Warrior Easy kicked off by a speech about General Michael Hayden (USAF, Ret). A career intelligence officer, he served as both Director, National Security Agency and Director, Central Intelligence Agency.
He put the world into a historical perspective, contrasting the Cold War-era with now. The world was more dangerous but certainly not as complicated as today. He also related that everything happens more quickly now.
He also discussed the transition form Hard to Soft Power in the post-Cold War world.
The threats are different; in the post-industrial-era, it’s less nation-states and more transnational groups.
The world has changed. One of General Hayden’s most poignant comments was, “Nations from the post-WWII world order are gone, and not coming back.” That really sunk in for me.
Another observation in a changed world, is that time was, the State was not the enforcer of theological principles. Everyone thought that. He said, “We may have been premature.”
General Hayden concentrated on leadership of complex organizations during times of crisis. He mentioned the need for leadership but he humbly submits that he is not the best qualified in the room to talk about leadership and asked the room to recognize Medal of Honor awardee Sal Giunta.
General Hayden has never been able to finish a book on management. He only gets about 1/3 through before he stops.
Instead, he offered these lessons learned:
-Humility, Real Humility
-More doing of the right things
-Doing only what leaders can do
-Truly loving your people
-Being true to your self
Interestingly, during the Q&A, General Hayden brought out an anti-2A concept in response to a question regarding the intelligence community’s duty to protect the nation while respecting the civil rights of its citizens. He said that it shouldn’t be as much a fourth amendment issue as a second amendment one and posed a new tactic to restrict ownership of firearms. His position is that the restriction of certain types of weapons should be seen as an anti-terrorism measure. This is an obvious expansion of current attempts by anti-2A legislators to deny due process and civil rights to those on the so-called ‘No-Fly’ list by making it illegal for them to exercise their right to purchase firearms. His viewpoint reminds me that not every threat to liberty is external. His final slide certainly sums it up.
Tags: Michael Hayden, Warrior East
That pesky bill of rights doesn’t seem to mean a whole lot to some former generals these days…
Very true and there’s a lot of reasons for it.
First, they spent decades in organizations that tightly control the issue and carrying of weapons. Shouldn’t that work for everyone?
Second, ALL generals are political animals. They stick their wet finger in the air and create solutions that go with the flow. They are also adept at presenting those solutions in the most positive way. Mentioning Guinta engenders a lot of good will.
Third, risk aversion has become a strategic national weakness but Generals got there way before the crowd. That’s how orders can be given to guards not to have live ammo locked and loaded for fear of the guards shooting themselves. The subsequent hoopla over the relatively rare instance trumps actually killing the bad guy before he has any success.
Finally they often don’t have to live with the consequences of the decisions they make. Think about it, when’s the last time you saw a General eat an MRE or refuse a personal security detachment?
“posed a new tactic to restrict ownership of firearms. His position is that the restriction of certain types of weapons should be seen as an anti-terrorism measure.”
Wow. Just wow. I am sure it looks like a good idea from behind his desk in a secure facility. He needs to get out in the world for a bit.
Only if that “Real World” is downtown Detriot, or Baltimore, (insert anyone of numerous failed liberal cities here), etc… ,for the like of him and his ilk like him.
Death by Power Point.
It really is alarming just how many people are completely ok with secret lists.
Agreed…these lists are further erosion to our Constitutional Rights.
You have to remember that after 9/11/2001, as the Director of the National Security Agency he demanded a “Get Out of Jail Free Card” from the White House before implenting the “Warrantless Collection” program. A program that has been widely agreed upon violated the Constitution and a program that Gen. Hayden knew was illegal, but which he eagerly pursued after his “six” was covered.
Frankly, I don’t care about warrantless wiretaps against threats to the United States that are intercepted outside the Country, or even Muslims within the Country, my problem is when national security protocols are applied domestically against American’s, while the government maintains an open borders, anti-American political ideology.
Keep in mind the government only objects to private gun ownership.
Rare is the flag officer who does not become a true believer in the maximum state credos once immersed in the government supremacist feedback loop that is DC. I wonder if the same “tactic” can be applied to every liberty protection from a government perspective?
Books and ideas have killed far more people as an orchid house for ideological bad actors, maybe the same restrictions should be applied to books and access to them. Maybe even secret lists of bad books that would put someone on another secret list to be acted on later.
On and on and on.
It’s not just DC but also employees of numerous “agencies” at all levels who have absolutely no desire to think for themselves or even about what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is for. I work with a bunch of these morons and it seems close to 50% would agree with Hayden’s utter disrespect for our rights. It sicken me that most these individuals are rather intelligent given their profession but seem to have a complete disconnect between critical thinking for their job and the same for everyday life. Maybe I’m naive but most of these people were in military service. I guess that’s what separates true “warrior’s” from the desk jockey’s where it seems most of them came from. (now don’t get butt hurt if any of you here were desk jockey’s, it doesn’t mean All desk jockeys = mil/civ sheeple, it means most the former desk jockeys here came from that same mil job) sigh of relief.
Authoritarian control freak dickbag. What’s the point of defending freedom if you aren’t free?
Yep.
What’s the point in fighting terrorism if we end up a police state with no rights and liberties?
I am curious how the audience responded, if at all, to the gun control “tactic”
We were respectful and remained silent
That’s always the best thing to do..
And then they came for me but no one…well, you get the idea.
Yeah well we’re professionals and it was an Gov/Industry only event
Personally, and I can back this up with empirical evidence, the greatest threat to the United States of America isn’t external, foreign enemies, but internal domestic ones.
“A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington
I think an issue that Gen. Hayden should have discussed is the degree to which America’s intelligence services and the military have been restricted in their roles combating transnational, religiously motivated jihadist organizations, such as ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban, and the degree to which responsibility has been places and shifted domestically to what are traditionally law enforcement organizations such as the FBI. Recent events, such as San Bernadino, Orlando, and the Hillary Clinton E-mail scandal and mishandling of classified information, have shown how politicization and ideological blindness by the DOJ, the FBI, and others have contributed to the success of terrorist attacks on American soil. National security issues should rest with organizations tasked with dealing with such matters.
The problem is that when you have national leaders that of questionable loyalty to the laws, traditions, and history of the Country, those who are bringing in 15,000 Syrian refugees and year, and who have admitted that the vetting process could never reveal the amount of sleeper jihadists in their midst, then that creats problems.
The problem is that when you have national leaders of questionable loyalty, or outright hostility, to the laws, traditions, people, and history of the Country; those who are bringing in 15,000 Syrian refugees a year and who have admitted that the vetting process could never reveal the true amount of sleeper jihadists in their midst, or whom threaten the inalienable constitutional right to defend ones’ self, family, and way of life when a foreign inspired attack is carried out, all while bringing in millions of people who do not share American values; then that creates the conditions for domestic turmoil that the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent.
The 2nd Amendment is a national security force multiplier that protects the American People from lawlessness, be it from traditional criminal elements, terrorist elements that have infiltrated the Country, or a tyrannical government. Gen. Hayden should spoken more on how domestic law enforcement has been given too much purview in relation to national security matters, while criminals and those of questionable loyalty have not received proper scrutiny from the military or intelligence services.
It’s dumbfounding to see people so incredibly intelligent try and reason that gun control in the US would have any measurable impact on terrorism.
I had a tome but yeah, everything about this guy is the irreconcilable nexus of freedom and wealth embraced by people who have tongued bung from rung to rung.
I was in a brief conducted by an O-7 where he said, “GO’s don’t think like the rest of us. They think like rich people–who can do stuff like call a Senator to change the law.”
I always take what these modern day generals say with a grain of salt. I would also respect them more if they actually won something. They retire out of the military and then immediately walk in to the defense industry, academic industry, financial industry or the speaking circuit. It seems that most of them profit from their careers but it’s the low ranking troops who really faced the danger and don’t get the “golden parachute”.
I feel that General George C. Marshall had the best attitude about his post-military career; he never wanted to profit from the pain and suffering of the troops that served, when he was eventually talked in to writing his memoirs he insisted that he and his biographer did not profit from the sales. What an example.
I don’t think that Gen. Hayden is a 2A hating dickbag. He was looking at it from a counter-terrorism perspective. Guns are very easy to get in some states, and that can be both a good and bad thing. We can’t find the “not-yet-guilty” as he put it. Our surveillance can only go so far. “If we cannot stop terror attacks before they occur, can they be mitigated?”
If that is the case, then we need to target threatening populations. We shouldn’t be bringing in Muslim refugees from the Middle East. We should be deporting people who came here illegally, or over stayed their visa. Because, I’ll be damned if I relinquish the rights I fought for, while some D-Bag illiterate, child rapist fresh off the Tarmac from the Sudan or Somalia is treated like he’s a full fledged American, because he’s not. And the Regime in power has made it adamantly clear that it is law abiding, patriotic Americans ( like the military and police) who must be made to suffer, while people who aren’t really American, or terrorist organizations like Black Lives Matter and the Muslim Brotherhood, are to be protected and rewarded.
If by mitigated, do you mean restricting the rights of everyone? Because that is what gun control effectively does. It can be spun any number of ways, but at the end of the day, it is the responsible, law-abiding citizen who pays for such actions.
Sure, let’s make it harder for everyone else to get a gun, so we can feel “safer” that potential terrorist X or active shooter Y also (hopefully) won’t. Great logic. Then, when they still get one and can still kill people, where are we? Another batch of new bans and laws won’t stop it again.
You cannot legislate, restrict or ban something out of existence. If it’s out there, people will get it, use it, or abuse it. The best defense against such predators is the ability to defend oneself in a manner consistent with the potential threat. If that means owning a big, scary AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, so be it.
Those were his words. He also said there are people out there that should never own a gun, and that there are weapons out there that should never be owned by civilians
I am pretty sure that General Hayden is a 2A hating dickbag.
After his comment on the 2A, the host of the event should have cut off his microphone and escorted him from the stage.
Its an industry event, not a pro-2A conference. ADS paid a lot of money for him to speak
Well, the 2A doesn’t say “shall not be infringed, except for counter-terrorism reasons” True, our surveillance can only go so far, but it would be more effective if properly targeted… but the current occupant of the white house would rather appease and apologize for certain populations, and focus resources on groups that threaten his agenda.
It worries me deeply when flag level officer’s, tasked and sworn to uphold the Constitution and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic, know little if anything about the Constitution’s meaning and utility. Don’t they have classes on this at the war colleges? It seems that many of the people in positions of authority throughout the U.S. Government, are either hostile to our constitutional system, or think that the only applicable parts are the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or some decision by a leftist Supreme Court. Now, with radical social revisionism designed to weaken our military preparedness emanating from the likes of Ray Mabus and Ash Carter, laying waste to America’s martial traditions to the point that the outcome of winning a theater wide engagement is now in jeopardy, it would seem that there would be push back from general level officers. But no, they surrender and capitulate to what are little better than domestic terrorists and traitors, without even resigning in protest to harmful and malicious policies.
Generally, I had a favorable opinion of Gen. Hayden from knowledge of his time at CIA, but when one looks at the destruction that has been wrought in the last eight years, and you think that disarming the American People in the face of domestic unrest is a good idea, you need to be set out to pasture and let real patriots who love their country take over.
“Don’t they have classes on this at the war colleges?”
No. Keep in mind they can’t even say radical Islam and the last officer/instructor that did at a similar school received a letter of reprimand effectively ending his career.
Any courses they receive are not reinforcing the founding fathers’ perspectives on gun ownership.
Ditto’s: but, constitutional literacy should be a prerequisite for any officer in the U.S. Military, not just flag officers. Officer’s oaths of commission are different than enlisted oaths upon entering the military, in that they swear loyalty specifically to the Constitution, and dosn’t mention obeying orders from the Commander in Chief as the enlisted oath does. Officer’s must be held to a higher standard. The Constitution is much more than just the 2nd Amendment. Many of the issues that we face as a society are a direct result of radical leftists and an unlawful judiciary bastardizing the Constitution, and gutless cowards and the uninformed allowing them to get away with it. The 10th Amendment is a case in point, homosexual marriage, federal dictates, and the federally recognized right to an abortion would be have never developed and been determined by their lawful arbiters, the States and the People, if the 10th Amendment were being upheld. Now they are coming after the 1st and the 2nd Amendments. The military brass are honor bound to enforce this the next time the Regime trie to provide sex changes to traitors and the mentally ill, like Bradley Manning.
Good to know he doesn’t like the 2A or the 4th. It’s just awesome people like him are in charge.
Any chance you can get ahold of that PowerPoint?
I’d like to second that request if possible
When someone really smart–like Gen. Hayden–says something, even if you disagree with it, one needs to listen carefully. He may be considering a problem (or solution) from a perspective that you haven’t. Blocking out the message because it disagrees with your notions restricts your viewpoint unnecessarily, and prevents the dialogue that may lead to an even better idea.
Hell, I think I just summed up what’s wrong with the internet in general.
Smart or not, the 2A does not offer a counter-terrorism exception, probably because the crown considered all of the founding fathers terrorists… In my career in and out of the mil/gov I have heard a lot of smart people say a lot of stupid stuff…
When someone who is allegedly smart says something really stupid, and stands by it, it calls into question everything else that they say and do.
IMHO, we don’t need to fight terrorism by turning into a tyranny. If that’s the case, not only have we lost the battles, but we have also lost the war.
General Hayden is objectively a very smart man. There is no question about that
“Hell, I think I just summed up what’s wrong with the internet in general.”
Be prepared to get hammered, SIR!
“Blocking out the message because it disagrees with your notions restricts your viewpoint unnecessarily, and prevents the dialogue that may lead to an even better idea.”
The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights is not a “disagreeable notion” or a viewpoint” PERIOD! We got rid of the tyranny who disagreed with our “notion” of freedom and rights of the people fighting the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. Tell me, do you consider yourself a true officer of the armed forces that swore an oath to the Constitution, which in essence is the people of this great nation or have you started to separate and see two different “nations” one of compliance for the people and the other the future tyranny of the “leaders”? Ask yourself that, SIR.
Out.
Incapable of having an adult conversation?
On a blog site? That’s not conversation, this a very un-dymanic form of electronic communication, with time delays and a chance of no response. Maybe a face-face or phone call is what I call a conversation, probably since I’ve been a round few years. Troll much Tar-tar??
Clearly you haven’t been on the internet very long if you think I’m trolling
Your right, I try to limit my presence as much as possible but couldn’t help to weigh in on topics here that I have a very close attachment to.
And my reply to your condescending “adult conversation” remark, it actually sounds like you would rather have a “text” correspondence than an actual conversation. For that comment, you my friend seem to be lacking in social skill. If the good “LTC” cared to reply at some future date, he can. Why fan the flames in a proxy discussion for someone else? Weird
Out.
That is an adult coonversation, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the F-cking land. Period. Dot.
You would think public servants would figure this out by now.
And…that’s exactly my point.
You don’t like the message, therefore EVERYTHING IS BAD. You took my ‘Hey, he might have something useful’ to ‘OMIGOD, LTC S HAS VIOLATED HIS OATH OF OFFICE!’ right quick.
Listening to people with opposing viewpoints, dialogue, understanding…these are hardly bad things. CT is not a simple issue; it’s extremely complex and a lot more involved than playing whack-a-mole with drone strikes. What we’re really struggling with right now is ‘How do we, as a society, prosecute domestic CT operations while maintaining the maximum number of civil liberties for the majority of our citizens? There is no easy answer, and every answer we can conceptualize involves some degree of compromise.
Hence…listening to other people.
Remember, son: ‘Only Sith think in absolutes.’ (Hint: there’s a joke there.) Deuces!
Nobody is blocking shit. Pull your head out
You are under the mistaken impressed that just because he has *some* credentials, he is above criticism, when people in position should be criticized relentlessly, not only because of what they want to do, but because of what they have already done.
People like him are turning this country into a POS. A overpopulated, polluted police state with a technocratic surveillance state. No thank you.
Did you actually read what I wrote, or just….block it out because it disagreed with your pre-conceptions?
I don’t like Gen Hayden (or Flynn, for that matter). Hayden defended what I consider to be a pretty indefensible intercept program. But I recognize that he is a smart, smart dude, and when smart people talk, I listen. I may disagree, but I listen.
“His viewpoint reminds me that not every threat to liberty is external. His final slide certainly sums it up.”
I would say so.
Considering these monsters have shredded our bill of rights over the past two decades, his stance regarding the 2nd doesn’t surprise me.
Scum