In a highly unusual — and perhaps without precedent — move, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency has ordered an investigation of the CIA’s own Inspector General whose findings have not been pleasant for the agency in recent months:

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has ordered an unusual internal inquiry into the work of the agency’s inspector general, whose aggressive investigations of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation programs and other matters have created resentment among agency operatives.

A small team working for General Hayden is looking into the conduct of the agency’s watchdog office, which is led by Inspector General John L. Helgerson. Current and former government officials said the review had caused anxiety and anger in Mr. Helgerson’s office and aroused concern on Capitol Hill that it posed a conflict of interest.

Some suggest it could be a form of retaliation or intimidation — the sending of a message. Others think it’s needed because they suspect Helgerson has an agenda…but the phrase “an agenda” in the Bush administration has come to mean those who oppose whatever the Bush administration or its officials do, including when they move traditional policy goalposts.

The review is particularly focused on complaints that Mr. Helgerson’s office has not acted as a fair and impartial judge of agency operations but instead has begun a crusade against those who have participated in controversial detention programs.

Any move by the agency’s director to examine the work of the inspector general would be unusual, if not unprecedented, and would threaten to undermine the independence of the office, some current and former officials say.

Frederick P. Hitz, who served as C.I.A. inspector general from 1990 to 1998, said he had no first-hand information about current conflicts inside the agency. But Mr. Hitz said any move by the agency’s director to examine the work of the inspector general would “not be proper.”

“I think it’s a terrible idea,” said Mr. Hitz, who now teaches at the University of Virginia. “Under the statute, the inspector general has the right to investigate the director. How can you do that and have the director turn around and investigate the I.G.?”

The New York Times story has the usual boilerplate denial (the kind officials and agencies always make in instances such as this) insisting this is not what many fear it is.

The Los Angeles Times:

U.S. intelligence officials who are concerned about the inquiry said it was unprecedented and could threaten the independence of the inspector general position. The probe “could at least lead to appearances he’s trying to interfere with the IG, or intimidate the IG or get the IG to back off,” said a U.S. official familiar with the probe.

Frederick P. Hitz, who served as the CIA’s inspector general from 1990 to 1998, said the move would be perceived as an effort by Hayden “to call off the dogs.”

“What it would lead to is an undercutting of the inspector general’s authority and his ability to investigate allegations of wrongdoing,” Hitz said. “The rank and file will become aware of it, and it will undercut the inspector general’s ability to get the truth from them.”

But other officials described the probe as a chance to turn the tables on an inspector general who has been accused by some of his targets of treating career officers unfairly and letting personal biases undermine his objectivity.

“There is across-the-board distrust with the IG function and disrespect for Helgerson, who many believe has a personal agenda on issues,” said a former high-ranking CIA official who, like others interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the inspector general’s work.

Helgerson, the former official said, “always went in with a presumption of guilt.”

This probably will not end well in terms of public perceptions for CIA officialdom or for the Bush administration.

While the administration’s staunch supporters will applaud an administration action, it will add to the belief among many Democrats, independents and some Republicans that those who oppose Bush administration policies or actions of those in agencies now administered by the Bush administration are eventually weeded out. Any action against Helgerson will be seen by some as retaliation.

But, as the Times notes, the complaints seem to be coming less from above than below:

The inquiry has been driven in large part by senior operations officers who have complained to Hayden that they were unfairly criticized by Helgerson in classified reviews of the CIA’s secret prisons programs.

The probe is set up to examine “how those people were treated, how the investigations were conducted,” said an official familiar with it.

The official declined to discuss the conclusions of the internal investigations, which are classified, but said that “the people who are upset didn’t think they were glowing reviews.”

Among the issues being explored are whether agency officers were given adequate opportunity to defend their actions, and whether the inspector general’s conclusions accurately represented their roles.

Officials declined to name the CIA officers behind the complaint. One former official said, “We’re talking about undercover people at mid- to senior-grade ranks.”

But the prisons issue is a touchy one and perceptions matter. So if Helgerson is removed or suddenly leaves to spend more time with his family, it will be seen by many as a someone critical of the CIA being forced out by the CIA — so that someone less critical and more of a team player can be put in place as inspector general.