Les Gelb offers a (much fuller) variation on a point I made yesterday, which is that having been an intelligence "professional" isn't necessarily a predictor of success at the CIA. George Tenet was a longtime "pro," but his tenure--though it had some successes--was mostly a disaster. Adds Gelb:
Before others join them, they would all do well to scrutinize the history of past appointments of pros and non-pros. I would say that the non-pro defense secretaries Clark Clifford and Mel Laird were every bit as good in their handling of the Pentagon and of the Vietnam War as the highly experienced and professional Bob Gates is in handling Iraq and his present duties. George Shultz and James Baker, who had no particular backgrounds in foreign affairs or the State Department, served just as ably as secretary of state as did Henry Kissinger. As for the CIA, outsiders like John McCone performed about as well as the ultimate professional, Richard Helms.
Anyway I find the intensity of interest in this pick--especially the process question of which Senators were notified and which weren't--a little curious. The far more important and interesting question is what policies Obama will hand down to the CIA from on high, particularly when it comes to whether we will continue a policy of renditioning terror suspects to other countries for "interrogation." Panetta is a hard-liner against torture but he was present at the creation of the rendition practice under Bill Clinton in the 1990s--but it's Obama's call anyway, not his.
Also, if the instant, obsessive bloggy news cycle means there's going to be a mini- daylong controversy every time Obama fails to kiss properly the ring of every committee chair he is in for a long, long presidency.
--Michael Crowley
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (3)
People are interested in the pick because it's risky. Plus you have the confluence of a) political bickering in the Senate, plus b) internal bickering within the intelligence community. We shouldn't really worry too much about the former, but the latter is instructive. My impression is that the IC is very divided about Panetta. A lot of people don't like the pick at all. For instance, see this post from spytalk: blogs.cqpolitics.com/.../cia-man-spies-reaction-to-pane.html
Now there's lots of countervailing positions as well, and ... view full comment
People are interested in the pick because it's risky. Plus you have the confluence of a) political bickering in the Senate, plus b) internal bickering within the intelligence community. We shouldn't really worry too much about the former, but the latter is instructive. My impression is that the IC is very divided about Panetta. A lot of people don't like the pick at all. For instance, see this post from spytalk: blogs.cqpolitics.com/.../cia-man-spies-reaction-to-pane.html
Now there's lots of countervailing positions as well, and the fact that Langley insiders don't like Panetta doesn't necessarily imply that he will be a bad DCI. The CIA needs to be shaken up, but hard. The question is whether Panetta has both the credibility inside the agency to institute long-term changes as well as the ability to determine what sort of changes are needed. This remains to be seen. We just won't know until some time has gone by; unfortunately, that also gives him time to royally f*%k things up, possibly.
As I've said before, the CIA really doesn't have far to fall, so maybe a risky choice is what we need. If Panetta can get the budget under control, that would be a good start. The amount of money that leaks out of various ill-conceived special access programs into the pockets of defense contractors is shameful.
Also, once again I want to draw people's attention to this bizarrely good post on The Corner: corner.nationalreview.com/post I expect that guy is some sort of right-wing stooge, but he does make a lot of good points (the "Bush as visionary" stuff aside).
That is a bizarrely good post.
It seems clear from many sources, well-summarized in that post, that the CIA is an organization in chaos, with contractors from the military-intelligence-technocorp complex guzzling half its budget and running around semi-supervised, and the agency itself suffering from bad recruiting, hiring, retention, morale, vision, strategy, tactics, etc etc.
Change doesn't often come the way we would like it, packaged to fit our preferences, goals, and expectations... if it did, it wouldn't be ...change. An established spook at the top smacks of the Peter Principle, and also greatly increases the likelihood that existing revolving-door, contr ... view full comment
That is a bizarrely good post.
It seems clear from many sources, well-summarized in that post, that the CIA is an organization in chaos, with contractors from the military-intelligence-technocorp complex guzzling half its budget and running around semi-supervised, and the agency itself suffering from bad recruiting, hiring, retention, morale, vision, strategy, tactics, etc etc.
Change doesn't often come the way we would like it, packaged to fit our preferences, goals, and expectations... if it did, it wouldn't be ...change. An established spook at the top smacks of the Peter Principle, and also greatly increases the likelihood that existing revolving-door, contractor-related organizational, conceptual, and task-execution tangles would be unexamined or even protected. Panetta seems like a guy who could potentially cut through that, and he has all the best managerial skills honed in very tough environments. The disgruntled insiders who really want a lean, mean, but somewhat ethical CIA would do well to seize this rare opportunity for real change and figure out how to make it work.
How many people have noticed that Panetta is 70? It's been reported that Obama's first picks didn't want the job, which suggests that the CIA isn't that important any more. No wonder the "old hands" are pissed!
How many people have noticed that Panetta is 70? It's been reported that Obama's first picks didn't want the job, which suggests that the CIA isn't that important any more. No wonder the "old hands" are pissed!