Regarding Panetta: Let's Not Forget About Gates

Choosing Leon Panetta as the new Director of the CIA is foolish and dangerous.

Thanks to 8 years of the Bush administration's squandering resources abroad in Iraq, our homeland security remains woefully inadequate and stunningly vulnerable. Ports of entry, airline security, airport security, chemical and nuclear plants, mass transportation, biological facilities, water and food sources and even our banking systems all remain soft targets. Additionally, if historical indicators and patterns hold up, the timing may be ripe for another domestic terrorist attack.

In short, Americans can ill-afford an inexperienced Director of the CIA, who either doesn't appreciate our current terrorist threat or under-estimates it. This is no time for a learning curve or on the job training. Placing a person like Leon Panetta at CIA for his clean hands and "managerial expertise" will cost lives on the day of the next domestic terrorist attack.

Likewise, the choice of Panetta places immediate risks on our covert operatives who currently rely upon sound, skilled leadership in directing their activities. "Management" is not going to capture UBL. Nor is "good management" going to reign in rogue groups holing up in the hills of Afghanistan on the periphery of the Pakistani border. That's going to take institutional memory, understanding, and a long-term strategy. I don't think Panetta offers these.

As the argument goes: all the "really good, qualified people" were tainted by the torture scandal of the Bush years so they can't be picked to run CIA... Panetta was all we had left.

Give me a break.

Haven't the ripple effects of Bush's torture policies gone on long enough? Do we really need to settle for a substandard CIA Director because Bush dead-ended all other prospects?

Because, that's not "sending an unequivocal message that controversial administration policies approving harsh interrogations, waterboarding and extraordinary renditions and warrantless wiretapping are over," it's actually just being stupid, short-sighted, and leaving us in more danger.

Surely not every qualified person has been tainted by illegal torture policies. True, identifying, researching, and vetting such individuals might take a bit of work, but isn't our safety worth it?

It's also fairly important to consider the priorities being set by picking someone like Leon Panetta. What does such a bad pick say about the way the incoming administration values the role of Intelligence? With the bombings in Mumbai, the "unrest" in Gaza, the continued threat of Iran, the downward spiral of Afghanistan, and the ongoing debacle in Iraq, is it smart to have a clueless CIA Director?

Historically, a constant turf war has existed between the Department of Defense and CIA. These turf wars are often not rightly about who could better protect the American public and the world at large, but more wrongly about power and money.

Inevitably, such "turf wars" also trickle down to the almighty Congressional Committees like the House and Senate Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees, just to name a few. Here once again battles break out over money and power. Remember that lucrative defense contracts translate into beaucoup campaign dollars. It's a "you scratch my back while I scratch yours" kind of game.

So while listening to the choir sing about the pros and cons of Leon Panetta, remember that almost everybody who's got an opinion, has also got skin in the game. And some of them might even prefer to have an inexperienced Director of the CIA.

One good question might be what the Panetta selection means for Admiral Dennis Blair who was selected as the new DNI. All the swirling talk about Panetta has seemed to eclipse any interest about Admiral Blair. He, too, deserves scrutiny.

But perhaps, most pointedly, what does the Panetta pick mean for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates?

Gates is certainly no novice. He knows what he is doing; he knows the players; and most importantly, he knows how to play the game. All of this means that Gates will likely walk -- if not trounce -- all over Leon Panetta and the CIA.

Do we really need so much power placed in the hands of our Secretary of Defense, again?

Haven't we already learned that lesson?

Comments

[ntmessage]

I am hoping that State and CIA can coordinate so that the CIA does not undercut State and State can provide effective air cover for the CIA. A combination of both must function seamlessly in order to successfully navigate today"s imperatives.

Most of the Bush CIA activities have revolved around the oil and commodities calculation, primarily, at the expense of finding UBL or even the addressing the root cause Israeli/Arab conflict.

The oil/commodity intersection with terrorism is clear. Suppression and the radicalization of people who live on those lands is a byproduct. What started out as protecting oil supply has turned into regular supply disruption at a staggering cost, (including 911) for over half a century. Taking the fight to the terrorists was a euphemism for lets get even more involved where oil and commodities exist, not to find UBL.

Identifying the officers and spooks that actually want to get UBL and drain the swamp of terrorists generated by a perpetual negative feedback loop driven by blowback from shoot from the hip polices will not be easy.

I do not think this was thought through but I do not know how else to hit the ground running with some certainty in a minefield left behind, loyalties unknown and cloaked in secrecy. A legacy dating back to Nixon, Ford, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and W.

Job 1 must be to find UBL. Job 2 should be to fight Global Warming (Yes, with the CIA), which directly addresses energy related terrorism.

[Melmonster]

Great post! Always interesting to read your perspective - well researched and thorough!! Keep up the good work, it's worth it ;)

[runal]

Leon Panetta is an excellent choice to head the CIA, having been the chief of staff under Clinton he understands how to manage complex issues and see the big picture. I also think he is an honest and trustworthy person. Richard Clark would hae also been a good pick.

[clevelandchick]

Oh no, we wouldn't want an inexperienced CIA Director because we all know how the one we had during in the months leading up to September 11th 2001 protected us and made sure the president paid attention to those 40 odd Presidential Daily Briefings that said Osama Bid Laden was going to attack the US.

Leon Panetta is an experienced manager who has been privy to classified information and intelligence in his career under Clinton. He is someone who will not let the CIA shred the Constitution like the Bush Administration has and for that I am grateful.

Feinstein's choice of Jane Harman, a politico in the pocket of Defense Contractors (much like herself) would have been a DISASTER. Her decision making would be tainted by her relationships with her military industry contributors. Obama made a great choice with Panetta.

[Lindenbrook]

George Tenet was a career CIA officer. Did he apply the warnings the Agency had received of an imminent attack on NY? Did he stand up to pressure from Bush/Cheney /Rumsfelt and the neocons, to manipulate the Agency's findings about such an attack? Did Tenet insist on the lack of veracity of many of the sources used by the Administration to justify the attack on Iraq?
CIA , especially today, needs a Director who can hold his own vs. his superiors, the Pentagon, the Congress, and has the strength and integrity to speak out and resign if serious wrongs are committed, such as manipulation by the Administration of CIA's findings.

[RickCadena]

Your article revolves arounnd one word ... FEAR. It is the same word used by puppet president Bush, mafia type enforcher vice-president Cheney, and the whole 1% rich, religious ultra-right, and oil industry collective mafia calling the shots. Add the dismantling of regulations of the financial system and here you have it.

All you do is protest and offer no suggested solutions. How Obama ran both of his campaigns to beat the party machinery of both parties is testimony to the fact that he knows very well what he is doing, and he does it exceptionally well.

Bush never showed any type of JUDGMENT, much less good judgment throughout his eight years in office. Sarah Palin is a classic example of John McCain's lack of any kind of JUDGMENT at all. You fail to mention the cultural war fought to the bitter death between liberal and conservative thinking and everything in between.

Mr. Obama's choice of Mr. Panetta shows good, bold JUDGMENT again. And what our country needs is the necessary vision, judgment, and courage to roll up our sleeves and get the job done. I have faith in Mr. Obama. Please toss the word FEAR into the trash can. Look where it has led our country.

[IneptitudePrideB4Fall]

Good Ideas, Ms. Breitweiser, but I have a small digression. If Dianne Feinstein, who supported Bush's Attack on Iraq and who has supported all Bush War policies and has not vetoed any Bush nominees, etc., etc., etc., is against Leon Panetta - makes me think the guy is a good selection for Obama's CIA chief. Feinstein has shown herself to have very poor judgement (or perhaps a hidden agenda). Could she be a Neo-Con in Dem clothing? She has commented that Bush as president should have the persons he selects in the positions he chooses. Why now does Feinstein have a different view of Obama's selection of Panetta as CIA chief? I smell a rat.

.

[UltraClassic]

All I can say is, no attacks in the US since 9/11. You Bush haters and excuse makers can go on and on about what Bush did to prevent attacks but you can't argue with results.

Best you Obama people take a real close look at the Clinton years if you want examples of mistakes not to make again.

As far as Panetta is concerned, I like the guy, he is a straight shooter. But he is the wrong guy for this job and is but one more example of Obama fumbling the ball.

[AndrewW]

All I can say is 4,222 dead Americans and a hollowed out military since Bush used torture to get someone to say Iraq was tied to al Qaeda and used that as justification to invade. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html?_r=1

Oh, I forgot, dead soldiers don't count.

[runal]

no attacks since 911 but 911 happened on bush's watch...lets not forget that fact.

[truthtopower007]

Ms .Breitweiser I deeply admire and respect your work on the 9/11 commission. I read your book. Thank you!
However, on the other hand you seem to be in the tank for McCain. That's your right. But I am tired of your 'posturing as a democrat. Just come out. Just come out. Then you will have more credibility. My 2 cents.

[naschkatze]

Ms. Breitweiser, I am sympathetic to what you have been through. But no one individual is going to signal to the terrorists that it's safe to make another attack on the United States, let alone Leon Panetta. He is a very strong man. Trimming unnecessary and often frivolous spending by various governmental departments like the CIA, DOD, NASA, FBI etc. is not going to make the United States weaker either. Just the opposite in fact.

[naschkatze]

BTW, I forgot to say that most people think it is inevitable, anyway, that the terrorists will make attempts regardless of who the government is. You know, just the "smarts" the Obama administration is demonstrating might be more effective in thwarting them. Have you ever thought about that?

[ruweusmaximus]

We must always remember that Osama bin Laden is NOT wanted by the FBI in connection with 9/11. He has not been indicted. No proof has been offered to the American public that proves the guilt of OBL or al Qaeda concerning the 9/11 attacks. The CIA lied and obstructed the 9/11 Commission and we still do not know the truth about that day. You, of all people, should know this.
We need truth and integrity in the CIA. That is the single most important issue. The CIA is a state within a state at this point and needs to be reformed. Panetta is a creative and good choice.

We still need the truth about 9/11. Did muslims from Iraq or Afghanistan attack us or was it an inside job? The American people still don't know.

Until then, intelligence matters little.

[Cheesemelt]

Change is always difficult, but the status quo, by your own admission, has been an abject failure. Including failing to warn against or stop the events of 9/11.

Gates had very low threshold to overcome. After all, he was replacing a failed SoD who managed to personally undermine not one but two wars. There's little doubt that Gates is a bright man, a long-term CIA insider and a relatively steady hand at the tiller, but his accomplishments at both CIA and now SoD, are illusory at best.

This was the guy who was deeply involved in the Iran-Contra mess.

Panetta is a very smart guy, a very accomplished man, who is well-respected on both sides of the aisle.

As far as Homeland security goes? People in law enforcement that I regularly deal with consider it an absolute mess. YMMV.

While I understand your fears, methinks you have put far too much faith in what has not happened here over the last 8 years and the people in charge during that time.

[mvanburen]

Ms Breiweiser could begin to clear the air with respect to her anti-Obama bias by admitting she was wrong in her many predictions about the certainty of Obama's defeat in November. (re: "You Broke It, You Own it, Obama Style").

[peorgietirebiter]

Thank-you van, how could we forget that classic? I seem to recall being put on notice that a list was being kept and memories being long. I'm afraid she has yet to regain some needed perspective.

[rbe]

Are you qualified to run the CIA ? If not, what exactly qualifies you to comment on this selection ?

[FirstShirt]

"Gates is certainly no novice. He knows what he is doing; he knows the players; and most importantly, he knows how to play the game. All of this means that Gates will likely walk -- if not trounce -- all over Leon Panetta and the CIA."

It is a typical democratic plan. Put introspective people in positions of power..or, more likely, put people in power who pretend to be introspective people until they get the power [Spitzer, Edwards, etc].

Panetta is there to "clean up" the joint but he is old and tired and will be trying to move an entrenched burearcracy. He will fail. And, as an outsider, his failure will put the entire country at risk.

Typical democratic feel good policies.

[Maezeppa]

The CIA has gotten so out of hand in recent decades that it is outrageous; it has become a fifth-column anti-democracy movement. Leon Panetta will bring the CIA to heel and make it once again accountable to the White House.

[Annieke]

And the experienced (as former deputy director and staff member of the SSCI) Tenet was able to prevent 9/11???

Please... The true intelligence work has to be done by the spooks. The job of the Director is to manage the overall policy and to seek budget for his agency in meetings with Congress and the president.
A true Director relies on his staff members who are experienced in this field.

And let's face it: Panetta is no hillbilly. He knows his way around Washington and that is very important in his future position.

[AlphaDoc]

Agreed. Good post.