What's Wrong with Panetta?

I am no intelligence expert, but have followed the sad bureaucratic history of the CIA out of the corner of my eye for years, just because it's so...awful. The agency has repeatedly been the victim either of its own internal pathologies, which are substantial, or the politics of intelligence gathering, which are treacherous. It's not like, say, the Department of the Interior, where a new secretary can come in, put a new stamp on things, alter the agency's entire policy trajectory. And there have been very few successful CIA directors in recent decades. Would-be technocratic reformers like John Deutch failed. George Tenet, a smart political operator who was popular inside the CIA and out for a while, ended up making untenable political compromises on Iraq and torture that damaged the agency.

So I don't quite understand why Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller are objecting to Obama's pick, Leon Panetta:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who this week begins her tenure as the first female head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she was not consulted on the choice and indicated she might oppose it.

"I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director," Feinstein said. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

A senior aide to Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the outgoing chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the senator "would have concerns" about a Panetta nomination.

Rockefeller "thinks very highly of Panetta," the aide said. "But he's puzzled by the selection. He has concerns because he has always believed that the director of CIA needs to be someone with significant operational intelligence experience and someone outside the political realm."

As objections go, these are weak. Of course expertise helps in any endeavor. But there is no reason that the CIA director has to be an intelligence expert. George H.W. Bush, considered one of the more successful directors, had no prior intelligence background. And the notion that the agency should somehow exist outside of politics is absurd. Obviously politics should not color intelligence findings, as they did on Iraq. But the CIA is a government agency with a large budget, a damaged reputation, and sharks of various kinds constantly circling it, looking to impose their own agendas (including, one has to assume, Feinstein and Rockefeller). It will benefit from having an outsider with his own power base and experience at the uppermost levels of government - assuming he has a clear idea of the agency's role going forward and how it should serve the president. Whether Panetta can master the CIA's internal politics is, of course, the biggest open question. But he probably has a better shot than an intel professional, who is more likely to be "captured" by various internal factions.

Panetta is unlikely to be a Porter Goss, the GOP congressman brought in by the current Bush administration to bring a less-than-cooperative CIA to heel - a project that thankfully failed. Goss, of course, was a former CIA agent.

johnmcquaid.com/blog

Comments

[Caroleh]

What's wrong is that Obama failed to notify Feinstein & Rockefeller. This was an unnecessary faux pas on his part & he should've known better.

[Teamster]

There are more qualified ?

[Charlie M]

Hah hah ; All it is, is that Feinstein has her nose bent a little because Obama didn't consult her before.

[Teamster]

I object to Penneta . collectivly the Post should too.

[ComradeRutherford]

Yes, why shouldn't someone that has no experience be promoted to the top of one of the nation's most important positions?

If there's one thing we've seen in the last 8 years it's that incompetence is rewarded and experience is anathema.

[S1m0n]

It's not like the regular suspects in the CIA have been doing such a bang-up job for the past decade or so. Somebody needs to tell those guys that before they can declare themselves "indispensible", they need a record of being "successful".

[lobear00]

Feinstein and Rockefeller, are scared crazy that once Pennetta is seated that all the criminal activities the two were involved in may come to "Light". It may come to light just how much these two were playing with the republicans, and going against the United States Constitution.

[boycottrightwingthings]

Leon Panetta is an EXCELLENT choice! He is levelheaded, ethical, and an asset to any position. He will be an excellent CIA director.

[Vinca]

I TEND TO AGREE WITH,, BUT THAT CIA POSITION, IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POSITION, HE WILL NEED TO BE SCRUTENIZED, BEFORE HE GETS THE JOB

[Grammy3]

Scrutinized? He's been in publlic life for 40 years.

[beckerbeavers]

America urgently needs change and Leon Panetta is a brilliant man with an impressive list of accomplishments over the past forty years. Keep up the good work President-Elect Obama!

[Squalish]

If Porter Goss failed, what on Earth do you call success?

The CIA (both the analysts and the Directorate) has been broken, and will continue to be broken until it's had *decades* of good leadership to recharge the talent it's lost/corrupted.

[Adamwestiii]

In my opinion, Obama made a great choice in selecting Panetta as the CIA director. So Feinstein wasn't informed prior to the selection - my friend that is tuff shitzkey! He'll do a better job and I trust his honesty! He was honest as my Representative when he was a member of Congress, and he replied to all my correspondence appropriately answering questions. His letters weren't of the canned type either! If he said something he meant it. Feinstein and Palosi back pedalled on the telecoms immunity!

[Leatherhelmet]

Brownie II.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Well, GHWB Sr. put in time at the CIA - do we even know everything that went wrong with that? This is a good move, it's time to put someone other than insiders in charge, and especially at posts like CIA chief.

[joedabear]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Panetta. While I do believe that the Intelligence agents got a bad rap from the Neo-Cons shenanigans, there was too little outcry from the established intelligence experts. They need some new blood to step in and straighten things out.

[shipwrecktown]

I welcome an appointment that reaffirms the Executive Branch's commitment to the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. Feinstein and Rockefeller, who both voted for retroative immunity for the telecom companies, should quickly untwist their panties. As if a single director will make a difference in the CIA's legacy of intelligence failures: 9/11, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the collapse of the Soviet Union. I could go on but you get the idea. Of course the CIA did succeed at overthrowing Mosadegh in 1953 and installing the Shah of Iran, an act that is largely responsible for making Iran the threat it is today. If Obama and Panetta can get the CIA to obey international law, it will be a huge and important accomplishment to restoring America's security and tattered reputation.