It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fears David Petraeus will 'militarise' CIA

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Fears David Petraeus will 'militarise' CIA


www.theaustralian.com.au

AS commander of the US surge in Iraq, General David Petraeus placed a heavy emphasis on winning over the people. As commander of the US's surge in Afghanistan, he has increasingly relied on killing the enemy with unmanned CIA drones and targeted assassinations.

Barack Obama's decision to put him in charge of his country's biggest spy agency may have been an inspired move.

General Petraeus's appointment as CIA director is part of the biggest shake-up of the President's national security team since he took office two years ago.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The changes come at a time of key decisions on the timetable for a withdrawal of US soldiers from Afghanistan. The original schedule calls for this to start in July, and for all troops to be out of Iraq by the end of this year.


The concern I have is any CIA involvement. They are not champions of sound mind, more over, the secret back door dealings, and mistrust issues over the past several decades would be a cause for concern. And now, the implementation of a military man in the CIA role? I dunno, but sounds like something is a miss.


www.theaustralian.com.au (visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Realms
 


Many past CIA Directors have been military men, the most recent was Admiral Poindexter, while not all are active military and usually resign their active commissions when they take up their posts at the CIA, most have had some kind of military service and experience.

Since the CIA often manufactures the pretexts for many of our wars, there role has pretty much always gone hand in hand with the military.

I doubt the CIA could get any more militarized than it already is and long has been.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




The most recent was General Michael Hayden. 2006-2009

John Poindexter was never director of the CIA. He was a National Security Advisor for Reagan and director of DARPA's IAO project.
edit on 3/5/11 by MikeboydUS because: r



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




The most recent was General Michael Hayden. 2006-2009

John Poindexter was never director of the CIA. He was a National Security Advisor for Reagan and director of DARPA's IAO project.
edit on 3/5/11 by MikeboydUS because: r


Man am I slipping back and forth between parallel universes again.

I need better magnets.

Thanks Mike by the way just so I am sure I know which one I am in, this is the one where Santa Claus brings chocolate to children on the Fourth of July right?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I'm pretty sure Santa Bunny gives lollipops to the children on Christfest.

Though we do have that Day of Empire thing in July.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I am kind of confused.

Isn't the CIA already militarized?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I'm pretty sure Santa Bunny gives lollipops to the children on Christfest.

Though we do have that Day of Empire thing in July.


Thanks man, I think I know which parallel universe I am in now.

Jennifer Lopez is President of the United States of North and Central America right?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
The CIA and military have always worked hand in hand, at times almost indistinguishably, ever since there was a CIA. The CIA's predecessor, the OSS, was paramilitary all the way, and grew out of the military out of need at the end of WWII, I believe. There's really nothing new or exciting here?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


thanks to you and Mikey, for your contributions to this thread. If I may direct you briefly to another thread,

www.abovetopsecret.com...
and skip to page 24, would you be so kind in reading my comments, and then a poster by the name of BenRecluse, and respond to me. I believe there are many violations of T&C, but not to sure and dont wanna seem like a proverbial rat.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Another take on this is that moving Petraeus to the CIA effectively sidelines him from Afghanistan. Petraeus has consistently been pro-Military in Afghanistan. With Osama dead, there is a very real possibility that Obama can "declare victory" and withdraw all troops there. With Petraeus still there saying the war effort is going well, that would be more difficult to do. Getting him out of the way makes it a lot simpler. Also, Petraeus is a "good soldier" in that he understands chain of command issues. Putting him in charge of a large bureaucracy like the CIA may be a move that will allow the administratioon to make some strategic changes in the middle east picture.

The other thing I have heard that may have a bearing on this is that Leon Panetta is a VERY strong player at the CIA right now. From a strategic standpoint he's smarter and more experienced than Obama. One theory is that the Osama attack was all Panetta's DESPITE reservations from Obama and Valerie Jarrett, who wields considerable influence over the often waffling, lead-from-the-rear, I have no opinion on that Obama. In fact, one player insists that Panetta, Clinton, and Daly simply put the plan in motion and THEN told Obama afterward. I don't know the truth to that, of course, but if you look at it from that context, putting a very loyal Petraeus at CIA would eliminate Panetta from a clamdestine position and put him in a much more revealing and public position.

As far as militarizing the CIA, it might be kind of nice to have them on the same side as the military for once. One of the shackles put on American intelligence by people such as Frank Church was that the various agencies of government couldn;t talk to each other, trherefore connecting the dots, such as the 9/11 failure, was very difficult.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Nothing new there.. C(aught) I(n the) A(ct) has had military capability since its oss days .. s.o.g in vietnam and its black ops or whatever the hell they call it these days...



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realms
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


thanks to you and Mikey, for your contributions to this thread. If I may direct you briefly to another thread,

www.abovetopsecret.com...
and skip to page 24, would you be so kind in reading my comments, and then a poster by the name of BenRecluse, and respond to me. I believe there are many violations of T&C, but not to sure and dont wanna seem like a proverbial rat.


Looks like you have an ugly troll there on your hands. You can alert the moderators to the posts, they may or may not do something regarding it, they are likely pretty swamped currently with the influx of new members and heated debates regarding the Bin Laden event.

The person is a new member so they tend to cut them more slack than existing ones.

Sorry you had to go through that, for the most part ATS isn't like that.

It does take some new members a little bit of head butting to figure that out.

Excellent job at rising above it!





top topics



 
2

log in

join