As an FSO, I agree...it is inappropriate for government employees to publicly criticize the administration while working for the government.

...and, yes, North worked for the NSC, not the NSA...

I would agree. The interesting thing about Scheuer, especially, is that the media harps on the things he says that they agree with and ignores his harsh criticisms of the Clinton administration and most of his policy prescriptions, which are, to coin a phrase, reminiscent of Genghis Khan.

I largely agree with you on point 1, as noted in the last paragraph.

As to point 2, I'm not sure that you (or I) am typical in that regard. My suspicion is that casual observers think generals and former CIA guys are still part of the gang. More importantly, though, Christensen's argument goes to how the administration in office is likely to react. This criticism is much more apt, I think, to those like Pillar and Scheuer who are/were simultaneously going public with criticisms of the administration while still employed by the Agency in a senior capacity.

I don't disagree as to point 3. Sometimes a bad thing is a fact about which little can be done rather than a problem to be solved.

I can assure your readers that the politicization of the bureaucracy didn't start with Bush. It's been a "feature" of the beast since I first became an FSO under Carter. And, actually, earlier than that, at least back to Johnson, when my father joined the Foreign Service. In fact, I'm stretched to find a period when it was note politicized... Jefferson? Madison? Nope, pretty damn volitle then, too!

There is the matter of acting honorably, though. That means that if you've a strong enough beef about a policy, you don't take the Dane Geld anymore; you submit your resignation. You don't use your position to sabotage that unliked policy.

That seems to be a rule that's been forgotten.

After you've resigned--or retired--you can pop off on anything your heart desires, within the parameters of your security agreements. People will judge your arguments, hopefully, on their own merits. Though with our addiction to celebrity and fame, that doesn't always work out. By telling the media the stories it wants to hear, one sets up a heterodyning relationship, where one keeps feeding back into the signal.

That's where Scheur and Pillar end up. They may well believe what they say, but that doesn't make their beliefs actually correct. Since it supports the media's assumptions, though, it gets out into the public domain quickly, loudly, and often.

1. Should former government officials, be they CIA, State, military, agricultural extension agents, etc., engage in activities in which they offer commentary on their fields of expertise?

I don't see why not, and I think its sort of unrealistic to expect that they wouldn't! After working for much of one's career in diplomacy, defense, tax policy, etc., I can see why someone wouldn't want to abandon all of that expertise and experience to do something entirely different...say, start a taxidermy shop or become a farmer! Its entirely reasonable, I think, for a former government official to want to write, consult, teach, do media commentary, etc., on their fields of expertise.

2. Does such work reflect poorly on their former agencies/departments/bureaus, etc.?

I don't think so. Maybe its just me, but I don't think that Pillar speaks for the CIA anymore than I assume that Oliver North speaks for the NSA, Wesley Clark speaks for the U.S. Army, or Pete Rose speaks for the Cincinnati Reds. When reading or listening to such commentators, I think most viewers and readers recognize that they no longer speak for their former employers.

3. Is it bad that there may be ideological leanings/cultures/political agendas in government bureaucracies.

Probably, but I don't know that anything can be done about it. Organizations are made up of individuals who are going to have opinions, preferences, agendas, etc. Moreover, public officials with years of experience in particular fields are naturally going to assume that they know what they're doing and of what they speak! I don't know of any way that any agency/department/bureau can be totally "objective" (if indeed there is such a thing!) without being completely ineffective!

Regardless, elected officials are, by their nature, poltical. We expect that Republicans will act a certain way and Democrats will act a different way (although we're often disappointed in that regard). State and the Intelligence Community are supposed to be pure technical experts, not advocates.

Cart ... horse ....

Over the long haul, all the new pundits aren't going to help the CIA in its relationship to the administration.

Also, if anything, the weakest link in all the pre war intelligience was not the administration, but the CIA itself, and some of this sounds a lot like "turf" protection as well.