In many ways it is much easier to gather intelligence on military affairs, because there is a lot of structure that will mold responses, and known limits on action. It is easy to use technology to watch the military, because the military is the primary user of technology in most countries.

The CIA is responsible for “all other,” and you have to improvise to deal with multiple possibilities. The CIA people need much more autonomy to do their job.

Looking at Hayden’s career, he hit a long plateau and then went up through the ranks at a rather amazing rate, which normally indicates a “horse”, someone pulling for them.

I have to suspect that his willingness to go along with the Shrubbery on the wiretaps represents a major reason for his advancement. He appears to be “political”, and that does not bode well for anything he commands.

Having someone among the top three who is military makes coordination with the DoD much easier for joint missions, but the man at the top needs to reflect the majority of the people in the organization. There will be tensions.

Hayden doesn’t have CIA-type experience because that’s not how the military functions.

Being chief spymaster is a gruelling and unsavory posting. Didn’t LeCarre’s George Smiley refer to it as the “second oldest profession”? Is Hayden the most qualified candidate for the position? From where I sit, his credentials seem quite impressive for the task at hand. Does he have a political bias to his current bosses? How does a career military officer impart morale to a civilian agency? And how do you make spies feel good about themselves?

A friend’s father was OSS in WWII – parachuted behind German lines, etc. He remained for the transformation to CIA for a few years, then changed professions (probably around 1948 or thereabouts). He was out of the spook business for well over 50 years when he died, but the CIA still came calling to search his personal papers.