There’s a sad irony to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s claim that President Trump’s pick for CIA director is viewed poorly in Europe.
That nominee, Gina Haspel, needs Senate confirmation if she is to become the agency’s first female chief. Still, her name should be an easy yes vote; she is supported by the vast majority of CIA professionals and former directors. And on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” last Sunday, Feinstein referenced Haspel by saying “I know that she is talented.”
But then the senator followed up with a poor excuse for why she believes Haspel’s nomination is problematic.
“There are countries that look very badly on what the United States did, particularly European countries, and we want whoever is head of the CIA to be able to be acceptable to our allies. So this is an open question in my mind.”
It’s an ironic criticism, seeing as it was Feinstein herself who alienated many European governments in 2014, when she released her dodgy dossier on the Bush-era CIA enhanced interrogation program. That error-riddled dossier deeply embarrassed European intelligence services by publicizing what they thought was a trust-driven secret relationship with the United States in a way that opened them to criticism from their domestic political opponents.
Haspel, on the other hand, is highly regarded in Europe. As first reported by the Washington Post, Haspel was the CIA’s chief of station in London during the Obama administration. But what the Post doesn’t say is that Haspel appears to have been in London on and off for as much as eight years. British diplomatic lists show her present at the embassy from 2009 to at least February 2017.
Why is this relevant?
Because it means Haspel was the U.S. intelligence community’s closest contact with British intelligence for many years. Haspel would never have been assigned to or so long retained, that post had she not been held in the highest regard by America’s closest ally. After all, heading up CIA’s London station means working alongside the top ranks of the British government and sitting in on top U.K. security matters.
This is no trifling matter. Because of the global capabilities CIA brings to bear in support of U.K. security interests, Haspel would have been intimately involved in efforts to secure British interests and lives. As a former chairwoman and current ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Feinstein must know this.
What of America’s other European allies? Do they oppose Haspel?
Negative.
While European governments disliked the political controversy that flowed from the Bush administration’s counter-terrorism programs, they also benefited greatly from the tactical and strategic level intelligence material that those programs produced. That’s why, for example, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany always qualified her criticisms of the CIA interrogation program.
Moreover, intelligence services like France’s CIA equivalent, the DGSE, have few qualms about taking aggressive action of the kind Feinstein suggests Haspel is responsible for. If anything, DGSE’s operational character suggests France would actually prefer Haspel if she had done what Feinstein wrongly accuses her of doing.
The critical issue is this: When it comes to the CIA director and European partnerships, the key is being able to manage cooperation effectively. And having been stationed in London as part of her lifelong career as a CIA professional, Haspel knows how to deal with the Europeans.
So what is Feinstein up to here?
Well, it’s primary politics. Feinstein is worried about alienating anti-CIA Democratic financiers like billionaire Tom Steyer, who has just endorsed Feinstein’s primary challenger, Kevin de Leon. As such the senator from California is putting her own political interests before those of the nation.
Because media bias aside, it is in the national interest that Haspel be confirmed.
