ShareThis Page

Former CIA director says Obama's war on terror on track

| Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012, 12:04 a.m.
Former spy director Michael Hayden's decision to speak so openly in public is raising eyebrows.
Former spy director Michael Hayden's decision to speak so openly in public is raising eyebrows.

President Obama's re-election makes it easier to continue the war on terror because his political supporters went along with it through his first administration, a Bush-era CIA director said in Pittsburgh on Monday.

Though Obama went after terrorists much like his predecessor, President George W. Bush, Democrats largely accepted his approach, retired Gen. Michael Hayden said. If Republican Mitt Romney had been elected and taken similar steps, protesters would have taken up permanent vigil outside of the White House, Hayden said.

“The real truth — the most powerful truth — is how much alike these two very different presidents have been when it comes to fighting this war,” Hayden said. “Targeted killings, state secrets, indefinite detentions, military commissions. In fact, they both call it a war.”

Hayden spoke to about 50 people at The Duquesne Club, Downtown, where he worked as a doorman and night watchman in 1968. The event was sponsored by The Jamestown Foundation, a nonpartisan counterterrorism think-tank in Washington, and co-hosted by Jim Roddey, former Allegheny County executive, and Dick Scaife, publisher of the Tribune-Review.

Hayden, who grew up in Pittsburgh's North Side, was CIA director from 2006 until about three weeks into the Obama administration in 2009. During this year's presidential campaign, he was an intelligence and national security adviser to Romney.

The Arab Spring uprisings throughout the Middle East are a cause for some optimism because the events turned on American ideals such as voting and free speech, Hayden said.

Though the instability that followed allows radicals to grow stronger, he said the chances for a major incident such as the 9/11 attacks are greatly diminished.

“We're still at war, and these guys are still a danger,” Hayden said. “But future attacks against our homeland will predictably be less complex, less well-organized, less likely to succeed and less lethal if they do.”

Even though Obama got a “free pass” on his counterterrorism tactics in his first four years, liberal Democrats might be more outwardly critical now that he no longer faces re-election, Michael Kenney, international affairs professor at the University of Pittsburgh, told the Trib in a phone interview.

Across the Middle East, meanwhile, the United States must keep up the battle for a pro-democracy narrative, Kenney said.

“The jury is still out on the Arab Spring, and the West needs to realize this is an important opportunity for us,” he said. “The Arab Spring was an important win for democracy and grassroots activism, but we need to follow up on this.”

Security agencies from local police to national defense have worked to reduce the terrorism threat, but they must stay focused on it, Michael Ryan, a Jamestown senior fellow, told the Trib after the event.

“All they have to do is get lucky one time and, depending on the attack, they could create a certain backlash in us that creates a more dangerous situation,” Ryan said.

Andrew Conte is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7835 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.