If You Think Panetta's Wrong For CIA, You Might Be Part Of The Problem

Finally, adult supervision comes to CIA.

The announcement Monday afternoon that the Obama team had named veteran Democratic politician Leon Panetta as CIA Director was greeted by the national security reporters and bloggers first with surprise and derision, then with grudging acknowledgement of the value he is likely to bring to the job.

Panetta's nomination was unexpected because of the conventional wisdom that holds that any new CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence absolutely must boast a lengthy intelligence pedigree, and that nothing less will do. Senior Congressional Democrats have signaled their displeasure with the Panetta pick, but as Joan Walsh at Salon.com points out, these same Democratic leaders have knowingly aided and abetted the worst Bush intelligence practices. Among the more persistent worries about Panetta's nomination is how Republicans, national security hawks, and intelligence professionals will use his lack of intelligence experience and history with the Clinton administration to paint Panetta as a lightweight and national security pansy.

The reporting on the Panetta pick has breathed life into another bit of half-baked conventional wisdom, which maintains that Obama's first and best pick for intelligence chief, John Brennan, ought to be having his day in the sun instead of Panetta. The legend goes that treacherous lefty moonbats derailed Brennan's nomination by unfairly playing back all that nationally broadcast video in which he defends some of the worst Bush administration torture and domestic surveillance policies.

Never mind that even if Brennan hadn't been associated with shameful Bush policies, he would likely have embarrassed the Obama administration with a pretzel knot of conflicting interests related to his employment with TAC, a major intelligence contractor, and his role as head of the industry association representing the exclusive clique of intelligence contractors.

Brennan was on the wrong side of two major Obama reform initiatives--intelligence and government contract reform--and that's why he was ultimately untenable as a CIA Director or DNI.

Panetta, however, is not on the wrong side of Obama's change strategy.

If the Obama administration is serious about fixing US intelligence, there is a compelling logic to putting Panetta in charge at CIA. Panetta, the intelligence naif, is not armpit deep in government (let alone intelligence) contracting. And he has loudly proclaimed his unequivocal opposition to torture. Plus he has a reputation for skillful management and navigation of the corridors of power.

To be sure, there are ways that a Panetta CIA could go way, way wrong. Most significantly, Panetta's effectiveness will depend largely on the second and third tiers of managers he anoints (from within) or brings with him (from outside).

Looking back at the two most recent "outsider" CIA Directors, Porter Goss and John Deutch, illustrates how easy it is to foul up the management of intelligence by giving senior jobs to petty tyrants and crooks. I have vivid memories of Deutch's Executive Director (third in command), Nora Slatkin, as a demanding diva who attained a Diana Ross-like reputation for humiliating junior CIA employees and generally lowering spirits.

Goss' crony crew of big-time crooks (his Executive Director, Dusty Foggo, had his home and CIA office raided by the FBI; he later pleaded guilty to a corruption charge) and small-time bacon thieves developed a similar reputation for ham-fisted management.

Regardless of who Panetta brings with him to execute a strategy of reform and reconstitution at CIA--it looks like current CIA Deputy Director Stephen R. Kappes and Intelligence Director Michael Morell will stay on under Panetta--his fresh outsider take is desperately needed.

The threads that run through the past decade's most notable intelligence disasters--resistance to accountability, an insular "not invented here" arrogance, and a sort of narcissistic lack of self-awareness--are serious problems in CIA culture. Experience in intelligence might actually be a barrier to seeing these problems and taking action against them. Like a fourteen-year-old boy who doesn't realize that he smells like a goat, CIA needs a responsible adult to gently suggest, (or more likely, forcefully require) clean clothes and regular bathing.

It looks like Leon Panetta gets to be that responsible adult.

Comments

[duckfan00]

Good choice Obama...we have to stop letting certain cable news producers from influencing and controlling who we put in key positions...We urgently need smart and capable leaders 'now more than ever' as we always seem to hear on these same cable news shows.. ....

[qcbucki]

This choice is fine by me. You likely correct and let them bitch, means he'll change the cronyism, hopefully going on.

[lagumbo]

lEON pANNETTA a very good pick for CIA director. You go PRESIDENT OBAMA.

[Hempy]

Those who seem most opposed to Leon Panetta are those support torture. Maybe they should read Federalist Paper 1. Alexander Hamilton wrote:

"For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution."

Clearly, our founders were not proponents of torture. Hence, torture is not an American value.

Those who work for the CIA and who want to continue with torture should perhaps apply for a job with the KGB. At least they would be among their ideological bedfellows.

[BMSstudy]

Our founders were not proponents of gay rights, freedom for non-whites, voting rights for anyone not land owning white men, etc.... Are those things not American values?

We need to operational define torture before we can use it as a blanket word for things some people agree/do not agree with:
waterboarding
sleep deprivation (how long?)
loud music
not turning off the lights / not turning on the lights

[idest]

Pretty much everyone who wouldn't be subject to war crimes trials if waterboarding is considered torture considers waterboarding torture..

[thecanadian]

Great post Frank. Thank you. Did anyone here really listen (read) the entire article here. Check out Franks Bio? "US Army And Intelligence Veteran" - Maybe we should send this out to all Dem. s!

[BOin08]

Leon Panetta is a brilliant pick by BO -pleases the base in the short term- but leaves an expendable fall guy if we take another hit on US soil...he will be the first to go and blammed for hamstringing the CIA. Easy pick. Very nice.

[freddiefranks]

I'd just like to point out that the opposite - an arrogance so bloated that when reports of planned attacks on US soil arrive, they are ignored - is worse. It displays not only lack of skill but also lack of insight.

Don't make the mistake of believing Bush's CIA "saved" the US from more attacks. I believe Al-Qaeda knew there'd be no chance in heck that they'd be able to attack again for quite some time.

[EtTuBrute]

Many of the comments here seem to echo the alternative view that an intel community insider is not necessarily the best pick.

See my other comment at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/obamas-team-ofcelebritie_b_156005.html?show_comment_id=19493494#comment_19493494

Regarding CIA, of course, there is always the alternative point of view that the intelligence community could use quite a bit of external management infusion and oversight, (and not just at CIA) for reasons which should be obvious. This need has been obvious since 1961 (Bay of Pigs). We have had graphically demonstrated in the past few years the results of an inbred intelligence community “overseen” by inbred Washington politicians. Do not consider this a slander of the working intelligence personnel, but an observation on some of the management, and government functions. Selecting someone with a serious lifelong focus on intelligence issues can, and usually does, result in the continuation of the status quo. In a broader perspective one might even assert, in fact, that replacing as many of the current elected and appointed members of government with persons of high personal integrity and sanity from outside the “duopoly” as possible would be of significant benefit to the country, as long as they possess the requisite skills to successfully perform their duties.

Eisenhower’s warnings in his farewell address assume greater significance every year (see esp. III, para.2).

[BOin08]

Leon Panetta will hamstring the CIA and be fired shortly after the next attack on US soil. He is already being set-up as the fall guy, he just doesn't know it. A brilliant pick by BO. Rock on brother

[norepublicanleftbehind]

Frankly, I am thrilled with Panetta as this pick. As an intelligence outsider maybe he'll bring some common sense to the job. If he's schocked at what he sees he will have the power to change it.

Panetta is a decent man. Seems to have a good moral compass.

[JanP]

The one thing lacking from almost all the comments is the question: "Will we know more about our enemies, the people who want us dead, or will we know less".

We weren't helped on 9/11 by prohiting the FBI and CIA from exchanging information. We aren't helped if we cna't listen in on Jiahdist phone calls.

We sure weren't helped by not being able to look at Mousawi's (I think that's who it was) computer. So, exclude any evidence from a trial. maybe we could ahve stopped 9/11.

Please show as much concern for the rights of the intended victims as you do for the perps.

[lawyerfan]

JanP:
What we know isn't as important as what we do with it. What did Bush do with the intelligence he had on Bin Laden prior to 9/11? He ignored it. What did he do with what he had regarding WMD? he rewrote it.
You seem to be one of those people who subscribe to the notion that Bush protected us from further terrorist attacks because there weren't any attacks after 9/11. You probably believe that torture is a good idea too, even though most of the intelligentia in the intelligence community seem to think it produces nothing but unreliable BS.
The issue of FBI and CIA being prohibited from exchanging information was more of a turf battle than a lack of skill or experience in managing intelligence. I assume that Pinetta can assess that problem and make appropriate changes as well as some lifelong spook.
In intelligence, as in many things, quality is more important than quantity. If we tap every phone call made by every American of middle eastern origin to someone in the middle east, we will have more crap than we can possibly process. There have been more republican politicians convicted of crimes in the past eight years than terrorists, despite the torture, illegal wiretapping, unlawful detention and other efforts at intelligence gathering. I cannot imagine how Pinetta could make things worse than they have been.

[lawyerfan]

Sorry, Leon, I misspelled your name.

[ptarantino]

Panetta is a great choice.

[rocketman69]

If All Panetta Is going to do, Is bring people that know what they are doing, then why not hire them? How is a layer of non- expertise going to help Obama when making intelligence decisions?

[JustMyWords]

The skillset necessary to be a good intelligence analyst is not necessarily the same as the skillset necessary to be a good agency manager.

I work in a call center. None of the management team has experience in the industry - what they have is experience in managing call centers. And that's why our call center model is very successful. Management doesn't need to know how to handle the calls, they need to know how to manage the people handling the calls.

[SoonerThought]

Agreed! Let us also not forget, the CIA is not (and should not) be a military (read: Pentagon) organization. Great post.

[zell]

Thank you, Frank, for this super article. I don't see how anyone can criticize the Panetta selection. It will be a breath of fresh air to have some new blood run the CIA. Several days ago, I saw the movie, "Rendition." If you all have not seen this movie, I highly recommend everyone seeing this movie. I cried at the end of the movie regarding what our great country had come to. My prayer is that the Obama administration appointees, including the CIA, will run their respective agencies for the benefit of "We, the People" and be very successful.

[bosse]

Agree. Why so many do not understand Panetta alone is not going to run the agency, nor decide policy. We still have a President and hundreds of experts in intelligence covering our ass.He needs to be smart and he is, and analytical and help guide the President from the info. he has obtained from his junior staff. We do not anticipate another invasion as we are more vigilant, and all Arabs are not considered our friends, no more easy visas, pilot training,and contracts to Presidential siblings.

[holeybuybull]

Panetta, as head of the CIA, will be in a managerial position and he has a good resume in that respect.
The wrong pick is Blair as director of national intelligence, a man who, as head of the pacific command, disobeyed a directive from the president and state dept. and condoned the slaughter perpetrated by Indonesia in East Timor.