It was a rather peculiar diatribe by the Secretary of Defense, especially considering that, oh so many ages ago, he'd been a member of the Air Force himself. Even more puzzling, considering that the Air Force is running at least four mega bases in Iraq, including the Balad Air Field, which rivals O'Hare in traffic, was Robert Gates' assertion that the Air Force is not pulling its weight in the Iraq and Afghanistan endeavors.

What was he thinking?

Given Gates' call for the deployment of more drones and the stepped up rate of assassination by remote control, one might almost suspect that he was intent on providing cover for an operation that might give rise to some moral qualms, if it weren't obviously being promoted at the highest levels.

Now, when there are reports such as the following:

"BAGHDAD (AFP) - A US air strike damaged a hospital in the Iraqi capital's violent Shiite stronghold of Sadr City on Saturday, injuring 20 people, as American forces claimed to have killed 14 militiamen. . . . However, witnesses and an AFP reporter at the scene said the main Al-Sadr hospital had been badly damaged and a fleet of ambulances were destroyed. . . .

"Hospital staff said at least 20 people wounded in the air raid were taken to the same hospital which had its glass windows shattered, and medical and electrical equipment damaged.

"Doctors and hospital staff were livid they had been hit. 'They (the Americans) will say it was a weapons cache (they hit),' said the head of Baghdad's health department, Dr Ali Bistan. 'But, in fact they want to destroy the infrastructure of the country.' He charged that the attack was aimed at preventing doctors and medicines reaching the hospital which is located inside an area of increased clashes between American troops and militiamen.'

there can be no question that's what the Secretary ordered.

On the other hand, Glen Greenwald's interpretation of the Washington Post position on the air strikes on Somalia seems to have missed that, at least intellectually, the Pentagon has already extended its area of interest to partner North Africa with Southwest Asia--that Fred Hiatt's objection to the random air strikes is really a call for a more substantive involvement:

"But Thursday's U.S. operation had a distinct downside: At least two dozen other people were killed in the attack, some of them apparently civilians. Al-Shabab responded defiantly, and Somalia-watchers said new leaders for the militia and al-Qaeda will quickly come forward, while fresh recruits may be gained through a backlash against the American intervention. . . .

"Somalia itself, meanwhile, has grown steadily more dangerous. The government, which is backed by Ethiopian troops, has lost ground to Islamist and tribal insurgents, and fighting has destroyed a large part of Mogadishu, the capital, while displacing up to 60 percent of the city's population, or 700,000 people. Famine is a distinct danger: The United Nations says that 2.6 million Somalis are in need of food aid and that the number could rise by the end of the year to 3.5 million -- half the country's population."

That, in effect, it's time to go back to the future envisioned after the 1991 endeavor, which Bill Clinton abandoned somewhat precipitously, without taking the long range agenda of maintaining a U.S. presence in the Eastern Hemisphere into consideration.

There's, of course, no reason to assume that his early association with the Air Force continues to influence Robert Gates to the present day. Similarly, since General Michael Hayden has announced his retirement from the Air Force, that connection is probably less significant than his current position as head of the CIA.

And yet, one wonders to what extent the culture of the Air Force informs his current concerns, as enunciated in a speech last week in Kansas, about one of our premier trading partners.

May 3, 2008, 10:21PM

CIA director worried over world population trends

He cites growth of population in nations that may not be allies

By SCOTT CANON

Mcclatchy-tribune

MANHATTAN, KAN. — The world is changing in ways that promise little good for the future of the United States, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden said Wednesday.

He cited population growth in poor and unstable countries, the emergence of a European Muslim underclass and an increasingly bold China.

"China is a competitor — certainly in the economic realm and increasingly on the geopolitical stage," he said at Kansas State University.

While it seems rather strange for someone representing our democracy to be categorizing recent immigrants to Europe as an "underclass," the designation of China as a "bold" competitor would seem to be asking for conflict where none exists. Unless the importance of seeking dominion over air, land, sea and space to which the Air Force lays claim also informs the General's approach to his new responsibilities at the CIA. This may account for his apparent disdain for the Congress's efforts to assert the rule of law.

After the speech, Hayden complained about the Senate Intelligence Committee trying to impose restrictions on CIA interrogation of terror suspects.

Almost identical legislation was vetoed by President Bush last year. The Senate panel would limit the questioning of such suspects to 19 techniques spelled out in the Army field manual.

Hayden said the manual, which was designed to in effect protect someone like a captured 18-year-old enemy infantry private, did not necessarily set out the appropriate limits for CIA agents.

Perhaps the reason the drafters of the Constitution were quite specific about insuring civilian control over our military services was because they recognized that their hierarchical organization left the military services ill-prepared for an environment in which equal rights predominate.

Clearly, his attitude suggests that he does not understand that what's at issue is not the protection of an enemy, of whatever age, but what behavior is appropriate for an agent of the United States government. Nor does he seem to understand that the Constitution and implementing regulations are specifically designed to provide strict limitations on the behavior of government agents.

If one didn't know better, one might suspect that Gates and Hayden, in conquering new venues, are laying a track for a continuance of the Air Force world view, a view which, unfortunately, seems to be somewhat disconnected from the reality on the ground.