OPINION:
A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
Training in clandestine operations in the earliest days of my CIA career was a formative experience, and not just because I learned how to recruit spies and steal secrets.
Equally important, my fellow trainees and I were imbued with the preeminent importance the agency places on intellectual honesty.
It all began when my CIA instructors called me out when my performance was lacking. I had to demonstrate that I could listen to their constructive feedback and incorporate it into ensuing training exercises. Otherwise, I would have washed out.
I learned early on to appreciate honest feedback — even if it was not pleasant to hear. Why? Because someday, our sources’ lives might depend on it.
On subsequent overseas and headquarters assignments, I learned valuable lessons about analytical precision and the dangers of predisposed bias, which could warp one’s interpretation of events. Intelligence analysis is a rigorously inductive process, whereby conclusions are drawn based on facts and source information.
That’s why the biblical quotation John 8:32 is fixed in stone at the CIA’s headquarters building: “And Ye Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Shall Make You Free.”
Over the course of my career, I regularly testified before the House and Senate intelligence panels and briefed CIA directors, White House aides and Cabinet officials. In my experience, most elected officials, no matter their political affiliation, appreciated that they would be briefed on what they needed to know, even when it was not necessarily what they wanted to hear.
I remember how, when he was serving as CIA director, retired Gen. David Petraeus told us he would, figuratively speaking, take a moment to “sit under a tree” to let an idea sink in after receiving analysis in the packed CIA seventh-floor conference room, especially an idea that conflicted with one of his assessments. His commitment to gaining a 360-degree perspective on the issue at hand made it clear he valued our work and was focused solely on the success of the mission.
Last month, House Speaker Mike Johnson demonstrated that same high standard of leadership when he put the $95 billion supplemental military assistance package, which included $60 billion for Ukraine, to a vote. The Louisiana Republican initially opposed the package, but — like some of my best mentors — he demonstrated the strength of character to challenge his own assumptions.
I learned firsthand that when the CIA’s reporting conflicted with an elected official’s view of the world, we would face follow-up questions and be sent back to our sources for further data collection. Real policy debate happens only when both sides agree on the facts and use intelligence briefings to inform rather than justify an a priori policy.
Mr. Johnson reportedly received highly sensitive briefings from CIA Director William Burns and sage counsel from House committee chairs who support Ukraine’s fight against Russia. Lauding the intelligence analysis he received, the speaker emphasized that “Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed. I’d rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys.”
Among those American boys, Mr. Johnson no doubt had in mind his own son, who is to attend the U.S. Naval Academy in the autumn.
Mr. Johnson’s deft stewardship of this legislation reflected his ability to forge bipartisan consensus, even when our country is so deeply divided. There’s a lot of gridlock on Capitol Hill because Democrats and Republicans so rarely see their way to compromise, and the speaker is working with the tiniest of majorities in the House.
Mr. Johnson’s inspired leadership recalled the days when House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill and President Ronald Reagan, two political polar opposites, found common ground with a lot of good humor despite their political differences, all to the benefit of our nation. They never let the perfect be the enemy of the good, even though Reagan saw the government as “the problem” and O’Neill believed the government existed to improve the lives of our citizens.
Reagan and O’Neill practiced the true art of the deal: They compromised on everything from tax reform to Social Security and prioritized what was best for our nation, even if it meant not getting everything they wanted. The secret of their success was simple: intellectual honesty, mutual respect and goodwill.
Reagan and O’Neill understood that what binds us together as Americans should always outweigh whatever drives Democrats and Republicans apart on the passing issues of the day. As we face off against an unprecedented number of ruthless foreign adversary nation-states and terrorists, we should be thankful to Mr. Johnson for honoring their example and their legacy.
• Daniel N. Hoffman is a retired clandestine services officer and former chief of station with the Central Intelligence Agency. His combined 30 years of government service included high-level overseas and domestic positions at the CIA. He has been a Fox News contributor since May 2018.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.