority.

    The conversation that LILLIAN refers to is not an admittance of guilt from Hayden, but rather an admittance by those who realize that they cannot do anything to stop it and want to pass a law so that they feel better about it.

    Hayden is simply saying, that if you want to change the law Senator so that you can feel better about allowing us to spy on terrorists here in this country, go ahead, it is really not necessary but if it makes you feel better.

    Posted by CPT at 05/11/2006 @ 09:01am

28. A bad, DOA appointment, that not even anti-American Republican House Leader Bill Frist will go along with.

    George Bush supporters didnt care much about the incompetence of Harriet Myers for the Supreme Court - a George Bush sycophant who had never been a judge in her entire life.

    George Bush supporters didnt care much about the incompetence of George Bushs appointee Arabian Horse Brownie for the FEMA.

    And finally, George Bush supporters didnt object when George Bush appointed the traitor Porter Goss, the Failure, to punish the CIA for telling the truth to George Bush about Iraq.

    George Bush, Porter Goss, John Negroponte with his Salvadoran Option for Iraq that will solve a whole lot of problems, these idiots have had more than enough time for the majority of Americans to realize that they are stupid, non-trustworthy, corrupt - selling policy and Soviet-style government contracts to the highest bidder.

    George Bush is burning bricks of freshly minted $100 US bills in Iraq, despite the great stocks of oil that country has.

    This General Hayden is another Harriet Myers.

    We now have Republican leaders blocking parts of George Bushs agenda to weaken Americas security.

    Posted by conshame at 05/11/2006 @ 09:48am

29. I agree with the prior posters who pointed out

    1) The issue is that Hayden is Rumsfeld's man. DOD has been the refuge for the neo-con ideologues who gave us this mess. That was the reason they were given control of the botched Iraqi reconstruction rather than State. The Office of Special Plans was a DOD creature. The fact that Rumsfeld wants Hayden in this job s/b sufficient reason to disqualify him since it's simply one more attempt by Rumsfeld to control the spin on intelligence. The Republicans obviously can't admit that so they use the civilian/military dodge.

    2) His support of the illegal warrantless wiretapping program.

    Posted by brunowe at 05/11/2006 @ 09:53am

30. Let's not forget that in addition to being the goon who proposed the wireless wiretapping program - which reportedly has a database of 10's of millions of calls - Hayden was also the HMFIC at NSA on 9/11 and during the WMD-not! fiasco. Sounds like a great guy to have in charge at CIA.

    Posted by skeletonman at 05/11/2006 @ 11:25am

31. To CPT:

    First of all, the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches. Second, Congress did not expressly grant this power to the executive. Even regime spokespeople argue that the power is implied. Consequently, the question is not whether a competent authority has ruled the program illegal. Until a competent authority rules otherwise, we may presume the NSA program is illegal.

    Now, I'd like to draw your attention to this little tidbit in today's news:

    From USA Today dated Thursday May 11

    NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

    By Leslie Cauley, USA Today

    The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA Today.

    The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans -- most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

    "It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

    For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made -- across town or across the country -- to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

    Please read more.

    Do you seriously think tens of millions of Americans have contact with al Qaida? Or do you suppose something else is going on here?

    This doesn't sound like a valid intelligence gathering operation to me. It sounds more like an object lesson on why we have a Fourth Amendment.

    I wouldn't trust Jimmy Carter with the power to instigate a warrantless search program like this. I'm certainly not going to trust G. W. Bush.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 12:13pm

32. First of all, the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches. Second, Congress did not expressly grant this power to the executive.

    Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/11/2006 @ 12:13am

    Nor could congress. Granting such power to the executive would take a constitutional amendment.

    Posted by skeletonman at 05/11/2006 @ 12:22pm

33. First of all, the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches. Second, Congress did not expressly grant this power to the executive.

    Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/11/2006 @ 12:13am

    Nor could congress. Granting such power to the executive would take a constitutional amendment.

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 05/11/2006 @ 12:22am | ignore this person

    Skel, I would agree with your assessment. However, Jack may have been referring to the fact that the pResident expressly sought the inclusion of special warrentless-search powers as part of the Patriot Act renewal. Congress did discuss the subject and, ultimately, made a very specific point of excluding any/all language to that effect.

    In other words, he asked and they said no. (And then he did it anyway.)

    Posted by Lillian at 05/11/2006 @ 1:02pm

34. In other words, he asked and they said no. (And then he did it anyway.)

    Posted by LILLIAN 05/11/2006 @ 1:02pm

    Which makes him worse than a naughty 5 year old, IMHO.

    Posted by skeletonman at 05/11/2006 @ 1:06pm

35. The conversation that LILLIAN refers to is not an admittance of guilt from Hayden, but rather an admittance by those who realize that they cannot do anything to stop it and want to pass a law so that they feel better about it.

    Posted by CPT 05/11/2006 @ 09:01am | ignore this person

    That's quite a twist of reasoning there CPT. Tell me, how can a statement from one individual ("an admittance" as you call it) get magically transformed into "an admittance" of the complete opposite opinion held by a completely different group?

    Posted by Lillian at 05/11/2006 @ 1:07pm

36. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity...

    I can't help but wonder who they are calling "terrorists"? We already know they were spying on Quakers. Do they really believe Quakers are terrorists? If Quakers, who else?

    Historically, in Latin America, nuns, priests, doctors, nurses, social workers and labor organizers have been targeted (and murdered) by US-sponsored military dictators. The logical conclusion is to assume that anyone who is pro liberty and justice for all will be considered a terrorist by the rabid right.

    Posted by kallen at 05/11/2006 @ 1:20pm

37. To Kallen:

    I can't help but wonder who they are calling "terrorists"?

    That's the whole point of the Fourth Amendment. I'm surprised that so-called conservatives aren't alarmed at the power Bush is assuming for himself. Years ago, they were the ones who worried about big government and intrusion into private affairs. Now they justify it.

    Conservative is the most abused term in the American political lexicon today. Bush is not a conservative. He is a yuppie fascist.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 1:47pm

38. Not only is this legal, it is not new. The use of data mining of this sort is used by State and local law enforcement every day and without a warrant.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/11/2006 @ 2:22pm

    You know this to be true in the specific case of the information collected by the the NSA? How?

    Problem is, that NOBODY KNOWS outside of a few administration lab rats what information is being gathered, on whom, and what is being done with it. Shit, I'll betcha Dubyak himself doesn't know (not that this is any great leap of faith - there's that word again, sorry JR - since the amount that that guy doesn't know is breathtaking in its enormity).

    I notice that Hayden's leash was jerked up short today and he was debarred from going to the Hill (even though the two senators he was to see - Santorum and the woman from Alaska whose name escapes me - are pretty much Bushco toadies). Seems like the junta isn't interested in answering any questions, despite your assurances that it's all good.

    Posted by skeletonman at 05/11/2006 @ 2:47pm

39. To LL:

    I don't know if the contradiction has occurred to you, but you seem very concerned about granting the government the power to enact Social Security because there is nothing in the Constitution that would expressly enable it to do so, yet you are completely at ease with granting the government the right to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant in spite of the fact that there is something in the Constitution that expressly prohibits it.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 5:53pm

40. While it's apparent that neither the CIA nor the FBI could track a three-legged skunk with a nosebleed down a narrow snow-covered alley, handing the CIA over to the military would assure that the CIA would, in violation of its charter, be snooping under millions of American beds for anybody they deemed to be a threat...like those engaged in legitimate and entirely legal dissent.

    Posted by DBSweden at 05/13/2006 @ 05:59am