I'm not so sure. My impression of the intelligence types I've (very rarely) encountered is more something of academic arrogance and smugness.
Others make the critism that the CIA lacks effective review mechanisms, the analysists reach a consenus and that consensus is never challenged. They don't have "Red Team" or "Tiger Team" reviews, designed to tear their conclusions to shreds. They don't seem to try and test their analysis against ground truth. They don't look for facts that would falsify their conclusions.
Military life is filled with inspections, ratings and reviews and career terminations. The CIA is like an academic institution, once you get tenure, you can rely on retiring in twenty or thirty years, as long as you don't rock the boat. It's not surprising that they have entirely different views of the world. I have long believed that at least 75% of the CIA should be composed of people with at least three years of military experience. Not necessarily in intelligence. For gawd's sake, hire someone who's done something other than shuffle papers all his/her whole life.
It seems curious that, whereas once the State Department and the CIA were uneasy bedfellows, with Foggy Bottom defeatists in rivalry with CIA hawks, now they revel in a perverse embrace. IMO this suggests someone placed left-leaning ideological moles in the CIA and it has been difficult to dislodge the ticks. Just a guess.