Panetta as CIA Director

[Rank amateur]

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]

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]

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.

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

[Schmedlap]

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]

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

[Cavguy]

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]

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. 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]

should have been reversed. 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

[wm]

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):

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]

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.

[Ken White]

...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]

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]

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.

[Rex Brynen]

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]

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...