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.
What Ken said
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.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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
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.Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
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.
(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?
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
For purposes of discussion,
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.from wm
If CIA were to be "removed" .....
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.
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks