Why Leon Panetta May Be the Right Man for CIA Chief
His qualifications are better than many admit. (Also read Ron Radosh: The Panetta Appointment and the Torture Issue)
- With his long experience in the legislative and executive branches, Panetta has clout of his own and is unlikely to be intimidated or impressed by Senate and House committees eager to witch hunt, scapegoat, or neuter the CIA clandestine service, which is risk-averse enough as it is. Panetta would be the first CIA director who was also a political heavyweight since William Casey.
- As a former White House chief of staff and member of the Iraq Study Group, Panetta has already been entrusted with the nation’s most sensitive secrets. He’s aware of the strengths, weaknesses, and blind spots of the IC and his patriotism is beyond reproach. Nor does he need the job. Panetta isn’t running for president in 2016 or cashing in like so many others.
The truth is that the CIA has been in an existential crisis since at least 1991 that has waxed and waned, but it never recovered the competence in clandestinity or the esprit de corps it enjoyed in its glory years under Allen Dulles or the brief revival ushered in by William Casey and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. The CIA now bleeds talent to better-paying private military companies like CACI or Blackwater and engages in domestic political intrigue and gross waste like any other government agency. Post-9/11 “intelligence reforms” badly battered the CIA as an institution without building up its original core mission of HUMINT collection and strategic influence operations to a robust and dynamic capacity.
The lion’s share of the IC budget and agencies is under the control of the Department of Defense and these agencies from the NSA to the DIA do a fine job, but the United States needs a world-class civilian intelligence agency that conducts espionage, covert operations, and analysis from a strategic perspective and in domains or environments where military personnel are simply poorly suited, implausibly deniable, or not competent. The CIA needs to be removed from partisan maneuvering at home and focused abroad where existing and emerging threats to national security can be found.
Will Leon Panetta be able to reform and reinvigorate the CIA? Will the Obama administration permit him to do so? These are questions to which we have no answers, but he is the first nominee to head the CIA in a long time with the potential to do so. Which is why so many veterans of the IC, despite wide political differences, are hopeful and why aging “Watergate babies” in the Democratic caucus are gritting their teeth.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Mark Safranski blogs at Zenpundit.com, Chicago Boyz, and several other sites. An educator and historian, he is the editor of The John Boyd Roundtable: Debating Science, Strategy and War.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
40 Comments
1. RE:So experience dose not matter anymore?
It increasingly seems that America has become a farce. It is not a serious place anymore. We are experiencing a generational failure. We’ve completely lost the plot.
Jan 8, 2009 - 3:17 am 2. Barry:Obama picking Panetta tells me we can expect major backsliding in the war on terrorism- Bama picked Panetta to watch his back for him more than anything else-
we’re screwed once this administration gets sworn in-
our enemies are licking their chops, however
Jan 8, 2009 - 4:26 am 3. J. PINKERTON SNOOPINGTON:Barry,
Jan 8, 2009 - 4:34 am 4. bill-tb:You’re right on point with your observations.
I think Leon will be real good at making up repoorts like “Global Warming, the biggest threat to America”.
Jan 8, 2009 - 5:09 am 5. winemkr:Obama’s campaign rhetoric does not match his political appointments.
As he said words matter, and I listened to his words. Many of them unamerican.
His agenda is completely unclear because of his past statements. His mind is foggy and his first priority is going to be his own self preservation.
Jan 8, 2009 - 5:50 am 6. Libertyship46:The current Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, is probably the gold standard when it comes to CIA Directors. He has spent most of his career in the field of intelligence, he’s a good administrator, he understands the CIA and how it operates, and, most important, he has the respect of the CIA agents and staff that work for him. He is also a military officer, so he’s used to taking orders and getting results. It is such a shame that Hayden was not asked to remain as director of the CIA. Obviously, Obama has no interest in nominating someone who has real intelligence experience. The Panetta appointment just shows that Obama is doing everything he can to dismantle all of the hard work the CIA has done over the past seven-and-a-half years, work that has kept us safe from another major terrorist attack. When the next terrorist attack takes place here in the United States, I hope the press remembers and mentions that Obama nominated “a good administrator” to head the CIA, rather than an expert in intelligence. That should be very comforting to the relatives of all the Americans killed in the next major terrorist attack.
Jan 8, 2009 - 6:34 am 7. RE:Vladimir Putin and the Chinese are probably quite pleased with Obama – perhaps they’re even ecstatic. They’ll play chess while Obama plays checkers.
Jan 8, 2009 - 6:37 am 8. drjohn:Panetta is a good manager and apologist, but one could easily imagine him setting new CIA rules for interrogation;
- No causing anguish to detainees
- Starbucks coffee only.
- Sleep by number beds
- Full access to law library.
One might volunteer for such austere treatment.
Jan 8, 2009 - 6:47 am 9. Cybergeezer:Obama’s doing what he has to do to make himself look intelligent; Picking incompetents to head up offices he has to supervise. It could backfire and require him micromanage these depts. i.e. Joe Biden.
Jan 8, 2009 - 6:52 am 10. SaraforAmerica:Panetta is a career politician. POLITICIAN.
The words politician and intelligence just don’t go together. Sorry.
Jan 8, 2009 - 7:15 am 11. Tom Holsinger:The previous posters have no idea how Washington works. Mark Safranski’s key point is:
“Panetta would be the first CIA director who was also a political heavyweight since William Casey.”
Jan 8, 2009 - 8:07 am 12. ReConUSMC:PAN…. NUT .. A
Jan 8, 2009 - 8:16 am 13. Ann:IS ON RECORD FOR TOTALLY BEING AGAINST VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONING KNOWN TERRORIST WITH IMPORTANT INFO …..
AND LIKE DUMB ASS .. MC CAIN HE IS AGAINST WATER BOARDING .
JUST FOR THE RECORD SOME SPECIAL OP’s MARINES , ALL RECON MARINES , SEALS , SOME ARMY RANGERS , ALL SPECIAL FORCES ARE ”WATER BOARDED ” ….SCREAMED AT 24/7 , GO DAYS WITHOUT FOOD OR SLEEP …. PUSHED TO COMPLETE EXHAUSTION AND DEAL WITH LOTS COLD AND HEATR AND LOTS OF PAIN JUST IN TRAINING .
NO PROBLEM .
EVERYTHING I JUST SAID IS TOTALLY ”AGAINST ” THE GENEVA CONVENTION BUT NO MOSLEM NATION OR TERRORIST GROUP HAS SIGNED ON TO IT….. YET ISRAEL IS A MEMBER .
I AM SURE IF A RUTHLESS RAPIST HAD ONE OF YOUR LOVES ONES HIDDEN …… YOU WOULD DO WHAT IT TOOK TO GET THE INFO AND SAVE THEM ”UNLESS” YOUR A USE-LESS TYPICAL LIBERAL COWARD .
SOMEHOW THAT DOES TRANSLATE TO THE LIBERAL MIND WE ARE AT WAR WITH OUR WORSE ENEMY EVERY SINCE HE HIDES IN OUR CITIES .
LIBERALS ADMIRE OUR AND ISRAEL’S ENEMIES THAT FIGHTS US WITH NO RULES WHILE YOUR KIND HIDES AND HOLLOW’S BLOODY MURDER WHEN WE ”MAY ‘ HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG ….. BUT YOU DON’T HOLD OUR ENEMIES TO THAT SAME HIGH STANDARD SINCE THEY WOULD TELL YOU TO KISS THEIR ASS .
THUS PUTTING OUR TROOPS IN FAR MORE DANGEROUS POSITION TO DEFEND AMERICA .
LISTENING TO MANY LIBERALS ABOUT IRAQ ANDN ISRAEL IT BECAME MORE THAN OBVIOUS YOU’LL WANTED US TO LOSE THUS ELECTING OBAMA LIBERALS ARE ABOUT POLITICS (SOCIALISM )FIRST , WORLD OPINIONS NEXT AND AMERICA BEING A WEAK EQUAL TO EUROPE NATION OR LESS .WEAKEN THEN LOSE .. ART OF WAR .
NO MATTER WHAT AMERICA DOES OR DON’T DO OUR RACIAL MOSLEM ENEMIES WILL DO WHAT EVER IT TAKES TO WIN .
11 Tom Holsinger….I read the article with interest and, not wanting to be a shrieking right-winger, I think, “Hmmm….ok, is there something I really don’t understand here…..ok, I’ll think about it.”
Same for your observation…I’ll be thinking. And watching.
NOTHING Obama does is principally because it is “best for the United States of America”.
NOTHING he does is because it will actually increase our security.
He is playing a role. He wants to please as many as possible (to keep them quiet); he wants to placate his foes and quiet his critics. He first goal is NOT to “protect and defend the Constitution”. He has bluntly stated that he is disappointed in it.
But I will think. And watch. He may occasionally and unintentionally swerve in to a decision that has benefits for the United States of America. If that happens, I don’t want to be an ignorant bleater, but neither will I ever forget that we can no longer believe anything that flows through MSM or which originated in government.
Jan 8, 2009 - 8:46 am 14. JL:“….but the United States needs a world-class civilian intelligence agency that conducts espionage, covert operations, and analysis from a strategic perspective and in domains or environments where military personnel are simply poorly suited, implausibly deniable, or not competent.”
This is the stupidest thing, I’ve heard this year.
Please remove this man from this site.
Jan 8, 2009 - 9:12 am 15. Mark:This is a stupid article. Leon Panetta was present when the Clinton Administration erected the wall between the FBI and the CIA, effectively preventing the arrests of terrorists who were already known to both branches, including the ones who eventually committed the 9/11 atrocities.
Jan 8, 2009 - 9:27 am 16. Ann:12ReConUSMC….your comments are great~~~would be read by more people if they weren’t all caps!
Jan 8, 2009 - 9:33 am 17. Mike T:Not true. The real problem is that Obama didn’t rhetorically bust some heads when people like Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan tried to control his appointment. Obama’s first choice was about as good as Hayden, at least on paper. Unfortunately for Obama, now he has to deal with the fact that he’s undermined his position as a leader, and given the left reason to believe they can control him. I really wish he’d stuck to his guns and come out with some withering attacks on people like Greenwald and Sullivan in response.
Jan 8, 2009 - 10:00 am 18. ReConUSMC:14. JL: In all Due Respect General David Petraeus and Michael Hayden are far more Qualifed than any Politican in Washington .Politicans get us in Wars ….. The Military wins wars .
I get the Feeling You on the left want a CIA waters down PC Correct Police Force .
“”Freeze “and read them their Miranda rights !
Spying is a nasty business….. I well know all about . Just ask Russia who had the Plans to the Atomic Bomb before we used it or Al Quada living in America for many years before 9/11 .
Or Israel getting 19 of the 20 Black September Thugs in 7 different counties killing them in many neat ways .
The Phone blowing up when he said Hello in Arabic or Israel women acting like a vender shot the second in command of Black September when he ask for a Coffee ..I Love it !
You Liberals would say ….. But those ‘FREEDOM FIGHTERS ” didn’t get their Civil Rights .
In Truth I was a very special trained elite ReCon Marine and I see most leftist Politicians as a enemy equal to Al Quada .
After seeing the Freedy and Fanny B/S ….. How on Earth could you trust Politicans to protect America .
Jan 8, 2009 - 10:08 am 19. Valerie:Your Boy Clinton …… CIA “”SLAM DUNK “man was not Military by the way .
Please remove JL from the sight …… he has Liberal Political madness ….not a known mental disease after 35 years of study .
Oh, please. Panetta? All this harking back to the Clinton era is unbelievable. If obama and co. run the White House as well as they are running their recruitment efforts…enough said. Who’d have thought that voting for obama meant a Clinton 2.0 administration, huh?
Jan 8, 2009 - 12:13 pm 20. Boyfriend of Steel:When it come to Leon Panetta, his biggest claim to national security fame was his years-long effort to pull out Ft. Ord from the Army and convert it to all sorts of mostly useless civilian government trinket programs.
I’m sure he’s an able manager but if he was part of the ISG, it’s clear that Panetta neither has good priorities in the war, nor the skills to know how to win. This doesn’t bode well.
Jan 8, 2009 - 12:32 pm 21. Larry J:Putting a political connected intelligence amateur in charge of the CIA is a bad idea. In time of war, it’s a dangerously dumb idea. As much as anything else he has done, this shows that Obama doesn’t take the threat of terrorism seriously.
Jan 8, 2009 - 12:44 pm 22. Tom Holsinger:Ann,
Winston Churchill described the work of British ministers of state (equivalent to our federal secretaries of departments) as “making certain the work gets done” rather than “doing it themselves”, in his World War One series titled, “The World Crisis”. He had served as the Britisih minister in charge of both its navy (First Lord of the Admiralty) and war production (Minister of Munitions).
That is basically the job of American department “secretaries”. As an example, Caspar Weinberger had been a California state legislator and then California director of fnance under Governor Ronald Reagan, then been appointed first deputy director, and then full director, of the federal office of Management and Budget during the Nixon administration. He had no military experience, other than as a junior officer in World War Two, but was highly successful as Secretary of Defense under the Reagan administration.
Donald Rumsfeld was White House of Chief of Staff during the Ford administration, and then became its Secretary of Defense, plus later Secretary of Defense in the second Bush adminstration. Richard Cheney was White House Chief of Staff during the Ford administration, and Secretary of Defense in the first Bush administration.
Leon Panetta served as White House Chief of Staff during the Clinton administration. I.e., Panetta is perfectly qualified to be Secretary of Defense. So why is he not qualified to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency?
Leon Panetta has shown himself to be a very capable high-level federal manager, plus a skilled and ruthless political operator. Mark Safrankski rightly called him a political heavyweight.
Jan 8, 2009 - 12:57 pm 23. The Wizard:Because of Panetta, 9-11 happened. Now he wants to pamper terrorist and allow them all the liberties of our citizens. He will open our borders and homeland to more attacks! When the terrorist come in full force,(and they will) I will be interested in your comments then. Will you try to blame Bush or admit we have elected a man solely based on race, with no experience, credibility, management skills, ethics or morals. The Obamanation is an empty suit, totally clueless of the gravitas of the office or what his role should be! He is surrounding himself with so many advisors (all from the clinton administration), there will never be a clear cut decision or policies. He appears to be more interested in being on the cover of the latest People Magazine than being President!
Jan 8, 2009 - 1:25 pm 24. RE:The Clinton Adminstration sure gave away a lot to Chinese espionage.
I’m not sure that Chief of Staff during that technology giveaway is a positive thing to have on a resume for anything related to security or intelligence.
And wasn’t there something else about the Clinton Adminstration?
Oh yeah, Sandy Berger.
Perhaps Obama should keep looking.
Jan 8, 2009 - 1:29 pm 25. Ann:Tom, thank you for your further comments.
Over the last several decades, we have had so few statesmen and so many politicians. I no longer trust anyone as they are presented and, more particularly, the complete lack of serious content in “anything Obama” to this point certainly gives me no encouragement to believe what he says about Panetta.
I recognize Panetta’s career track as you describe it, but that gives me no comfort since he has Obama’s blessing. Obviously Obama believes that Panetta will administer the CIA in the way that Obama wants him to.
That brings me to the obvious point that I won’t probably wouldn’t believe or trust anyone Obama appoints. I suppose that is so. Historical precedent and resume recommendation are not enough to offset the fact that he IS Obama’s man.
Love anything Churchill, of course, and do appreciate the resumes you reference as historical precedent for how administrative experience can transfer. It’s going to be a dangerous mess of major proportions if career CIA officers(possible screwed up personal motives aside) end up in an “us vs. them” working model within the agency. The CIA is not a place where gridlock is safe.
Jan 8, 2009 - 1:30 pm 26. Mark C:I am very afraid for our country in the areas of national defense, terrorism and the economy. People are treating Obama as if he is the second coming of Christ and he will be able to solve all of our ills.
I’m afraid that Oboma is a isolationalist and will use the economy as his excuse to pull back all of our troops deployed through out the world.
The Penetta and Clinton appointments disturb me.
Mark my words, Russia is going to push south into Turkey; Iran will overtake Iraq and Isreal will be left to herself. America will sit back and let all this happen under an Oboma administration.
The years ahead are not going to be pretty. Life has changed in the US and around the world permenantly.
Mark
Jan 8, 2009 - 2:14 pm 27. Tom Holsinger:Ann,
You assume that the CIA is functional. It isn’t. The CIA is a value-subtracted organization.
Panetta’s priorities are, first, to keep the CIA from sabotaging the Obama administration the way it did the Bush administration and, second, to keep the CIA from obstructing the work done by the rest of the intelligence community. Basicaly his job is to keep the CIA from causing trouble for the rest of the federal government.
Panetta is 70 years old. He is a “gray eminence” – a very capable political operative who is ideally suited for his damage control mission.
I am a conservative hawk – Google me – and am very encouraged by Panetta’s appointment. It shows that the Obama administration recognizes the CIA for what it is, i.e., an otherwise useless threat to both Obama and national security. It can’t be reformed.
Obama does not want there to be headlines in national security matters because that will detract from his preferred focus on domestic matters. This means he won’t spend energy or political capital abolishing the CIA. He’ll just quietly continue the Bush administration policy of having the rest of the intelligence community do the job the CIA won’t and can’t do.
But, contrary to Bush, Obama has assigned a political heavy-weight to sit on the CIA and keep it out of trouble, and so out of the headlines. Obama won’t let the CIA sabotage him the way it did Bush. That is what Panetta’s appointment is really about.
Jan 8, 2009 - 2:52 pm 28. David:I love these “exceptional qualifications”:
1. At OMB he got to see how much money CIA spent on various things.
Well, with a Google search I can find out how much NASA spent on its Mars missions, so I’m clearly qualified to lead the next expedition to Mars.
2. As chief of staff he was a consumer of intelligence so he knows what a shoddy product looks like.
Hey, I’m a consumer of classical music, so that should make me a good conductor for the NY Philharmonic, right?
3. He learned lots of secrets on the Iraq study committee…. which reached the wrong conclusions.
This is a big mistake, all about politics, and we’re all at risk because of it.
Jan 8, 2009 - 3:45 pm 29. Войска ПВО:..Obama shoulda appointed Tom Clancy, fer crissakes. Even he woulda been better than that ex-Clinton OMB midget.
Jan 8, 2009 - 3:58 pm 30. jim:I hope you are right about him. I saw it as installing a bureaucrat to keep the CIA under control, but the fact that Feinstein hates the idea, gives me hope.
Jan 8, 2009 - 4:14 pm 31. Ann:Tom
I did as you suggested and googled your name with many results. Did a little grazing and familiarizing and will continue to.
Is there anything specific/recent (noticed alot of what I found is dated 2006 and earlier) that you have posted/published that discusses background/support to your statements in the first two paragraphs of your post 27?
I have tried to read books in recent years that explore the function of various agencies involved in defense issues, but am not aware of any that deals with the dynamics (destructive or otherwise) between the agencies* and the results of that in policies and operations. What reading (books or magazine) would you recommend?
(*or between the agencies and the Executive branch)
I WILL keep speaking out and asking questions, but it is certainly my intention to have more understanding 6 months from now than I presently do. Silence is no longer acceptable and ignorance is not necessary. Thanks for any suggestions.
Jan 8, 2009 - 6:26 pm 32. David:I hate to dash anyone’s hopes, but the only reason Feinstein and other Dems are upset is because they weren’t consulted first.
Jan 8, 2009 - 6:44 pm 33. Tom Holsinger:Ann,
I suggest two books by Amy Zegart. Read them in this order:
Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC
Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11
There are lots and lots of books on how dysfunctional the CIA is. I also suggest this post about an email by an intelligence from an intelligence professional at NRO’s Corner:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQ3ZmRmNTQyY2ZiNzY5NjIxMzk3NjJkZTNhNGMzNTY
Note these points in particular:
Jan 8, 2009 - 8:28 pm 34. EdGi:Actually, it appears Panetta was only opposed to Republican”abuses”, he is not opposed to Democratic abuses. Obama has selected the assesment advisors he intends to rely on, and he may have avoided a CIA Intel PRO because a has no confidense in upper-level CIA pro-ness. He may also realize that, unlike Bush, he cannot allow the CIA”pro”s to do to him what they did to Bush. Panetta is a great choice if you’re saying, like Michael Corleone, either “Fredo, don’t ever go against the family again” or “Fredo, you broke my heart” with credibility to Fredo. Besides, the DNI does the combined brief, not the CIA boss, and Obama thus does not need an intl guy for CIA.
Jan 8, 2009 - 9:19 pm 35. narciso:So a candidate with no actual intelligence experience, even sitting in a congressional
Jan 8, 2009 - 10:16 pm 36. Ann:oversight capacity, who slashed intelligence
outlays in the Clinton years, who’s spoken out
against our major intelligence operations, who
opposed the surge as part of the ISG; that’s a viable candidate.
Tom, thank you for the info. Headed to both brick and online libraries today, so will pursue those titles.
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:19 am 37. rose:Panetta was picked to appease the left.
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:48 am 38. Mike T:He iwll fire anyone that does not agree with the liberals and replace those with those that do
The neoconservatives backing the Bush Administration had been looking for a casus belli to invade Iraq since the aftermath of the First Persian Gulf War. Lean on a federal bureaucracy long enough, and it’ll say whatever you want it to.
None of the other members of the defense intelligence community do civilian human intelligence gathering. Ergo, most of the DoD agencies cannot do what the CIA does because their missions are different and more specific.
Law enforcement is a bad substitute for that. No one in their right mind would want equally-scandal plagued agencies like the FBI and DEA, which already do their own minor intelligence work, to suddenly take on the additional power that the CIA has.
Jan 9, 2009 - 10:27 am 39. The Historian:CIA MYSTERY: WHERE DOES OBAMA STAND?
Is the departure of Bush good for terrorists? Obama’s choice of Panetta raises questions.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-bush-departure-good-news-for.html
Jan 9, 2009 - 3:05 pm 40. deguello:He’s a liberal,he’s totally ignorant of the geostrategic realities;he believes that thugs respond to appeassement,he’s a shyster,yup! perfect! Change Obama style!I can’t wait to see him lock horns with Putin and his fellow KGB operatives,he’ll smoke ‘em!
Jan 14, 2009 - 8:30 am