On April 16, The New York Times published an article (in which I am quoted) with the headline, "Gina Haspel Relies on Spy Skills with Trump. He Doesn't Always Listen." It is inappropriate to assume that Haspel relies on some combination of 007 and Austin Powers relational jiujitsu to have her "voice heard at the White House". Not only is it inaccurate, but it is also depreciative of the hard work and effort Haspel has done to be an effective CIA Director in the eyes of the President. What she's doing is not spy craft, it is professionalism.
When Haspel assumed the challenging and demanding role of the Director of CIA, she had to do three things: address the confusion in the workforce from the misguided reorganization of the CIA by John Brennan, transition the Agency from the brusque leadership style of Mike Pompeo to her own, and create an effective modus vivendi with the CIA's primary customer, the President of the United States. Though the article is really focused on the behavior of Trump, it does not accurately focus on what many of Haspel's colleagues see as a masterful ability to build a relationship with a mercurial customer who has a consistent record of disdain towards the senior women on his team and an apparent antipathy and skepticism regarding the value of CIA's national intelligence.
As a former Senior CIA Officer, and later Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, I identify Haspel’s skills, which the article defines as "the skills of a spy — "good listening, empathy, and an ability to connect..." as the skills also associated with any successful executive. These are not mystical skills maintained by the Guild of Clandestine Intelligence Officers and passed on at the Farm by the Guildmasters. Instead, they are the tools in the tool box of an effective CIA Director who knows her job is to advocate and support the magicians making the CIA magic while developing an effective relationship with the President. She must do both so CIA intelligence can play its important role in contributing to the President's ability to make informed national security decisions. Creating this relationship is not science, it is art in its purest sense and Haspel is a consummate artist. Though I have no direct knowledge about what happens in the oval office, I do know Haspel from years of both serving alongside her and working for her. Her style of gracious strength without overconfidence, her disarming demeanor, and her years of experience in the Verdun-like trenches of the clandestine intelligence business give her a credibility unmatched by recent Directors, which add up to make her effective in the presence of the President.
While Haspel's appointment comes from the President, her ability to lead is a gift given by those she is leading, the officers of CIA. Haspel enjoys the trust and confidence of the workforce and represents their core values which are the core values of the Agency; she is not just among them, but of them. It is a part of the foundation upon which her relationship with the President is built, and it serves him and the American people well. Haspel is absolutely the right person to lead the dedicated officers of the CIA and to be the President's CIA Director. The article misleads New York Times readers into believing her ability to relate to the President is crass manipulation when the reality is it is all about professionalism and hard work. The President chose wisely and because of who Haspel is and the totality of what she represents, he and the American people are in good hands.
Have a different opinion? Leave your thoughts here under the POV tab.
Read more from Doug Wise in The Cipher Brief.
