Tulsi Gabbard's appointment as head of US intelligence raises concerns and divides

Photo: Alex Brandon Associated Press Tulsi Gabbard, at a Donald Trump political rally, September 13, in Las Vegas

Didier Lauras – Agence France-Presse in Paris

Published at 8:05 a.m.

• United States

The appointment of Tulsi Gabbard, a fierce opponent of Washington’s military interventionism, as head of US intelligence, has raised serious concerns, particularly about the politicization of the work of American spies and their subservience to the White House.

The 43-year-old former soldier, a defector from the Democratic Party, who has a history of supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, may still be challenged by the Senate.

Failing that, a woman with no experience in the field, who is regularly critical of the 18 American agencies, will take the highly political title of Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

A position created in 2005, when it was discovered in particular how insufficient coordination between American agencies had prevented Washington from foiling the attacks of September 11, 2001.

“It's an administrative function to ensure that the agencies talk to each other, that they coordinate […], that the CIA does not lead the way and that there are rules of analysis,” Mathew Burrows, a former CIA officer now an analyst at the Stimson think tank in Washington, explained to AFP.

The DNI also briefs the president daily on what she receives from the services. Ms Gabbard's views and her closeness to the next White House occupant are therefore raising many eyebrows, even if her predecessors have also put together a team to their liking.

The United States “allies of Putin” ?

“Her appointment will be a threat to the security of the United States,” denounces Tom Nichols, professor at the US Naval War College. “A person with (those) views should not be allowed near the royal jewels of American intelligence.”

200% Deposit Bonus up to €3,000 180% First Deposit Bonus up to $20,000

The remarks of this strong personality have been controversial for years. Like when she mentioned “Russia’s legitimate concerns about a possible entry of Ukraine into NATO.”

Or when she met Assad in Syria, accusing the American political elites of being warmongers and claiming her desire to avoid conflicts. The then Democratic MP did not want to “avoid war, but to protect the regime,” denounces Phillips O'Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews, in Scotland.

“What if the United States is about to become an ally of Putin? ? That’s a question we can ask ourselves,” he adds.

With his appointment, Donald Trump undoubtedly hopes to spare himself the violent friction of his first term with intelligence officials, whom he had called “naive” and advised them to “go back to school.”

In late 2018, his Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, resigned, citing his disagreement with the president over the withdrawal of American troops from Syria. The latter then booed the “most overrated general in the world,” plunging the army and intelligence into consternation.

In May 2019, Donald Trump had also announced the opening of classified files on Russia, to defend himself against accusations of collusion with Moscow during the 2016 election campaign.

Read also

• Trump appoints Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Secretary of Health
• Matt Gaetz, fervent Trumpist propelled to the top of the federal justice system

“Turning the table”

Shortly after, he fired the DNI at the time, Dan Coats. After being denied the job, his deputy Susan Gordon mocked the president for having “no framework or foundation for understanding the limitations of intelligence.” She quoted one of his classic briefing responses: “I don’t believe you.”

The second term will certainly start on different bases. Donald Trump “wants to neutralize such criticism from the community,” summarizes Mathew Burrows. And “Gabbard has the power, since she is in charge of the president’s daily briefing, to extract the analysis that does not serve his decisions.”

The expert admits to fearing that the opinions of the future supreme head of American spies “color and politicize intelligence.” She “must understand that her function is to speak truth to power. And I am sure that Trump does not have that in mind because […] he is convinced that he has all the truth he needs.”

The real consequences of this appointment will only be known through use. The agents, trained to serve the State, whoever the leader, will continue their mission.

But already, “the community is inevitably afraid of a witch hunt. There have been positions taken regarding the election and some have come out of their reserve,” notes Alexandre Papaemmanuel, professor at Sciences-Po in Paris.

Donald Trump “is going to turn the tables,” he predicts. “Since he was able to break the codes of politics, of the media relationship with voters and citizens, what can and cannot be said, we can imagine that he will want to break the very old codes of intelligence.”