On the eve of the US President, the Senate introduced the candidacies of new leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon. Barack Obama is going to lead the CIA as his counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, and Chuck Hagel as the head of the main military department. Most of the Russian citizens know both of these personalities (Brennan and Hagel), in all likelihood, little familiar, and in order to have an idea of who will become the head of the American, shall we say, power departments, it is necessary to touch upon the gentlemen promoted by Obama in more detail.
In the United States, after the outbreak of the scandal with the previous head of the CIA, David Petraeus, who held this post for less than a year and exposed his love affairs on the side, it seems that now almost any figure who would somehow be connected with the CIA could be suitable for the intelligence service. or near tseerushnym affairs. Moreover, in the CIA, Petraeus himself, to put it mildly, did not cause reverence even before it turned out that it was difficult to call him a respectable American family man.
Immediately after his dismissal in August 2011 from the US Armed Forces, Petraeus was promoted to the post of CIA director, but was clearly considered a black sheep in this department. The fact is that Petraeus is a combat general who managed to take part in numerous American companies in various positions, but his combat past among the CIA officers did not fit into those features that should be inherent in a director of directorate. From the very beginning, Petraeus began to experience difficulties in his new job, and in the end everything "happily" ended in a sex scandal, after which the general wrote a statement "on his own."
For the time being, the CIA director was replaced by IO - Michael Morell, but the place was being prepared for a completely different person. As recently revealed, this man is 57-year-old John O. Brennan, who has the most direct relationship with the CIA.
It is worth recalling that Brennan at one time performed the work of management not only in the territories remote from Washington (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan), but also directly in the District of Columbia. John Brennan served as chief of staff during the CIA's administration by a man like Tennett. Brennan's work with the CIA could have brought him to the top management position of that agency on more than one occasion. For example, one of the "crowns" of John Brennan's service is the fact that it was he who came up with personnel proposals to carry out an operation in Pakistan aimed at destroying Osama bin Laden. However, every time something prevented Brennan from entering the highest level of the hierarchy in the US Central Intelligence Agency.
One of these obstacles was the accusations of John Brennan that it was precisely on his instructions in the CIA prisons (for example, in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib) that torture was used against prisoners who were imprisoned without trial or investigation. sophisticated bullying by American guards.
Initially, the CIA stated that no torture was carried out in the same Guantanamo, but then, when the footage captured on the cell phone camera of the prison officials themselves appeared in the public domain, the officials had to admit that "there was a case."Only now Brennan still stubbornly insists that all these indecent actions with prisoners were carried out exclusively behind his back, and he has nothing to do with torturing people. The words “was done behind the back” and “has nothing to do” involuntarily transfer us to today's Russian reality, associated with sensational episodes in one well-known Russian ministry … Obviously, the United States also does not hesitate to use “our” methods: my hut is still on the edge …"
Another unpleasant side of John Brennan's activities at various posts in the CIA is that it was he who oversaw the unmanned aircraft raids on objects "dubious" for the United States in third countries, and even on "dubious" US citizens. Moreover, the raids were carried out without any special additional checks by the special services, and even more so without any judicial sanctions, if we are talking about American citizens. It was from the air that the man who was called the number one terrorist after Bin Laden in the United States - Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed. Everything would be fine, but it just turned out that Avlaki had an American passport, which caused a wide public outcry in America. Many Americans saw the destruction of a terrorist without judicial authorization as an attempt to disregard democratic values. You and I know that in the United States they are accustomed to twirl these values as they please, but American citizens still believe that their authorities and special services live according to purely democratic laws.
During air strikes with the help of UAVs in Pakistan, which were carried out with the control of John Brennan, not only representatives of radical extremist groups were killed, but also hundreds of civilians, including children. Brennan, according to all the laws of the CIA, never apologized to the families of the victims for "mistakes", and the American president had to do it for him directly.
By the way, in the United States itself, judging by the publications in various publications (New York Times, Huffington Post, etc.), it was Brennan's participation in the management of operations to destroy "targets", among which there were foreign citizens (including women and children), and US citizens, using the UAV, causes much more negative than the fact that the candidate for the post of the head of the CIA was involved in torture in the prisons of the department. It turns out that pious Americans are motivated not by compassion for people, but solely by the fear that even if they have an American passport, the "hawk" Brennan can strike his fatal blow as soon as he "smells" a terrorist threat from someone else.
However, Brennan's candidacy does not cause any complaints in the CIA itself. This suggests that the senators, most likely, will not oppose his appointment. If everything is quiet and smooth in the CIA, no matter what kind of person manages this structure, it means that for legislators this is a balm for the soul. Well, the fact that many exclusively pacifist-minded or simply frightened Americans are opposed to Brennan's candidacy, so who in the democratic United States will ask them?..
But the candidacy for the post of head of the Pentagon in the person of Chuck Hagel does not enjoy unequivocal support among senators.
Chuck Hagel is the man that Providence itself was supposed to bring to the post of head of the US Department of Defense. Over the course of his 66 years, Hagel managed to fight, and excel in business, and even visit the Senator's chair. "To visit", however, is not an entirely appropriate word here, since Chuck Hagel was in the Senate from 1997 to 2009 - more than an impressive period. Today Hagel serves as chairman of one of the presidential advisory councils.
What sets Hagel apart from other American politicians is that he can be called Mr. Yes. While in the parliamentary chair, he supported all the initiatives put forward by the president, who had the same party affiliation with Hagel (we are, of course, about George W. Bush) Hagel voted as Bush wanted: for the start of another operation against Saddam Hussein, for the introduction to Afghanistan, for an increase in spending on the army. In general, we can say that Hagel is not just Mr. "yes", but also a typical example of an American soldier (with seniority) who is ready with both hands to support military adventures, no matter how dubious they may be. And enthusiasm for the fullness of the defense budget is a Hagel trait that could be ideal for the head of the Pentagon. Although here you need to make a reservation: it could fit perfectly, but at other times. Now the White House insists on the need to cut military spending in order to try to cope with the growing national debt.
It is the statements on the part of Hagel that the Pentagon needs to be sponsored no less than in previous years that raise certain doubts among a whole circle of senators, especially Democratic senators.
Hagel also has one more "bobble" that he can remember (already remember). This mistake is connected with the fact that once a future candidate for the post of head of the Pentagon said that the Palestinians have no less rights to certain lands in the Middle East than the Israelis. These words caused a storm of negative emotions on the part of the so-called Jewish lobby in the United States (Heigel himself pointed to the Jewish lobby), but then everything subsided rather quickly, because Hagel did not express the opinion of the entire party or a separate department. And now he can become the number one person in US military policy, and therefore the statement about the rights of the Palestinians and the Jewish lobby in America can be remembered for him. True, possible representatives of that very "Jewish lobby", in particular, Fred Kaplan, say that no one is going to pay much attention to Hagel's words 5 years ago. At the same time, it should be noted that Kaplan, like his other colleagues, declare that there is no Jewish lobby in the United States at all, and therefore Hagel needs to worry about other problems.
However, Hagel himself, apparently in order to reduce the heat, in one of his interviews with the American media said that he was not an anti-Semite at all, and indeed he was not going to say anything that could hurt such a state as Israel. His words are an attempt, one way or another, to enhance the role of the UN, into which Palestine has long been striving. How much his words inspired Ban Ki-moon and the Palestinians - history, as they say, is silent, but it is clear that Hagel is still dodgy too. He is eager for a new position, and therefore it will not be necessary to be surprised if Hagel takes back all his words about Palestinian rights and the Jewish lobby …
In general, the offices of the chief military officer and chief intelligence officer of the United States may receive their owners in the near future.
