We don’t know what separates one intelligence expert’s specific qualifications from another in naming a new director of the Central Intelligence Agency. But a couple of broad themes are apparent in the dramatically changed circumstances of intelligence gathering over the last several years that suggest President Bush’s nominee could be a good choice – if the Senate gets acceptable answers on his management ability and his views of the constitutional restrictions on wiretapping.

Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden has an extensive history with intelligence oversight, including as head of the National Security Agency, which became well known recently because of its warrantless wiretaps. Even as some Republican senators doubted his abilities – for, among other things, being too closely tied to the Pentagon – former intelligence officials were praising his abilities. One called him “immensely talented.”

Perhaps as important is his relationship with the director of the national intelligence, John Negroponte, for whom he has served as deputy. Mr. Negroponte has reached into areas that were, pre-reform, the purview of the director of the CIA, putting him in conflict with departing director, Porter Goss. If Gen. Hayden goes into his new position without the turf battles of the last couple of years, he would improve the sharing of intelligence and, likely, its quality.

Second, Gen. Hayden appears to be good for morale. One widely reported example of that was that if Gen. Hayden were approved, his deputy would likely be former CIA deputy director of operations Stephen R. Kappes. Mr. Kappes was one of several experienced intelligence experts who resigned shortly after Mr. Goss took over in late 2004. Were other experts to return after leaving in dismay over the added political influence felt under Mr. Goss, the agency would be strengthened.

Finally, one of the concerns about Mr. Hayden is that he will not buck the military system on questions of intelligence. But Sen. Susan Collins recalled the other day that Gen. Hayden risked his career when he told her Senate committee that, contrary to the opinion of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he believed the National Security Agency should report to the civilian director of national intelligence rather than the defense secretary. The White House has seized on this as proof of his independence, though certainly in his long career the general should also be able to produce other examples.

There remain plenty of questions about Gen. Hayden, in particular in regard to his work at NSA, but he has solid experience and a strong reputation for his intelligence and abilities. The congressional hearings should test whether these traits translate into a strong director of the CIA.