I second Schmedlap and Mr. Thornton
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...b-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.
If I were a cynic, I'd say he's being picked to
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:
Perhaps, the Panetta and Blair appointments
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
Things that make you go HMMMMM. . .
Points to ponder, some drawn from San Jose Magazine article. 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):
Quote:
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.
Entropy, 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:
Cheers
JohnT
We'll see, I guess. I'm with John, hope isn't a plan
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...
For purposes of discussion,
Quote:
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.
OK, part of the redeployment solved.
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.