Panetta as CIA Director [Archive]

reed11b

01-05-2009, 08:31 PM

I know zip about Panetta (and about the same about the C.I.A to be honest) but my experience w/ leaders from the "inside" and "outside" might be useful here. The plus of leaders that rise up from the ranks is usually a smooth transition, i.e. little changes. The negative is that they usually rise up because they have accepted the rationalizations behind an organization’s less functional aspects, i.e. little changes. Leaders from the outside vary greatly and can either create chaos by micromanaging processes they do not understand, or can be effective agents of positive growth by being able to listen w/o the organizational "filters" that many agencies develop and act free of this bias. I can only hope that that this is the intended result from the Obama camp, but the fact that he was part of “fence sitter” Clinton's political team does not bode well in my mind.
Reed

Ken White

01-05-2009, 08:58 PM

Schmedlap

01-05-2009, 09:08 PM

There are a lot of distrubing notes in that article. Some of them are just red flags regardless of the circumstances.

... a competent manager with strong background in budget issues, but has little hands-on intelligence experience. If confirmed by the Senate, he will take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe...

Is this really the best that we can do?

Others passages are disturbing because they suggest that we have lost all sense of proportion and possibly reason.

... his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era.

[Obama's] first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amidst criticism over his role in the formation of the C.I.A’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

... Representative Jane Harman of California... was considered for the job, but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program.

Aren't we carrying this torture and eavesdropping hysteria a bit too far? How many people did we torture? What was it - three, like 6 years ago? And if we're monitoring international calls, then it is really domestic eavesdropping? If it means getting the best possible heads of these agencies, rather than these inexperienced picks out of left field, then I'll forgive someone for a few insignificant breaches of politically correct etiquette, such as the two individuals mentioned.

Lastly,

... Mr. Panetta’s lack of hands-on intelligence experience can be supplemented by others.
That was the argument that we heard for electing Obama. Now the people who are supplementing Obama's lack of experience need to be supplemented themselves? I don't like where this is going.

120mm

01-05-2009, 09:17 PM

That was the argument that we heard for electing Obama. Now the people who are supplementing Obama's lack of experience need to be supplemented themselves? I don't like where this is going.

It is only a matter of time until both candidates will be competing for who is the most freakish.

Zaphod Beeblebrox 2012!

The only person who can possibly be elected is the one least qualified.

Danny

01-05-2009, 09:17 PM

Panetta doesn't say it, the article does. But if the view is that by taking over the CIA he is taking over "control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe," then this is the same myopia that caused the diminution of the CIA under the Clinton administration. Woe is us.

The goal shouldn't be to "find AQ." This might be one of many RESULTS, but not the MISSION or the GOAL. The goal should be to rebuild our human intelligence resources and assets. There are many dangers, from Russia, to China, to AQ, to TTP, to Hezbollah, and so the cycle goes. UAVs aren't the solution to lack of HUMINT. They can be seen as an addition, but HUMINT is essential, and if Panetta doesn't understand that, then we will see the same ineffective CIA we have seen for years.

Entropy

01-05-2009, 09:19 PM

Shades of James Earl Carter and Stansfield Turner. Hard to say how this will work out. Panetta did a good job as WH CoFS -- but his politics are decidedly leftish. Could go either way. I suspect Langley will take the attitude I stated... :D

I think you're right here. The CIA has traditionally not played well with outsiders in the top leadership position. It will be interesting to see how he manages the agency and how successful he is. I see the appointment as a bit of a gamble, frankly.

Part of the calculus for choosing a complete outsider may have to do with the political necessity of finding someone who was not involved in any way with some of the controversial activities the CIA has reportedly engaged in in recent years.

It's also important to note that a lot of the CIA director's powers were stripped and given the the DNI as part of the 1994 intel reforms. The position of CIA director is therefore not nearly as important as it once was.

Beelzebubalicious

01-05-2009, 09:19 PM

Panetta is considered to be one of the most ethical people in government. I suspect that's a big reason for this. This should also help quiet some of the fears about torture and ethics among some critics. This nomination will reassure some.

If the Director role is largely about politics and management/administration in a large government bureaucracy, then he fits.

Some may call him a fence-sitter, but others say that he was adept at playing both sides, at going over both sides of the fence. Fence-sitter implies inaction and ineffectiveness and I don't think that's true.

Ken White

01-05-2009, 09:59 PM

...If the Director role is largely about politics and management/administration in a large government bureaucracy, then he fits.true today in the touchy feely we're nice USA that exists in the minds of some -- however, I believe the issue with that is -- Should it be true?

One could argue that the relative ineffectiveness and politicization of the CIA today can be directly laid at the feet of Nixon and Schlesinger, Carter and Turner plus the Rockefeller and Church Commissions -- all designed to get the Agency to play well with others and to identify it as just that, a large government bureaucracy. Bad thing is that the Agency in in a field where others do not play and a large government bureaucracy is not what's needed for the job.

All that paragraph means, among other things, is that the 'concern for torture' bit can be directly laid at the feet of those who sought to make the Agency play nice as they saw it. Unintended consequences can bite...

I have to agree with Schmedlap:
"...Aren't we carrying this torture and eavesdropping hysteria a bit too far? How many people did we torture? What was it - three, like 6 years ago?Way overdone idiocy, a great deal on the part of well meaning useful idiots.

Dr Jack

01-05-2009, 10:10 PM

Panetta was very active promoting language training - his district in California when he was in the House of Representatives included the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio of Monterey and he was a big supporter of promoting greater language capability...

Rank amateur

01-05-2009, 10:46 PM

Aren't we carrying this torture and eavesdropping hysteria a bit too far?

Considering that most interrogation experts say torture produces bad intelligence, and therefore eliminating torture will produce better intelligence, it seems like a reasonable objective for an intelligence agency.

Beelzebubalicious

01-05-2009, 11:16 PM

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Panetta) Panetta served two years in the Army...

In 1964 he joined the United States Army as a Second Lieutenant. There he received the Army Commendation Medal, and was discharged in 1966 as a Captain.

Ken White

01-05-2009, 11:18 PM

Considering that most interrogation experts say torture produces bad intelligence, and therefore eliminating torture will produce better intelligence, it seems like a reasonable objective for an intelligence agency.No quarrel with your statement, I agree on practical and moral grounds that torture is bad and should not be practiced or condoned. It is correctly against federal law and is well described LINK (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html). The UCMJ is, correctly, even less tolerant of any abuses along that line.

The issue is what constitutes torture. Lot of varied opinions on that. A whole lot...

The Schmedlap statement, though was directed properly at the hysteria over the topics, plural, not at the actions themselves. Perhaps you'd care to address that issue?

120mm

01-06-2009, 12:30 AM

Considering that most interrogation experts say torture produces bad intelligence, and therefore eliminating torture will produce better intelligence, it seems like a reasonable objective for an intelligence agency.

"Eliminating" torture? Are you implying we are currently torturing to get intelligence? What source are you basing this on?

And while you're at it, When did you stop beating your wife? ;)

Rank amateur

01-06-2009, 12:44 AM

The Schmedlap statement, though was directed properly at the hysteria over the topics, plural, not at the actions themselves. Perhaps you'd care to address that issue?

I don't know much about wiretapping, and even though that rarely stops me, I will let it stop me from commenting this time.;)

But I will stand by my statement that I don't think it's hysterical to attempt to remove people from an intelligence agency, who endorsed an illegal tactic that produces bad intelligence.

Ron Humphrey

01-06-2009, 12:50 AM

exactly when the idea of playing nice with others became the standard rather then simply accepting that you don't exist in a vacuum; and acting accordingly.

Ron Humphrey

01-06-2009, 12:54 AM

But I will stand by my statement that I don't think it's hysterical to attempt to remove people from an intelligence agency, who endorsed an illegal tactic that produces bad intelligence.

Never super effective to leave a fox guarding the hen house,
OTOH also probably not terribly advisable to leave hens guarding the hen house either. :wry:

Don't know much about Panetta but regardless guess we'll find out soon enough

Schmedlap

01-06-2009, 01:14 AM

But I will stand by my statement that I don't think it's hysterical to attempt to remove people from an intelligence agency, who endorsed an illegal tactic that produces bad intelligence.

We're in agreement there. But I was flustered about the hysteria, as Ken noted, around the issues. Deliberately or otherwise, a popular perception has been created that the current administration, our intelligence services, and our armed forces are committing atrocities and spying on average schmoes on a regular basis, as a matter of policy. And that is why those perceived blemishes on the records of Harman and Brennan were seen as disqualifiers. That is hysteria.

If a guy thought it was okay to waterboard KSM 6 or 7 years ago because he had reason to believe that a ticking time bomb scenario was at hand, but he is willing and the most capable of heading the CIA now, then I am willing to let bygones be bygones if he has the mental capacity to understand that we're not going to condone waterboarding in the future.

It seems that the issue of who is most willing and capable took a back seat to the issue of who is least offensive to people to people who get their news from MoveOn dot org.

Rob Thornton

01-06-2009, 01:49 AM

owns the quote (and the question) of the day again:

Is this really the best that we can do?

I know we often do not let lack of experience, knowledge, etc. dissuade us from making our choices, however, this is one job where I think both experience, and technical knowledge matter greatly. I also think having someone with a standard issue set of XX intestinal fortitude (preferably of known and demonstrated quality) would come in handy. Also, make this one with an good dose of understanding the politics of intelligence.

Sorry, Mr. Panetta may be a fine public servant in other capacities, but he is not what I'd prefer to see in the CIA director. Go find Sec Gate's clone - he or she is out there somewhere. If we can't get them to serve, then we should ask ourselves why that is.

Best, Rob

Ken White

01-06-2009, 02:01 AM

...But I will stand by my statement that I don't think it's hysterical to attempt to remove people from an intelligence agency, who endorsed an illegal tactic that produces bad intelligence.That's not what you said but I think it's hysterical of some who overstate the case and issue considerably. I'll also point out that it was not deemed illegal at the time *.

Nor do we know it produces universally bad intelligence; in fact in the case of the people to whom it apparently applies as envsioned in this sub-thread, it seems that two of them produced some good information. Either way, as Scmedlap's latest post says, the issue is not what it is or who did what to who but IS those who get overwrought, wish to believe the worse and get, well, hysterical....

I'll also disagree with all three of you and with such luminaries as Abu Buckwheat on waterboarding. Like Abu B, I've been boarded but we disagree on the degree of evil that it is. I do not think it's torture and do think it could be appropriate for some being interrogated as a harsh and exceptional technique. I do acknowledge that it can be very psychologically damaging for a few and thus think it should always be medically supervised and should never be used by the Armed Forces due to a propensity to overdo things and sometimes lax supervision -- but IMO, it ain't torture. Since the AG has said it probably is and many agree, I'm not gonna fall on my sword over it but will just say it is apparently NOW illegal; and that's okay, I can accept that -- but there are worse things... :)

Watcher In The Middle

01-06-2009, 04:28 AM

Leon Panetta is a real political player with the Obama administration, but the political response, while muted, isn't good for him. One thing he had going for him was that according to the talk, he really wasn't looking all that hard for a new gig.

Senator DiFi really sent a message today with her response (Dem CA internal politics at play here). Not likely to get better from here.

If the incoming administration really wants him in the CIA slot, it will happen. But better be NO SCREWUPS, because otherwise he'll be exiting considerably faster than Bill Richardson, and they won't care how he lands.

The idea being floated out there is that Panetta will bring a political perspective to things, and he'll be likely to quickly realize the political implications of sensitive information, which isn't always necessarily a bad thing. At least that's one of the ideas being floated out there.

We'll see....

davidoff

01-06-2009, 04:35 AM

In the assessment that it is troubling to think that Mr. Panetta is the best available.
The NY Times is reporting that Mr. Panetta was in the intelligence career field(1964-1966) and graduated from the Army Intelligence School.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/politics/05web-panetta.html

If this is true, then it is also worrisome that he chose not to use this knowledge in serving his country over the next forty years, and instead focused on many other issues. It signifies either a lack of interest in intelligence, its value, or a lack of intellectual curiosity; which is even more disturbing considering the role that intelligence played in the cold war.

Rex Brynen

01-06-2009, 04:54 AM

If this is true, then it is also worrisome that he chose not to use this knowledge in serving his country over the next forty years, and instead focused on many other issues. It signifies either a lack of interest in intelligence, its value, or a lack of intellectual curiosity; which is even more disturbing considering the role that intelligence played in the cold war.

I don't find anything worrisome about Panetta's truly outstanding record of public service. Whether he has the knowledge and experience to make a good DCIA is another question. There's no doubt that its a high risk appointment, although I can see some merit to it as well.

Ken White

01-06-2009, 05:46 AM

a. Further politicize the CIA.

b. Insure the CIA does not sort of subliminally attack the President as they have attacked several previous Presidents including the incumbent.

c. Serve as a political counterweight to his theoretical boss Dennis Blair.

d. All of the above.

Since I'm not a cynic, ;) I won't suggest those things. I will however, have to sort of agree and disagree with Rex, I do see a little merit in the appointment.

Very little, though... :confused:

Cavguy

01-06-2009, 06:52 AM

Sorry, Mr. Panetta may be a fine public servant in other capacities, but he is not what I'd prefer to see in the CIA director. Go find Sec Gate's clone - he or she is out there somewhere. If we can't get them to serve, then we should ask ourselves why that is.

Best, Rob

Keep in mind that Gates had no apparent special capacity for running DoD when appointed - he was a politically connected spook who became president of Texas A&M. Like Panetta, a fine resume, but not especially well grounded in DoD.

That one worked out well, and remember everyone considered him a "lame duck" appointment filling in until the end of Bush's turn. Boy were we surprised.

Rob Thornton

01-06-2009, 11:34 AM

Keep in mind that Gates had no apparent special capacity for running DoD when appointed - he was a politically connected spook who became president of Texas A&M. Like Panetta, a fine resume, but not especially well grounded in DoD.

That one worked out well, and remember everyone considered him a "lame duck" appointment filling in until the end of Bush's turn. Boy were we surprised.

Could be - but he also worked himself all the way up on merit to head the CIA (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=115). In my estimate the two men are of very different qualities as are the requirements for the leadership of those institutions. DoD has a history (not always a pretty one) of civilian leadership in its secretaries (deputies, etc.) with a complimentary military component in the JCS, the GCCs, etc. to foster that unequal dialogue. There are official and unofficial checks and balances in the various committees, etc. CIA (and other USG agencies) strike me as a different animal.

This seems more akin to say, taking a former White House CoS who left the service as a CPT and making him the CENTCOM CDR.

In any event I wish Mr. Panetta (and CIA) the very best of luck.

Best, Rob

John T. Fishel

01-06-2009, 01:06 PM

should have been reversed. :wry: I have been a believer that the head of the intel community should be an intel consumer, never a producer. With the creation of DNI, the DCIA is the head of a single agency responsible for collection, analysis, and some execution. Therefore, the DCIA should be an intel (or related - eg Blair) professional. By contrast, the DNI should be a consumer like Negroponte, Jane Harmon, or Blair.

Is Panetta the best we can do? Probably not. But he has some very limited military intel experience, was a consumer as WH COS, and as a member of the Iraq Study Group. Wish him the best, expect less, hope I'm wrong (even though "hope is not a method."

Cheers

JohnT

01-06-2009, 01:09 PM

Points to ponder, some drawn from San Jose Magazine article (http://www.sanjosemagazine.com/main/?p=1014). Draw suitable conclusions.

--Panetta, a Monterey native, finished his 2-year Army "career" (after a 3 year deferment from his ROTC obligation to attend law school) as an intelligence officer at Fort Ord, which was then a BCT/Infantry AIT post.
--Panetta got intros from Joe Califano around DC in the process of becoming a Congressional staffer. (excerpt from Wikipedia article on Califano follows as backgrounder):

In 1964, Califano became a special assistant to the United States Secretary of Defense, and deputy secretary. He was appointed to several committees by President of the United States Lyndon Johnson. In July 1965, he became a special assistant to the president, and served as President Johnson's senior domestic policy aide. He was called "The Deputy President for Domestic Affairs" by The New York Times. He served in that post for the remainder of Johnson's term.
--Dir CIA nominee (Panetta), Former Clinton Presidency OMB Director/ Chief of Staff and SecState nominee is former Clinton Presidency First Lady.

J Wolfsberger

01-06-2009, 01:56 PM

In spades. The CIA still hasn't recovered from the damage caused by Stansfield Turner. I fear/suspect that Mr. Panetta's appointment is intended to be the killing stroke.

Entropy

01-06-2009, 04:03 PM

As an intel guy myself, I'm not particularly concerned about the lack of intel experience as long as he's willing to listen to adivice from those in the community. Leadership and management ability is more important, IMO, and based on my limited knowledge of Mr. Panetta, he seems to have some skill there. But as I said before, it's a bit of a gamble.

The biggest worry I have is politicization of intelligence and I will second Ken's cynicism to a certain extent.

John T. Fishel

01-06-2009, 04:10 PM

the chief of your intel collection and analysis organization to be a fighter pilot (or ship driver, or engineer battalion commander)? That's how I see the nomination of Panetta for DCIA. Actually, I think he'd be a pretty good nominee for DNI but not to this job.That's why, in my previous post, I suggested a reversal of nominations would be better. But, then, P-E Obama is not consulting with me - a former intel guy.:cool:

Cheers

JohnT

Ken White

01-06-2009, 04:50 PM

but it's all one can have at this point... :wry:

I just have visions of Schlesinger, Turner -- not politicians but both sent in with a 'disable that monster' mission by a President -- Deutch, Tenet and Goss.

Particularly the last three, politicians all and not particularly bright ones at that...

Entropy

01-06-2009, 05:59 PM

John,

I agree that Panetta in the DNI position would make more sense. There are probably better candidates, but "better" all depends on one's criteria, which is highly subjective. We don't know the criteria, but I suspect we'll learn something from the confirmation process.

My personal opinion is that technical experience is an overrated quality for leadership positions. And it's not like Panetta is completely ignorant about intelligence (especially the relationship between intel and policy) issues given his experience as the White House COS. Understanding that intel-policy relationship and the ability to manage a large organization is more important IMO than direct experience in doing intelligence for that position. Panetta's budget experience is also very helpful.

My concern is that Panetta may be another Doug Feith and try to do his own intelligence analysis to fit the intel to the policy. That is a question regarding his character and leadership, which I can't speak to. Hence the reason I said the appointment is a gamble :)

01-06-2009, 06:01 PM

would you really want the chief of your intel collection and analysis organization to be a fighter pilot (or ship driver, or engineer battalion commander)? That's how I see the nomination of Panetta for DCIA. Actually, I think he'd be a pretty good nominee for DNI but not to this job.That's why, in my previous post, I suggested a reversal of nominations would be better. But, then, P-E Obama is not consulting with me - a former intel guy.:cool:

Sure seemed to work for Army intel when the upshot of IOSS was to ensure MI LTs be poor copies of combat arms platoon leaders rather than fight big Army and note that officers who were intel experts might actually have a function in the Army. :mad:

(BTW, I too am a former chief of intel collection and analysis organizations, albeit not quite on the size and scale of the little company headquartered in Langley.)

I concur that Panetta might be a better DNI, but If Ken is right about his mission, he may well move on to be DNI after deactivating CIA.

If CIA were to be "removed," it would a great moment in the history of Federal bureaucracies. When else have we seen the death of a Federal agency? :rolleyes:

jmm99

01-06-2009, 06:42 PM

from wm
If CIA were to be "removed" .....

let us assume that the agency is "removed". Where would you transfer its various functions ? - remember I'm the low level practice guy who likes concrete real world solutions.

Serious question, which has been asked by many - some, like Berntsen, say keep but reform the agency (he offers concrete proposals - whether they could or should be implemented is another discussion).

Others want it "removed" - but are short on concrete redeployments of its functions.

01-06-2009, 07:19 PM

let us assume that the agency is "removed". Where would you transfer its various functions ? - remember I'm the low level practice guy who likes concrete real world solutions.

Serious question, which has been asked by many - some, like Berntsen, say keep but reform the agency (he offers concrete proposals - whether they could or should be implemented is another discussion).

Others want it "removed" - but are short on concrete redeployments of its functions.

Pieces could be passed out to other agencies currently in existence; those agencies could have a collection focus, an analytic focus, or both. What would be missing would a central all-source fusion agency, an overarching collection management (CM) activity to make sure that intel collection resources were being tasked appropriately, and a central reporting/dissemination (D) activity to ensure that users get the intel they want in a timely way after production.
The Analysis, CM & D functions could be dragged up under the DNI.
Oh golly, isn't that what the CIA Director was really responsible for when he (sexist language intentional as I do not recall the Director position ever being filled by a woman) was also performing as the Director of Central Intelligence (the two are not the same thing) before we reorganized and put in a DNI? Silly me.

jmm99

01-06-2009, 07:53 PM

Entropy

01-06-2009, 07:54 PM

WM,

A lot of that already happened with the 2004 intel reforms, though reality is still catching up ;)

The CIA was stripped of most of its "prestige" responsibilities and by law should just be the HUMINT collection and covert action agency. The DNI and President Bush have slowly been making this the reality - it will be interesting to see if Panetta will complete the process. I'm guessing he will.

Rex Brynen

01-06-2009, 08:14 PM

The CIA was stripped of most of its "prestige" responsibilities and by law should just be the HUMINT collection and covert action agency. The DNI and President Bush have slowly been making this the reality - it will be interesting to see if Panetta will complete the process. I'm guessing he will.

And where does the analytic function go? While it is uneven, from what I've seen there's no one who does it better in the USG (well, INR, but that works in part because it is a rather small shop).

01-06-2009, 08:40 PM

Now, we have the DI moved under the DNI - and all the analysts are happy.

What do we do with the following basic functions:

1. Espionage

2. Disinformation

3. Special Operations

4. Counter-intelligence

realizing that these functions are generally illegal in the foreign countries where they operate.

Except espionage, which is another name for HUMINT to most folks I think, this list comprises "scope creep" missions that should not be part of an intel organization anyway.

jmm99

01-06-2009, 08:41 PM

DI is under DNI - wm's proposal for it.

And "DO" is another agency from what I glean from Entropy:

... should just be the HUMINT collection and covert action agency

as to which, Entropy, does this include all four of the "blacker" functions:

1. Espionage

2. Disinformation

3. Special Operations

4. Counter-intelligence

See, we nearly have the re-orgnization solved - ain't we smart.

forgot to ask - Is this agency under DNI as in wm's proposal for DI ?

------------------
PS: Rex, I like "small shops" - the possibility of a meritocracy with functioning horizontal and vertical lines of communication. Can work for a few hundred people.

Entropy

01-06-2009, 08:44 PM

And where does the analytic function go? While it is uneven, from what I've seen there's no one who does it better in the USG (well, INR, but that works in part because it is a rather small shop).

That's a big question. Big parts of it have been stripped off - most notably the counter-terrorism analysis and management of NIE's which were consolidated under the DNI. Technically (if I'm reading the law right, which I might not be doing) CIA gets to retain an analysis capability as long as it relates to its HUMINT mission. Makes sense since NSA and NGA both have analysis functions as well. But CIA specialized in a lot of "all-source" analytical areas, particularly strategic-level analysis, and it's not clear to me what's going to happen there beyond the NIE change. I do remember reading somewhere that CIA has increased the number of analysts it employs, so that should tell us something. :)

Entropy

01-06-2009, 09:06 PM

JMM,

1. Espionage - yes definitely, this falls under CIA's HUMINT mandate. (google "national clandestine service" for more).
2. Disinformation - not sure what you mean here. Psyops? If so, I thinks that's spread around a bit. Not really sure.
3. CIA still does covert action stuff. It nests nicely with clandestine HUMINT.
4. CI is still distributed among the various agencies. There isn't yet a centralized CI organization.

You may find this CRS report of value (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34231.pdf):

jmm99

01-06-2009, 09:39 PM

OK, now we have:

1. DI (directorate of intelligence - analysis) under DNI

2. DH (directorate of HUMINT - espionage) under DNI ?

And following wm's statement

Except espionage, which is another name for HUMINT to most folks I think, this list comprises "scope creep" missions that should not be part of an intel organization anyway.

that leaves three functions out to lunch:

1. Disinformation - generally non-violent stuff involving subversion, infiltration, planting stories & docs, political action dirty tricks - all in foreign counties.

2. Special Operations - violent stuff, small and big - again in foreign counties

3. Counter-intelligence - penetration of or screwing up foreign intel agencies & protecting own against same (James Angelton stuff) - counter espionage is J. Edgar Hoover stuff.

Where do these go ?

from Entropy
CIA still does covert action stuff. It nests nicely with clandestine HUMINT.

Not sure that this OSS action stuff "nests nicely" with espionage. Comments from others - since we have had roughly 60 years of history here.

PS: have to go home now - will check in later. Good discussion.

John T. Fishel

01-06-2009, 09:47 PM

As Entropy says, espionage is a function of HUMINT which is CIA (but also some DIA) The National Clandestine Service is still managed by CIA. Entropy (and JMM) disinformation is NOT PSYOP - as an old Psyoper. Disinformation is a subset of deception which is run as an intel op by the military (Fortitude in WWII) or by CIA. Special ops is primarily military -USSOCOM - but covert action both political and paramilitary falls under CIA from the National Security Act of 1947 where it talks about "such other activities as the President shall from time to time direct." CI is primarly an FBI function but DOD and others have a share - CIA also owns a piece overseas.

Rex, generally, I agree with you about CIA's analytical capability and INR's as well. there have been times, however, when DIA actually did better analytical work than CIA and times when sevice analytical elements were better than any of them. DI was not moved to DNI. It's still there and no analysis shop is limited to one intel discipline. they all do all source analysis an are limited only by what is not shared among the various elements of the community. When I was in the business, we got all of NSA's take, all of DIA's reports, all DOS cables and INR analysis, nothing from FBI, and supposedly everything from CIA. CIA always held back in those days and if something broke, you'd always get a flood of CIA traffic from the last several months.... My impression is that now there is far more sharing w/in the community than in my day and that it is largely elecronic. I had heard as well that the dreaded caveat, ORCON, is no longer seen - hope that is true.

Cheers

JohnT

Tom Odom

01-06-2009, 10:01 PM

Honestly I thought then and still do that Army intelligence in the DFI did better military and pol-mil analysis in the 1990s. I also feel that ITAC and AIA when they existed were far better than either CIA or DIA when it came to ground focused operational to tactical intelligence. Case in point for both those arguments was Army DFI's role in pushing a clear picture of the Iraqi threat and reactions to an reconquest of Kuwait versus an intent to conquer Iraq and ITAC analysis of the Iraqi ground deployments in the KTO. CIA, State (not INR), and DIA were into group think that the world would end if we took Kuwait back.

On CIA regional analysis uneven is an accurate word. All depends on who is sitting in the chair. INR had an edge because they tended to stay. CIA-DI were younger and more transient. DIA suffered from the same plus then DIA decided to analyze along "functional" lines so you had transport analysts and military analysts etc etc. none of whom understood that a tank or a train or a plane in the Sudan or Congo was not the same as a tank or a train or a plane in South Africa (in the previous regime).

Longevity, training, and rewards are the keys to building an analytical base, regardless of agency.

Tom

Rex Brynen

01-07-2009, 12:07 AM

Longevity, training, and rewards are the keys to building an analytical base, regardless of agency.

I couldn't agree more.

John T. Fishel

01-07-2009, 12:12 AM

Does anyone else see a problem for the incoming DNI? For all his experience, Admiral Blair, the nominal and sometimes very real superior of Mr Panetta does not have the personal relationship with the new President that his nominal and sometimes very real subordinate has. Makes me think that the consequences (intended or unintended) of these appointments may well be to denigrate the role of the DNI without attempting to change the legislation. If I were Admiral Blair, I would withdraw my name unless I had written assurances that the DCIA answered to me. (And I'd be fully prepared to use those assurances publicly.:eek:)

Cheers

JohnT

Ron Humphrey

01-07-2009, 12:30 AM

All I can say is that if they choose to rollback that role and the successes that have come with it

They get to live with the result:( Literally)

Schmedlap

01-07-2009, 04:33 AM

Just out of curiosity, what is the forum's opinion on General Hayden? My only impression of him comes from the few public appearances that I have seen him make - particularly when he was on Meet the Press with Russert. Aside from looking like a nerd - not a bad quality for an intel guy, imo - he came off as a guy who has brains down to his ankles.

Does he have a future in intelligence whatnot after this administration? Should he?

Entropy

01-07-2009, 05:06 AM

Things are a bit more clear now. The President-elect said today, speaking about his intelligence nominations:

I think what you'll also see is a team that is committed to breaking with the past practices and concerns that have tarnished the image of the agencies, both intelligence agencies as well as US foreign policy

Tom,

I agree with most your comment, especially the last line that Rex highlighted, but I don't think CIA's role has ever been focused on tactical intelligence and DIA only marginally so. On Kuwait, I think it's fair to point out that the CIA and DIA warning community accurately forecast the Iraqi invasion in and were largely ignored by the policy and most of the rest of the intelligence community. The sad reality of the intelligence business is that no one has a perfect track record.

John,

You're quite right that everyone does "all source" analysis, but the collection agencies like NSA and NGA have their institutional biases. For example, one would rarely (if ever - I can't recall every reading one) see NSA do any analysis that did not have a SIGINT component and most bread-and-butter products were heavily SIGINT based. Same with NGA (the agency with the every-changing name) and imagery.

Agree about ORCON. I hated that. I spent a lot of time in one job trying to get ORCON products to the people that needed them. It was a complete PITA.

The Panetta nomination reminded of another outsider CIA director - John McCone under President Kennedy - who played a key role in the Cuban missile crisis.

John T. Fishel

01-07-2009, 12:17 PM

You're right on the institutional base thing and even more so about NSA. When I was reading them, their "Finished Product" looked more like condensed raw data than analysis of any kind.:eek: That said, CIA, DIA, and my shop (Army Current Intel by whatever name) all did real all source analysis with varying degrees of effectiveness. In my 2 years active there the order of quality was CIA, us, and DIA. In 7 years of returning as a Reservisteach agency was in the lead at one time or another. Later, in Strat MID(S), our regional analysis for GIPD and CIPD was better than anything CIA or DIA ever did.

Regarding Hayden: He seems like a competent professional. My only qualm is that he came out of NSA and had no background in HUMINT or real analysis.

Finally, saw Gary Berntsen plugging his new book on intel on TV last night. His pitch/take on Panetta was exactly what one would expect from a guy who came out of the CIA paramilitary ops and clandestine collection parts of DO. Represents some of the best and some of the worst aspects of CIA. See Jawbreaker for the best.

One last item, can't I get any bites on my last post about the apparent denigration of DNI?:rolleyes:

Cheers

JohnT

01-07-2009, 12:56 PM

Here's (http://www.slate.com/id/2208020/) Fred Kaplan's take from Slate. IMO, the one really interesting part of the article is his resurrection of the Flynt Leverett proposal:

One good proposal was laid out in a 2004 New York Times op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/opinion/09LEVE.html?ex=1247112000&en=3ad6ad9ddeb831d8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland)by Flynt Leverett, a former CIA analyst now at the New America Foundation. Leverett described the bricklike wall that has long divided the agency's analytical branch and its clandestine branch, making it nearly impossible for either to share information with the other, much less with competing departments such as the FBI.

To maneuver around this wall, Leverett suggested setting up joint intelligence commands for specific "targets." There might be specific commands to provide intelligence on, say, al-Qaida, nuclear proliferation, Middle Eastern stability, and so forth. The national intelligence director would have the power to draw on personnel and resources from all the intelligence agencies to work together within each of those commands—the heads of which would report directly to him.

Kaplan is much more optimistic than I about the post G-N COCOMs' competence at handling a conflict successfully. He also has a few things just factually wrong as far as I can tell. Still, a matrixed/JTF-like approach to intel might be an interesting alternative for trying to break down the traditional stovepipes.

01-07-2009, 01:09 PM

One last item, can't I get any bites on my last post about the apparent denigration of DNI?:rolleyes:

I thought I answered that before you even asked the questionback at post 34 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=63708&postcount=34). Maybe the idea is to put Blair in the position, give him nothing to do and expect he will resign after seeing that he is a title without authority (isn't that sort of what the reason was for his leaving PACOM?). That gives the new team time to come up with a "better" person for the position--maybe Panetta, maybe a "player to be named later" as they say in the big time pro sports trades. BTW, what about Leon in CIA as a counterweight/buffer/supporter (I'm not sure which) to Hillary at State, running INR ?

Tom Odom

01-07-2009, 03:38 PM

Tom,

I agree with most your comment, especially the last line that Rex highlighted, but I don't think CIA's role has ever been focused on tactical intelligence and DIA only marginally so. On Kuwait, I think it's fair to point out that the CIA and DIA warning community accurately forecast the Iraqi invasion in and were largely ignored by the policy and most of the rest of the intelligence community. The sad reality of the intelligence business is that no one has a perfect track record.

Actually the CIA and DIA both tried to do so in DS and Storm. The CIA in its Mil Capablities wing and DIA first via regional SMEs who had no tactical ground whatsoever.

As for the warning staffs getting it right, yes and no. The warning staffs got it but then the regional wags said no. As I was both warning and regional I said he was going and agreed with myself making me the winner of a self-inflcited argument :D

Tom

Entropy

01-07-2009, 03:50 PM

Actually the CIA and DIA both tried to do so in DS and Storm. The CIA in its Mil Capablities wing and DIA first via regional SMEs who had no tactical ground whatsoever.

Ah, before my time really. I didn't see much from them on tactical intel during the latter-half of the 1990's. If there was any, it couldn't have been any good since I don't remember it :D

John,

One thing that crossed my mind is that Panetta is probably a lot more politically experienced in dealing with internecine executive fights, so that might give him a big advantage should he choose to butt heads with the DNI.

01-07-2009, 03:51 PM

As for the warning staffs getting it right, yes and no. The warning staffs got it but then the regional wags said no. As I was both warning and regional I said he was going and agreed with myself making me the winner of a self-inflcited argument :D

Tom's post reminds me of a W.C. Fields line from his 1939 movie, "You Can't Cheat an Honest Man."

I'm taking on the personality of a Mexican jumping bean. First the contortionist gets rheumatism. Then the sword-swallower gets tonsilitis. Hope nothing happens to that fan dancer... not 'til I get rid of this cold, anyway.

Ken White

01-07-2009, 03:52 PM

...Kaplan is much more optimistic than I about the post G-N COCOMs' competence at handling a conflict successfully.Thee and me; DS/DS was an aberration so we can say experience to date is not encouraging. I feared creation of overlarge bureaucracies with few saving graces.
He also has a few things just factually wrong as far as I can tell.Usually does... :wry:
Still, a matrixed/JTF-like approach to intel might be an interesting alternative for trying to break down the traditional stovepipes.Well, it certainly has in the past. Worldwide, in most wars, ad hoc agencies formed just to bypass the stovepipes and bureaucracies and address the current issues with a degree of urgency have generally been quite successful.

Ken White

01-07-2009, 03:58 PM

...As for the warning staffs getting it right, yes and no. The warning staffs got it but then the regional wags said no. As I was both warning and regional I said he was going and agreed with myself making me the winner of a self-inflcited argument :D"Kuwait belongs to Iraq and you should give it to us." The Persian empires dominated the area prior to Islam and Ta'arof was an acquired trait by all in the area...

Does that make me a regional wag??? :wry:

Entropy

01-07-2009, 04:03 PM

To maneuver around this wall, Leverett suggested setting up joint intelligence commands for specific "targets."

This is essentially already happening. There are committes of experts from all the relevant agencies that meet and coordinate on a regular basis for all kinds of intelligence problems, especially strategic. My wife has served as her organization's representative on a couple of them dealing with nonproliferation topics. I've heard there are others (not sure if they're ad hoc or not) that work on more tactical problems or specific groups and even individuals. Even the UBL unit in the CIA CT center pre 9/11 might be an example, though perhaps not the best one. I don't know if any of these are formalized, however.

jkm_101_fso

01-07-2009, 06:43 PM

Ignatius on Panetta, Blair.

A Surprise For Langley

By David Ignatius

On its face, it's a puzzling choice: Barack Obama selects as his spy chief a former congressman with no firsthand experience as an intelligence professional. Is Obama dissing the CIA? Is he further politicizing this badly bruised agency? What signal is he sending by picking Leon Panetta as CIA director?

Here's the message, according to Obama's advisers: Panetta is a Washington heavyweight with the political clout to protect the agency and help it rebuild after a traumatic eight years under George Bush, when it became a kind of national pincushion.

"Leon is not going to preside over the demise of the CIA," explains one member of the Obama transition team. "The CIA needs to have someone who can represent them well."

This argument for Panetta makes sense. Ideally, the next CIA director would have been an experienced professional -- someone like Steve Kappes, the veteran case officer who now serves as deputy director. But the reality is that the professionals now lack the political muscle to fend off the agency's critics and second-guessers. That's the heart of the problem: The agency needs to rebuild political support before it can be depoliticized.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010602826.html

1258dave

01-07-2009, 07:59 PM

As a general response ..... we tend to forget how messy "winning" can be.
I'm not sure that Geo Washington would have been looking for a manager - he was looking for folks who wanted to win.

Year of the Hangman: George Washington's Campaign Against the Iroquois
http://www.amazon.com/Year-Hangman-Washingtons-Campaign-Iroquois/dp/1594160139

bourbon

01-07-2009, 11:56 PM

Opinions from the former-Agency crowd:

Panetta Is Not Uncured Italian Bacon (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/01/06/panetta-is-not-uncured-italian-bacon/), by Philip Giraldi. The American Conservative Blog, January 6th, 2009.

Leon Panetta: An Intel Outsider the CIA Needs (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1869824,00.html), By Robert Baer. Time.com, Jan. 06, 2009

Leon Panetta? Say It Ain't So (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477451,00.html), By Mike Baker. Foxnews.com, January 07, 2009.

Right man for the job (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.cia07jan07,0,4454281.story), By Melvin A. Goodman. The Baltimore Sun, January 7, 2009.

00-Huh? Former intel officials react to Panetta CIA pick (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/node/14914), by Laura Rozen. Foreign Policy Blog: The Cable, 01/05/2009.

John T. Fishel

01-08-2009, 02:28 AM

to be the best possible spin on the subject. Even if it is correct and more than spin, the appointment puts the CIA in a politically stronger position than the DNI - the opposite of what Congress intended with its reorganization of the intel community.

I am not saying that Congress was either right or wrong in what it did - if I had been King, I would have done something different - but Congress had both the authority and the power to change the structure of the intel community in the way it did. This move negates that action - whether as some fear Mr Panetta's job is to dismantle the CIA or, as Ignatius and others suggest, to protect it. My understanding of the intel reforms enacted is that they were to centralize authority for analysis and judgement in the DNI and relegate the CIA to (1) the primary HUMINT collector with some covert action responsibilities and (2) make it one among several all source analytical agencies.

Cheers

JohnT

jmm99

01-08-2009, 03:27 AM

You certainly covered the political spectrum. Shows that former agency people are far from being a monolith. Thank you. :)

bourbon

01-08-2009, 05:51 PM

More former-Agency opinion:

Sam Faddis -
CIA Man: Spies' Reaction to Panetta 'Overwhelmingly Negative' (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/01/cia-man-spies-reaction-to-pane.html), By Jeff Stein. CQ Politics: Spytalk, January 7, 2009.

Michael Scheuer and Ray McGovern -
Obama's Picks for Top Intel Jobs Stir Mixed Reactions (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june09/intelteam_01-06.html), PBS Newshour, January 6, 2009.

Gary Berntsen Thinks CIA Needs 'Leadership Not Management' (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477455,00.html), Fox News, January 07, 2009.

Dell Dailey (not former-agency) -
Counterterrorism Chief Praises Panetta (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/PAN010709.xml&headline=Counterterrorism%20Chief%20Praises%20Pane tta), Aviationweek.com, Jan 7, 2009.

Obama Team Debating Whether Kappes Will Join Panetta and Blair for PEBO Intel Announcement (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/kappes-to-join.html), ABC News, January 08, 2009.

jmm99

01-08-2009, 08:05 PM

Of the named people, I get 3-1 (majority more or less pro) and 1-3 (majority more or less con), in the two sets of links. Another wait and see for post-20 Jan.

bourbon

02-24-2009, 12:30 AM

Phil Giraldi on his former agency and the current state in which Panetta will inherit it:

Counter Intelligence: Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/23/00020/), By Philip Giraldi. The American Conservative, February 23, 2009.

Senior officers, in denial over their own lack of language and cultural skills, frequently maintain that “an op is an op,” implying that recruiting and running spies is the same everywhere—an obvious absurdity. The Agency’s shambolic overseas assignment process means that officers often receive only minimal language training and are expected to learn the local idiom after arriving at a post, presumably through osmosis. Most fail to do so. Frequently chiefs of station cannot converse with the heads of the local intelligence services unless their counterparts happen to speak English. Officers targeting indigenous political parties or government officials often cannot read a newspaper or speak the local language. Attempts in the 1980s to require language qualification as a sine qua non for overseas assignment foundered due the sheer immensity of the problem. In 1995, only three Agency officers could speak Arabic well enough to understand an Arab speaking colloquially. Seven years after 9/11, there are only five such officers.

NYPD has sixty officers fluent in Arabic across a range of dialects. Granted, the standards between NYPD and CIA are very different. Still, only five officers... ouch.

Uboat509

02-24-2009, 01:06 AM

Still, only five officers... ouch.

Assuming that it is even true.

SFC W

George L. Singleton

02-24-2009, 03:19 AM

Knowing of Georgetown University's involvement in Arabic language training, I doubt the small numbers used here and suggest an understatement has been made.

Too, deep operatives are not known openly or even somewhat covertly to other operatives, as it should be.

A bit too open a discussion for my blood as folks worldwide can read this site. Out.

birdman

11-22-2009, 01:02 PM

On 17 November there was an article in the Washington Post addressing turf wars between the CIA and the DNI. A hasty summary of the article illustrates three areas where the CIA and the DNI are at odds: oversight of covert action, naming the intelligence community representative at National Security Council meetings and appointing DNI representatives to foreign partners and international organizations. While sitting at the Fort Belvoir ILE sattellite campus I began wondering how this intelligence conflict developed. How did two of the premier US intelligence organizations get to be a odds? Simply put, President Obama picked the right people for the jobs, but has them in the wrong agencies.

President Obama selected Admiral (retired) Dennis Blair and Leon Panetta to the two highest intelligence positions in the U.S. intelligence community. Blair now runs the DNI and Panetta runs the CIA. A better scenario would have been nominating Admiral Blair for the CIA post and Mr. Panetta for the DNI post. This would have placed both individuals in intelligence positions suited to their strengths.

A quick look into Mr. Panetta’s background reveals limited intelligence positions, but numerous bureaucratic and managerial roles. Panetta served in the Army from 1964 to 1966 as a Military Intelligence officer. He later served eight terms in Congress representing California. He is known for coordination and being a budget guru since he served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Clinton. Panetta had many government positions but only one true intelligence job. Panetta’s Army experience provided limited intelligence exposure and most likely all of it would have been at the operational/tactical level. During his 16 years in Congress he never served on the House Intelligence Committee. Panetta does not possess a deep reservoir of intelligence or counterterrorism experience which would be vital in running the CIA.

By picking Blair as the DNI, President Obama showed he wants the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to assert itself as the top intelligence agency in the U.S. Given Blair’s military experience it is easy to see how the ODNI is evolving into a more defined and focused agency. It also shows Blair will not sit on the sidelines and let other agencies run amok if he is overall responsible for the IC. Admiral Blair served as the PACOM Commander and as the first Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support at the CIA. These positions exposed Admiral Blair to tactical and strategic level intelligence. However it is possible Blair lacks the managerial skills to effectively interact and maneuver with politics in the beltway.

Because Blair previously worked at the CIA and the fact that he has a wider background in intelligence indicates he is probably more suited to lead the CIA in lieu of Panetta. Former CIA director Deutch stated Panetta is a “talented and experienced manager of government and a widely respected person with Congress” which only reinforces the argument that Panetta should have been made the DNI since he would manage more and deal with Congress more. Blair is used to issuing orders and following policy and Panetta is used to budget battling and having the ear of the President. I am interested in reading other viewpoints.

CPT Bird
Fort Belvoir ILE