Panetta as CIA Director

[Beelzebubalicious]

This is out of left field to me (literally and figuratively). I'll be very curious to know what those who know more about this have to say....

Panetta to Be Named C.I.A. Director

[reed11b]

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]

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...

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Ken White

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...

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.

[Schmedlap]

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]

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

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]

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.

[Beelzebubalicious]

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]

Originally Posted by Beelzebubalicious

...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]

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]

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

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]

According to Wikipedia 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]

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

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. 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?

[Rank amateur]

Originally Posted by Ken White

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.

[120mm]

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

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?

[birdman]

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

[82redleg]

Wasn't CIA originally started to provide a single point of consolidation for all national intelligence?

The bureaucracy (CIA) we had didn't work, so we added a level of bureaucracy(DNI), resulting in them inconflict over roles & responsibilities. Go figure.

Better to have fired someone (or multiple someones) for the 9-11 failures, and to removed some bureaucratic bull$hit, than to have created a new level.

Not that it is any different than what we do in the military every day.

[Entropy]

birdman,

The 2004 intelligence reforms took away a lot of the CIA's long-standing authority and gave it to a new organization, the DNI, and some CIA people are not happy about it. The CIA used to be the budgetary manager for the IC as well as the gatekeeper for Presidential-level intelligence. Those functions, and more, now rest with the DNI.

[birdman]

Entropy,
I think that is the point. The DNI is now the purse holder, manager of the IC and the direct link to POTUS. But we have an operational guy running the DNI. The CIA is the operator in the IC and we have a budget manager running it who is used to having the ear or POTUS. Seems that somehow this process is stuck on stupid.